Sitting of 11 May 1989

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

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Official Secrets Act 1989.

2. Avon Light Rail Transit Act 1989.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read a Third time on Thursday 18 May.

  BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 May.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Monday 15 May at 7 o'clock.

  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 May.

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Committee on the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill have leave to visit the route of the proposed motor race in Birmingham, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SCRABSTER HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Passports
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of working days taken by the London passport office to process an application for the issue or renewal of a passport; and what it was one year ago.
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of working days in each of the London, Peterborough and Liverpool passport offices to process a renewal of passport; and what it was a year ago.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We give priority to urgent cases, where they are identified. The present time for processing postal applications at the London passport office is 20 working days compared with 51 last year; at Liverpool 59 compared with 15; and at Peterborough 33 compared with 30 a year ago. Most applications are processed well within those periods. The Liverpool backlog is a serious problem and, to help to reduce it, I propose, for a period of three months, to extend by two years the life of passports which have expired within the past five years and which are submitted to the Liverpool passport office for replacement. There will be no charge for this service.
    Mr. Hanley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the London figures, and recognise the greatly increased demand for passports, both for business and for pleasure, which is a symptom of a healthy economy. What contribution has the common format passport made to reducing the time scale for passport renewal applications in London? As a matter of urgency, through the common passport, will he increase computerisation throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hurd: On the whole, after many years of discussion, the common passport has been well received. Passport offices are now in the throes of computerisation. It has begun well in Glasgow. One reason that the London performance is so much better than it was a year ago is that many postal applications to the London office are now diverted to Glasgow and dealt with there.
    Mr. Jack: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to speed up the issue of new passports in all passport offices? The news of renewals in Liverpool is welcomed by tourists and business people in the north-west of England. As we approach the holiday period, will my right hon. Friend give some assurances about our prospects for the early issue of new passports?
    Mr. Hurd: We are just about at the peak of the passport-issuing season—the middle of May. The measure that I have just announced to help Liverpool with passport renewal applications will mean that staff will be available to deal with new passports. 1 hope that that will help 10 relieve an undoubtedly serious problem.
    Mr. James Lamond: I congratulate the staff at all the passport offices mentioned by the Home Secretary on

    981
    reducing waiting times. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the tremendous anxiety of some people who get in touch with their Members of Parliament because they do not know whether their passports will arrive in time for holidays for which they have paid? While the short-term improvement that is proposed by the Secretary of State is welcome, can we look forward to a long-term improvement which should bring about a turnround in applications of less than, say, 10 days?
    Mr. Hurd: I very much hope so. Computerisation should be completed in all passport offices by the end of the year. If our experience so far is any guide, that will give a consistently better service to the public.
    Dr. Glyn: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the measures that he has taken to speed things up, I ask him how those people who have had to buy temporary passports at a cost of about £7·50, because their applications for passports have not been granted, can get their money refunded when they finally receive their proper passports.
    Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend knows of any specific cases which appear to him to be hard, perhaps he will draw them to my attention.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Home Secretary warn all overseas nationals living in this country, who require re-entry visas, to ensure that they obtain them before they leave Britain? Will he especially look into the case of Mrs. Shahnaz Akhtar, my constituent, who went on holiday to Pakistan with her husband? She has been refused permission to return to her home and her husband because of bureaucratic red tape in Islamabad. Will he do everything to ensure that my constituent can return to this country, so that she can have the baby that she is expecting in safety in Bradford royal infirmary?
    Mr. Hurd: I see that the questions refer to London, Peterborough and Liverpool but not, as far as I can tell, to Islamabad. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and, if he wishes to pursue it with me in greater detail, of course I will look at the matter carefully.
    Mr. Darling: The Home Secretary said that it was expected to take four weeks to issue a passport in London. When one telephones the passport office, the announcement also says that it will take four weeks. However, when I eventually spoke to the people working in the office, they said that it would more likely take eight to 10 weeks. When I telephoned the Peterborough office, I was told that it would take seven weeks to three months. Does the Home Secretary accept that there are still substantial delays in processing passport applications? Does he accept that in Glasgow last year—where computerisation is well advanced—there were problems? Does he further accept that the real reason that there were delays and are likely to be delays this summer is because there is substantial under-staffing throughout all passport offices within the United Kingdom? Unless the Home Secretary deals with that problem, we will continue to face inordinate delays in processing what is a comparatively simple application.
    Mr. Hurd: If I may say so, that is a very old-fashioned question. The reason why, last year especially, there was a delay, and this year in some places the public is still not getting the service that it deserves, is that the demand for passports has built up very fast and the offices have not
    982
    been computerised. However many staff we employ would be no substitute for the kind of computerisation which is now working in Glasgow and producing the improvements that I have described. The secret is to get computerisation into place by the end of this year.

    Robbery
    Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking against robbery.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Violence on our streets is a matter of great concern to the Government, as it rightly is to the public. We are supporting the police in their efforts to curb this menace, and we are concentrating resources on certain urban high-crime areas through our safer cities programme. We have also produced a crime prevention handbook that contains advice on what citizens can do to reduce the risk of attack. Nearly 2½ million copies of that handbook have been distributed. I am pleased to say that the number of robberies recorded by the police nationally fell by 3·7 per cent. last year. The fall in Derbyshire was a notable 15 per cent.
    Mr. McLoughlin: While welcoming any fall in the number of robberies, and being pleased with the fall in Derbyshire, which was greater than the national average, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest ways in which the public can help the police is by taking greater care of their property? Far too often temptation is put in the way of people. Property could easily be put out of sight and thereby crimes could possibly be averted.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the remarkable fall of 15 per cent. in the number of robberies in Derbyshire last year. He is also right in saying that the average citizen should take every conceivable action to defend himself against unwarranted attack by ensuring that temptation in the way of property is not carried around too openly in the streets or left lying around in his home or motor car. It is simple self-defence and self-protection very often.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that, with sexual assaults, street attacks and street robberies are the crimes most feared by the public? Has he had an opportunity to look closely at the performance of the Battersea division of the Metropolitan police which has reduced street robberies by more than 60 per cent. in the past two years? Will he consider how far its special concerted tactics are applicable to other urban areas, especially in South Yorkshire?
    Mr. Patten: I was rather hoping to get the opportunity to raise the remarkable success of the Battersea division of the Metropolitan police. Help comes from unusual quarters on occasions. The hon. Gentleman is right that in 1988 the division cut violent crime by a third through a concerted attack on it and through better targeting by the police over a four-month period. It also improved the clear-up rate by 12 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman said, other forces can learn lessons from the Metropolitan police about how targeting can not just displace but break up and disperse areas of notable high crime.
    Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that a prime concern of many people is the level of armed

    983
    robberies? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the sentences imposed by the courts are adequate to deter the growing incidence of this disease in our communities, bearing in mind that most people want substantial sentences to combat that problem?
    Mr. Patten: I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend has said. We already have the reforms which were introduced in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and perhaps more importantly the increased sentences provided for the courts of up to, for example, life imprisonment for carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime. The courts have a severe range of penalties for those who use, let alone carry and use, firearms in the commission of crime and we hope that they use them.
    Mr. Sheerman: I am sorry to remind the Minister that robberies increased by 160 per cent. between 1979 and 1986 whatever he says about last year and our information is that that crime is increasing yet again this year. Does he not know that successful packages to act against robbery and crime of this kind are usually led by a local authority-police partnership? Will he explain why, with the announcement of the new safer cities programme, which includes Wandsworth and Islington, the committee that was set up in Islington totally bypasses the police consultative group and excludes from the 12-person committee any councillor, saying that only representatives and officers from Islington can serve on the committee?
    Mr. Patten: We want to see the maximum possible co-operation to continue the successful downward trend in crimes against property and crimes of violence. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not think it notable that crimes of robbery—street crimes—fell last year by 3·7 per cent.
    The safer cities programme is extremely important and we welcome the co-operation of local authorities of all political colours. I wish that more Labour-led local authorities would heed what Sir Peter Imbert said yesterday when he criticised so many Labour-controlled boroughs for getting in the way of the proper working of police-public consultative committees. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends in the new convenient Socialist world that they are trying to create will try to talk to some of those Labour authorities and persuade them to co-operate with the police.

    Responsibility for Children
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is considering to increase the responsibility of parents and teachers for the actions of children in their care.
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on extending parental responsibility for offences committed by children.
    Mr. John Patten: I wish to encourage further use of the powers that the law already provides, firstly, to require parents to attend court with their children, secondly, to bind parents over and, thirdly, to require them to pay their children's fines. We are considering making it an offence for parents to fail to make reasonable efforts to prevent their children committing offences, as is quite comon in some other countries. Teachers play a crucial part in
    984
    helping children grow up to respect and abide by the law, but we have no plans at present, to make them responsible in law for their pupil's actions during school time.
    Mr. Butler: Given that my hon. Friend's proposals quite rightly bite only on parents who could reasonably be expected to control their children's behaviour, why does he not extend that principle to teachers who act in loco parentis?
    Mr. Patten: I note my hon. Friend's strong concern about this. However, parents have a continuing duty to look after their children and bear responsibility for them. It is more difficult to imagine that children should look to their teachers, of whom there may be several during the course of the day, to be responsible for their acts, or that the teachers could be reasonably held to be responsible. I view with mounting alarm reports about schools in some parts of the country, for example the Ellesmere nursery and first school in Sheffield, where there seems to have been a complete breakdown in the school, with classes being closed before Easter. The children attending the school are aged between three and seven, not 13 and 17.
    Mr. Hunter: While I warmly welcome the attention that my hon. Friend gives to the subject, will he give further assurances that he will move with great caution? It is quite possible for the children of responsible parents to act irresponsibly. Likewise, how can the courts determine the degree of parental responsibility or irresponsibility with regard to a particular offence?
    Mr. Patten: Of course we are cautious. The courts can determine whether parents have, on a prior occasion or occasions, been warned of their failure to take care of and proper responsibility for their children. There is a little-used provision on the statute book that was introduced by the Labour party in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, to give courts the power to bind over parents to ensure the behaviour of their children up to a recognisance of £500. I wish that the courts would use that provision more often.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not totally unethical for a Minister to name a school such as Ellesmere school which is near where I live? To do so serves to highlight and arouse a lot of interest in it, and blacken its name so that the problem becomes more difficult rather than easier to solve. The Minister should have had more sense than to name a school.
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should be more concerned about the school itself. The reports were published in the national press last week and are well known. The matter has not been raised by Ministers at this Dispatch Box. It is a matter of considerable public concern when, unfortunately, through bad behaviour, problems set in in a school, and make it ungovernable for a period, especially when the schoolchildren are aged between three and seven. There is something wrong and a combination of better parental responsibility and greater teacher responsibility would help, and that is exactly what the proposal is aimed at.

    Prisons
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the prison building programme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Eight new prisons have been opened since 1985, seven are under construction and one, which has been converted from existing buildings at Banstead in Surrey, will open in a few weeks' time. Five more are planned to start on site this year and eight are in various stages of planning and development.
    The building programme also covers the expansion of existing establishments. By the end of this year, nearly 2,000 new places will have been added to existing establishments in a period of less than two years. The prison department directorate of works has begun a five-year programme to provide over 6,500 cells with access to sanitation. By the mid-1990s we will have added about 25,000 places to the system.
    Mr. Hind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose programme is a credit to his Department. Does he agree that the major problem in the prison system at the moment, in relation to overcrowding, comes from remand prisoners, not those serving time? As a consequence of that, in the new prison programme will he consider separating remand centres from prisons and building them in the centre of towns, close to the court centres so that access is provided to relatives and lawyers? That would reduce alienation and speed up the time in which cases are brought to court.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on remands. There are too many remand prisoners in the system. The Government are anxious to reduce the pressure caused by the numbers. We are making provision for remand places in the building programme that I have outlined.
    My hon. Friend has referred to the urban remand centres, and we are giving particular attention to the possibility of such centres at Everthorpe and Cookham Wood. We also have a multifaceted strategy to reduce the number of prisoners held in remand—for example, the imposition of time limits on pre-trial proceedings, an increase in the number of bail hostel places, an increase in bail information schemes, electronic monitoring, more courts and more judges. It is a comprehensive programme.
    Mr. Skinner: Will these prisons be built especially to keep prisoners in? When the Tory Government were elected in 1979, I think the slogan was, "Elect us and set the people free." In the 10 years since, the prisoners have been breaking out.
    Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Risley, it was built in the 1960s.
    Mr. Latham: Can my hon. Friend assure me that the building work to extend Stocken prison will be carried out more efficiently and cost-effectively than the building of the prison itself, which he and I have had occasion to discuss several times?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has raised the question of Stocken prison on a number of occasions and his
    986
    constituents have every reason to be grateful to him for the attention he has given to their needs. The answer to his question is yes.

    Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Hurd: I last met the commissioner on 26 April, when we discussed policing arrangements for this year's Notting Hill carnival.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. When he next meets the commissioner, will he congratulate him on the progress being made by the police in London in the fight against crime? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in certain parts of London such as Brixton, for example, there was a considerable fall in the total number of notifiable offences in 1988?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, there has been a fall in that area, which comes within the Lambeth district. There has been a fall in total recorded crime across London. Lambeth area, which has been particularly difficult in the past, also registered a 1·5 per cent. fall, year-on-year. That is welcome, although my hon. Friend will agree that there is a great deal more to be done.
    This fall reflects the considerable efforts being made by the police and the community in the whole range of activities that come under the heading of crime prevention and neighbourhood watch.
    Mr. Cohen: When the Home Secretary next meets the commissioner, will he ask him about the leaflets on racial harassment that the police were sending out via Saatchi and Saatchi but which got lost? Will he ensure that there is an investigation and that the criminals—presumably Saatchi and Saatchi—are brought to court?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly look into that. The progress that has been made in dealing with racial attacks by the Metropolitan police has been welcomed by the hon. Gentleman himself, and we hope to publish the latest report of the working group, with a check list of the initiatives being taken, during next week.
    Mr. Trotter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the police welcome the new powers that they will have from 1 July to refuse to grant shotgun licences and, for the first time, to require these weapons to be kept in safe custody? Will he undertake that the advice that the Home Office must give the police in the near future ensures that there shall be strict regulation over the safe keeping of these deadly weapons? Does he accept that the police and public are right in their belief, in the light of the incident in Monkseaton, that there should be a requirement that those keeping shotguns shall be responsible for ensuring that they do not fall into the wrong hands, and that, whatever the inconveniences involved, they shall be required to keep them safely in custody?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has a natural interest in this because of the tragedy at Monkseaton in his constituency. He is perfectly right: from 1 July as a result of the decisions that Parliament has taken, a statutory safekeeping condition will be imposed on shotgun certificate holders.

    987
    Guidance to the police will recommend that all shotguns kept on domestic premises be stored in a locked gun cabinet or similarly secured container.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary endorse the remarks made yesterday by Sir Peter Imbert about the importance of partnership in policing in the Metropolis? In particular, can he say whether he has discussed the importance of introducing more members of ethnic minorities into the police force?
    Mr. Hurd: Indeed I have. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have discussed it with the commissioner often. Although he and I would like to see a speedier improvement, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed not just in the Metropolitan police but countrywide a steady build-up in the total of police officers recruited from ethnic minorities. I do not have the exact figure but I believe that it is in the neighbourhood of 1,200, which is a considerable increase on two or three years ago.
    Mr. Kilfedder: What action does the commissioner intend to take to rid central London of the illegal street traders and their lookouts, who defraud Londoners and the vast number of tourists who come to the capital by the sale of fake goods, and also the hot food stalls which sell food that may be contaminated?
    Mr. Hurd: The responsibility is divided between the police and environmental health officers. If the hon. Gentleman has particular instances in mind, I hope that he will let the police or me know, because the difficulty of enforcement is often one of evidence.
    Mr. Corbett: Did the Home Secretary and the commissioner discuss who might become the new director of public affairs in the Metropolitan police? Will it be one of the placemen suggested by the deputy Prime Minister, Bernard Ingham, or someone of more professional independence?
    Mr. Hurd: Mr. Ingham has a wide range of responsibilities, but they do not include the one suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    Slimming Clinics (Drugs)
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many commercially operated slimming clinics currently have authority to supply amphetamines and similar controlled drugs to patients; and what steps he is taking to restrict such supply.
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many commercially operated slimming clinics currently have authority to supply amphetamines and similar controlled drugs to patients; and what steps he is taking to further restrict such supply.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Forty one clinics currently have such an authority. The drugs concerned—diethylpropion, phentermine and mazindol—are controlled under schedule 3 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 by reason of their dependence-forming properties and liability to misuse. The clinics have been informed that against a background of recent authoritative medical opinion, which assigns a severely restricted role to these
    988
    drugs in the treatment of obesity, existing authorities will not be renewed on their expiry. Some 20 applications by new clinics have been refused.
    Miss Nicholson: I welcome my hon. Friend's splendid statement. Does he agree that not just amphetamines but other drugs have no role to play in slimming and that it is merely a question of eating less? The current fad is the melt-down diet where, alas, the only thing that melts down as one watches one's friends eating buttered toast in the Members' Smoking Room is one's will power. None the less, my sex being ultra-sensitive about their shape and size, they are extra gullible about slimming. My hon. Friend should make every effort to continue to control slimming drugs and slimming advertisements because they are all totally useless.
    Mr. Hogg: I think that it would be offensive of me to say that I shall consult my hon. Friend about the wisdom of what she has said. I can say from personal experience that less whisky and less butter does one a lot of good.
    Mr. Knight: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that he will continue to monitor the supply of appetite-suppressant drugs and that, if he feels that further measures are necessary, he will not hesitate to take them? Does he agree that the simple message that should he sent to the general public is that it is better to have a hearty appetite and be somewhat overweight than to be on drugs?
    Mr. Hogg: It is very bad to be on drugs unless they are absolutely clinically necessary. In the case of the three drugs that I mentioned earlier, they are habit-forming and should be used only in cases of extreme obesity. It was unsatisfactory that a number of the clinics by which they were prescribed should have had a direct interest in their prescription.

    Drugs Trafficking
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what amounts of money have been forfeited under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act since it came into operation.
    Mr. Hurd: I understand that the courts have made confiscation orders for more than £8 million since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act came into force in January 1987.
    Mr. Rathbone: While my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on that and on the extensions of the Act; in his bilateral agreements with other Governments, may I urge him to maximise the procedures by extending those activities nationally and internationally? In addition, may I put to him the need to apply the funds so seized to the research and special projects that are required to battle against drug misuse and drug trafficking, as was so ably pointed out in an Adjournment debate only last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery)?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that the meeting of Ministers dealing with drugs in London next week will enable me to apply some more powerful persuasion to some of our allies and partners to pass their own legislation for confiscating assets and to reach agreement with us on that. We must try to put the resources where they are needed—for example, in adding again to the number of officers in regional crime

    989
    squads. That cannot be done simply on the basis of windfall profits. The police argue—with some force—that under the present system they find it difficult to meet the cost of, for example, the foreign travel needed for some overseas investigations, or to finance the rewards that they seek to pay, and the we are looking at the ideas that they have put forward.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is important not only that this money be recycled to assist the police but that it is used to help voluntary agencies that provide advice and support to drug addicts?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am therefore glad that spending on drug misuse services in England will have risen by £5 million from £9 million last year to £14 million this year.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: If the American Government can operate a system whereby the ill-gotten gains of drug smugglers are put to the good use of fighting the battle against drugs, why cannot we do that in Britain?
    Mr. Hurd: That question might properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The answer is that we try to put the resources where they are needed and that cannot be done on the basis of the profit that happens to accrue from the legislation. For example, we have added 229 police officers to the drugs wings of regional crime squads on the basis of where we think that they are needed, and we are adding another 20 this year. It would be difficult to do that if we were operating on the windfall basis.
    Mr. Randall: What new or special measures are the Government taking to control the introduction into the United Kingdom of the drug crack, which is highly addictive and is spreading exceedingly rapidly in the United States? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the reported 14 per cent. increase last year in the number of registered addicts is at least one measure of the failure of the Government's policy to combat drug abuse?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman cannot deal with the matter in that vein. Of course, he is perfectly right in that the warnings that we receive from the United States and, in particular the anxieties expressed to me in Italy and Spain in the past few months, are among the reasons why I put cocaine, with crack as its derivative, at the top of the agenda of the meeting of Ministers that I have called next week in London. We must take more action in the growing countries in Latin America, and the hon. Gentleman will know of the United Kingdom's initiative on that. We have to insist on the continuance of frontier checks at our seaports and airports after 1992 and, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have to be active within our own towns and cities. We need defence in depth in all three of those areas.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that three times as much cocaine was seized in the first three months of this year as in the whole of 1988? That demonstrates the seriousness of the drug abuse problem, but does it not also show that the enforcement agencies are being successful in tackling this serious crime?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. There have been some notable operations, and some operations are going on now. My hon. Friend is right on both counts. It shows the
    990
    continuing seriousness of the situation and the House might like to study the evidence given by my Department to the Select Committee on Home Affairs yesterday, which I shall be developing at the conference next week.

    Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to lay the first order relating to tape recording of police interviews; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: As I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member's question of 2 March, we have consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers about the forces to be included in the first order to be laid under section 60(1)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We expect to hear from the association towards the end of this month. We will then bring forward an order as soon as possible.
    Forces do not require an order before they can start tape recording. At least five forces are now tape recording interviews throughout their areas and all forces expect to be using tape recording forcewide by 1991.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. It seems to be taking a long time to get this practice into place. Has the Minister any evidence of problems arising from summaries being made of tape-recorded interviews? Is it not slightly defeating the purpose if juries are given summaries of tape recordings rather than having an opportunity of hearing those parts of tape recordings which might be disputed?
    Mr. Hogg: It is true that when the process started the summaries tended to be a bit too prolix. I am glad to say that that problem has been tackled and that it is no longer happening in the majority of cases. When juries need to listen to the tapes they can do so. There is no doubt that this is a great improvement both in terms of law enforcement and of civil liberties.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that, to my knowledge, it is 15 years since this matter was first pressed on a Government, so that any action now being taken is most welcome? Is he further aware that during those years there has been a technological revolution and that it is now possible to video record interviews much more cheaply? What thought is being given to introducing video-recorded interviews in police stations, which would be more effective than the audio type?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend is right to emphasise the importance of this procedure. We hope that by the end of 1991 all forces will be tape recording forcewide. We have no plans to introduce the video recording of interviews at this stage, though the House will know that a certain amount of work is being done on the possibility of video recording the evidence of young persons in sex offence cases.

    Ticket Touting
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to introduce legislation on ticket touting.
    Mr. John Patten: We have no proposals for such legislation.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the powers of the police, which are limited to arresting touts for obstruction, are wholly inadequate to cope with the problem of touting, which is a scar on the face of west end theatre and of major sporting events such as Wimbledon and the Cup Final? Will he ask Lord Justice Taylor to consider whether ticket touting has any implications for crowd safety at football matches by encouraging persons without tickets to go to matches in the hope of obtaining tickets from touts?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that Lord Justice Taylor will take into account the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished lawyer and has strongly held views on this issue. I think that most hon. Members would regard ticket touting as pretty obnoxious[Interruption.] I carefully said "most hon. Members" with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in view. Nobody is compelled to take part in the process.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend agree that ticket touting is a form of brokerage between a willing seller and a willing buyer—[Interruption.]—that it is no more reprehensible when it takes place on a pavement than when it takes place in one of our City exchanges, that brokers are risk-takers and that everyone is jealous of them when they make a profit but nobody has sympathy for them when they make a loss?
    Mr. Patten: I do not want to get into ideological trouble with my hon. Friend, but I agree with her that nobody is compelled to take part in the process, that the person who raises the price of a ticket to sell it on the street does not defraud the person who originally set the ticket price and that the person who pays the price is not unaware of the difference. I believe that it is pretty obnoxious and that it is extraordinary the prices people are prepared to pay, but it is a lawful activity.

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to deal with domestic violence.
    Mr. Hurd: I welcome the action taken by the Metropolitan police and other forces in response to increased public concern about domestic violence. There are now 15 specialist police units in London that investigate alleged offences and offer practical help to victims. We are also looking at policy and practice in the light of the findings of recently published Home Office research, and are asking other Departments to do the same.
    Mr. Sheerman: Following the report of the Home Department that half a million wives are beaten violently by their husbands each year, will the Department now launch a national campaign to highlight that problem? Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct police officers to take appropriate and firm action in every case of domestic violence?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will know that the attitude of the police to that problem has changed substantially. In the old days, the police were reluctant to become involved when they heard a shindig or a fracas. Today, they are encouraged and trained to become
    992
    involved. If they cannot deal with the situation themselves, they bring in other agencies. As that is already happening in London and elsewhere, there is no need to launch a campaign.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a banquet given by President Babangida.
    Mr. Archer: As the right hon. Lady has drawn a distinction between using public money for propaganda, which is done by those who disagree with her, and using it to inform the public, which is what her Government do, will she seize the opportunity to indicate whether, for that purpose, informing the public includes misinforming them? Will she consider into which category she would place the approach to sixth-form teachers to distribute to their classes recruiting propaganda from Conservative Central Office?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that we have adhered absolutely to the Widdicombe rules—[HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] Government Departments have adhered absolutely to the Widdicombe rules, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows have been published, and copies of which are in the Library. As to the case that was heard yesterday, we shall uphold whatever the courts ultimately decide. That is what the rule of law is.
    With regard to the leaflet and information that went to schools, I see nothing wrong in sending information to school careers officers, so that they can say what jobs are available. I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience is at election time, but we find that we are inundated with requests for information. I expect that he is too.
    Mr. Onslow: Would it not be a disaster for the Western Alliance if the Government of this country ever fell into the hands of a party whose policy on nuclear deterrence—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The subject of questions must fall within the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Kinnock: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's previous experience of the Department of the Environment, does the right hon. Lady think that the Government's poll tax information has been handled "well or accurately"?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated in my reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), whatever the courts ultimately decide will, of course, be upheld. That is the precise point at issue. As to information, Departments have adhered strictly to the Widdicombe rules and will continue to do so. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is proud of some of the Labour local

    993
    government leaflets that have been distributed. That issued by Lambeth and Norwood Labour party, dealing with registration, states:
    "If canvassers come round to question you, say you are the baby-sitter or looking after the premises…Wait a week or two, then write back saying your dog ate the form, it fell in the washing up, or you never received a form."
    That is Labour for you.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not very obvious that we now have a Government who impose injunctions against others for telling the truth and break injunctions when they are caught telling lies?
    The Prime Minister: That is nonsense and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He knows that there was an ex-parte application, that that ex-parte application was granted and that the substantive hearing has still to take place. Is his idea of justice that he should decide before both sides of the story are heard?
    Mr. Redwood: Will the Prime Minister agree that the experiment last year trying to keep the pound in line with the deutschemark led to a very dramatic credit boom and that it would still be impossible both to be members of the exchange rate mechanism and to run a successful monetary policy in the best interests of the country?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, our top priority is to keep monetary policies that will keep downward pressure on inflation, that we will not hesitate to take whatever action is necessary and that interest rates will remain as high as is necessary for that purpose for as long as is necessary.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Is not the real reason for the Government's panic in issuing millions of misleading poll tax leaflets, including one this morning to my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip, the overwhelming hatred of people in this country for the poll tax? How will the Prime Minister tomorrow in Perth explain away the report from Lothian council that by the end of this month 500,000 out of 680,000 people will still not have paid a penny of the poll tax? Is not the poll tax, instead of being the flagship of her third term of Government, fast developing into her Titanic?
    The Prime Minister: No, and the hon. Gentleman would not be half as worried about it if he genuinely thought that. He knows full well that the community charge is a way of paying for local government and of showing up the extravagance of Labour local authorities. Will he please look at some of the totally, utterly misleading and disgraceful leaflets about the community charge that have been put out at ratepayers' expense?
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Waller: What would the consequences be if trade unions were allowed by law once again to involve themselves in secondary action?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we should get the same things as happened last time the Labour Government put the whole country under the authority of trade union bosses. They seem to be wanting a mask of respectability, but the people behind the mask are still the same. We should get massive strikes in hospitals and schools, rubbish not collected on the streets, the gravediggers not able to bury bodies, and all the other terrible things that we had in the winter of discontent. They would put the country under the trade union bosses once again.
    Dr. Owen: Would it not be wiser for the Prime Minister to welcome the decision of the Labour party to accept the deployment of Polaris submarines and to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules apply to both sides of the House. Questions must be on matters for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.
    Dr. Owen: Would it not be wiser for the Prime Minister to welcome the decision of the Labour party [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not good enough. Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in his letter of resignation to the BMA one of my local GPs pointed out that it is totally unacceptable for a professional organisation to issue political leaflets to patients? He added that the error was further compounded by the inclusion in that leaflet of misleading statements, half-truths and lies. Will she agree with me that many elderly people were frightened by that pamphlet when, in fact, they will benefit substantially from the proposals?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that many people were frightened by that leaflet, and that a number of doctors have been gravely concerned that the BMA has put out such a leaflet in their name. Nevertheless, we are very pleased that we have now reached agreement with the BMA in a contract for the doctors, which I hope will be fully accepted. We shall then be able to go ahead in a much better spirit, and put in place the improvements proposed in the National Health Service White Paper.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the Prime Minister agree that the difference in accuracy between the leaflet delivered in Wales and that delivered in England is proportional to the distance from Central Office? Is it not time that the Tory party and not the people of Britain paid for Conservative party policy?
    The Prime Minister: The rules to which we adhere are those set out in the Widdicombe report. Those rules are in the Library and, if anything, they have been slightly tightened up.
    Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that a final decision is not usually arrived at when only one side has put its case to a judge. That is why a substantive hearing must take place before the judge in a few days. I note that the Labour party likes to have only one side of the story when it makes its judgments.
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this week's announcement of a 42 per cent. increase in the suckler cow premium for beef farmers is a major boost for British beef production? Does she also agree that it demonstrates both the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the negotiations in the European Agriculture Council and the Government's renewed commitment to supporting British farmers to ensure that they can compete on fair and equal terms in Europe? Is not the announcement good for the farmer, for the housewife and for exports?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister in May about the suckler cow premium has been welcomed by industry as a whole. As my hon. Friend has said, it encourages the production of high-quality beef, for which there is a continuing demand at home and an increasing demand in export markets. I also agree that the announcement was accompanied by a very good negotiation with the Common Market on agricultural policy, and that the revaluation of the green pound is also greatly to the benefit of our farmers.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister join me in rejoicing at the discovery on Bankside in Southwark, in my constituency, of the ruins of the Rose theatre, the great mediaeval theatre of England? Will she also join me in applauding the collaboration between the developers Imry, English Heritage and the Museum of London, which have allowed us to discover this great treasure? Given the risk that on Monday the site will be filled in and pile-driven and the stage destroyed, will she now add her support to
    996
    discussions that are taking place between English Heritage and the developers so that we may preserve for ever the greatest of the Roses of England?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the discovery of the remains of the Elizabethan Rose theatre is a historic event, and that everything possible must be done to preserve those remains so that one day they may be on public display. I understand that there have been very constructive discussions—as the hon. Gentleman has said—between the developers, English Heritage and the Museum of London, and that as a result the remains are to be preserved with minimal damage. I welcome that; and it does not rule out the possibility of a scheme for public display one day. In the meantime, constructive discussions continue.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tebbit.
    Mr. Tebbit rose—(Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a great deal of time.
    Mr. Tebbit: What would be the effect on Western security if Her Majesty's Government policy changed to one in which the taxpayer was called upon to pay the cost of a nuclear deterrent, but the Prime Minister of the day gave an undertaking that he would never use it?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes his point very effectively. In that case the deterrent is not a deterrent because it does not deter and the policy is the old one of unilateralism in a different package.
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Darling: Can the Prime Minister explain why the dreaded words "poll tax" appear on an official Government publication on the community charge? Surely there must be some mistake?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that, and calls it a community charge.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MAY—Private Members' motions.
Motion to take note of EC documents on taxation of savings. Details will be given in the Official Report.?
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 16 MAY—Opposition day (10th allotted day). Until about Seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Soaring Cost of the Government's Publicity Machine". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Decline of Manufacturing Industry". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion to take note of EC documents on procurement procedures in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 17 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
Motion to take note of EC documents on control of concentrations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 18 MAY—There will be a debate on a motion to take note of the White Paper on Developments in the European Community July-December 1988 (Cm. 641).
FRIDAY 19 MAY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 22 MAY—Motion for the spring Adjournment.
Remaining stages of the Atomic Energy Bill [Lords], the National Maritime Museum Bill [Lords] and the Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill [Lords].
Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the spring Adjournment on Friday 26 May until Tuesday 6 June.
[Monday 15 May

Relevant European Community Document

4763/89

Withholding tax

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 15-xvi (1988–89), para 2

Tuesday 16 May

Relevant European Community Documents

8803/88

Procurement procedures (Water, Energy, Transport and Telecommunications)

8804/88

8805/88

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 15-ii ( 1988–89), para 1 and HC 15-xxi ( 1988–89), para 2

Wednesday 17 May

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 9822/88

Control of mergers

(b) 5936/88

Control of mergers

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-ix (1988–89), para 1

(b) HC 43-xxxvii (1987–88), para 1 HC 220-i]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. We know that the Secretary of State for the Environment was seeking sanctuary yesterday rather than coming to the House, but will the Leader of the House arrange for him to come to the House later today or early next week to explain why the law of the land is still being flouted and why this poll tax leaflet was delivered through the letter box of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition only this morning as were tens of thousands of such leaflets elsewhere? When will the Government obey the ruling of the judge in this matter?
The Leader of the House said last week, when I asked him when we would have the long-promised debate on the Government's proposals to substitute student loans for student grants, that we would have a debate
"when the current discussions with the financial institutions have been concluded".—[Official Report, 4 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 364.]
According to newpaper reports today, those discussions are being concluded by a breakdown of relations between the Government and the institutions that they were trying to con into backing the scheme. Can we have an urgent debate, because the students, the universities, and above all, the students' parents are desperately keen to know what the Government will propose?
Will the Leader of the House also tell us when we can expect the long-promised debate on community care? it is now more than a year since the Griffiths report was received by the Government and during that time, hundreds of people who find it difficult to cope outside institutions without proper care have been turned out on to the streets. How many more thousands will be turned out before the Government come up with their response to the Griffiths report?
Will the Leader of the House tell us when we shall have a debate on the lamentable state of our preparations for 1992?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman raised questions that I imagine could feature in the debate next Tuesday. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government is the Minister responsible for local government matters and it was wholly proper and appropriate for him to respond to the private notice question yesterday. As he informed the House, the case will be heard in court on Monday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment acted as quickly as possible to comply with the terms of the order on Tuesday. It is right that the Government should explain a change that will affect 35 million people clearly, concisely and accurately. That is what we have been seeking to do by means of the leaflet.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about student loans. As I have said in previous weeks, the best time for a debate on top-up loans for students will be when the discussions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education with the financial institutions have reached a conclusion. We have not yet reached that stage, so I cannot undertake that there will be a very early debate, but I will keep the position under review. The discussions with the financial institutions are making good progress and there is absolutely no truth in the suggestion in today's press that they are close to breakdown.
The hon. Gentleman raised again the question of the Griffiths report and I recognise that there is much interest in the Griffiths report on community care. As I have made clear in recent weeks, the Government are actively engaged in work to formulate our own proposals, which we intend

999
to bring forward in the near future. We are very mindful of the concern that there should not be undue delay, but it is essential to reach the right solution and there are no easy answers in this complex area. The time for a debate will be when we have announced our proposals.
On the question of a debate about 1992 matters, subject to your decision, Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Opposition could have raised some of those issues in the debate next Thursday.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to have a debate in the near future on the tragic events taking place in the Socialist Republic of Romania? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hundreds of thousands of people are having their lives and homes smashed to bits, that people are being persecuted for wishing to follow Christian or other religious beliefs and that civil rights, to the extent they exist in Romania, are being denied daily to those who wish to have at least a modicum of freedom?
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's point. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) raised the matter with me recently and he had many of the same considerations in mind. I am aware of the general interest in the matter and in a debate on foreign affairs. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that at this time in the season, the demands for time on the Floor of the House are particularly heavy. I will look for a suitable opportunity when I can see the time.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, regardless of whether the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence are right about the nuclear test veterans or whether I am right, the fact is that those men, who have served their country loyally and with great dedication, now feel aggrieved and embittered? The only way to solve their grievance is by a judicial inquiry. May we debate that next week please?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot comment further on the substance of the matter except to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate next week, although the right hon. Gentleman presses me.
Mr. David Curry: My right hon. Friend has announced a debate on EEC happenings of more than six months ago. Is he aware that many of us are far more concerned about what is likely to happen over the next six months? Will he ensure that the terms of the debate are drawn so that we can raise the whole matter of the prospects for the Madrid summit, the Delors report and other matters that are of great concern to hon. Members, irrespective of their view of the Community?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend that I shall do exactly that, although I shall consider his point. I realise that matters of European scrutiny are causing considerable dissatisfaction among a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I had a meeting with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee yesterday to discuss how such matters are handled and next week I shall be giving evidence to the Procedure Committee, which is also considering the matter. I hope that the collective
1000
wisdom of many hon. Members will enable us to find a better solution, and a better way of dealing with these matters in future.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be able to come to the House next week to explain why full safety clearance has been given to the apple spray Alar, given thatt the United States Environment Protection Agency has reached the interim conclusion that it causes cancer, and will he set about initiating the cancellation of its chemical licence?
Will there be an opportunity for the House to discuss the reform of the legal services before the Government give their response to the representations made following their Green Papers?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall refer the first point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and if a statement is necessary, he will make one. I cannot anticipate that.
I realise that the reform of the legal services is an important matter and that a significant number of discussion documents have gone out. As I have said in previous weeks, I do not see myself being able to find time for a debate on the Green Papers, although if the Government come forward with proposals, there will certainly be plenty of time to discuss them.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that the debate about the EEC next Thursday is wide enough to enable us to discuss the proposition that hon. Members should be encouraged—or at least able—to put their names forward for membership of the European Community in respect of constituencies in other countries?
Mr. Wakeham: That sounds an interesting subject, although whether it will be in order in the debate next week will depend on you, Mr. Speaker, rather than me.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: In answer to the first question the Leader of the House referred to a change in the law affecting 35 million citizens. Does he appreciate that the cause of our complaint and the reason why we should like to raise the matter next week is that to 10 million couples—20 million of those 35 million citizens—the poll tax has not been explained satisfactorily?
The right hon. Gentleman has announced the business up to Monday, 22 May—the date when regulations Nos. 4 and 5 of the poll tax enforcement regulations come into force. In other words, it is the registration date from which the 21 days apply. Why has the House not so far debated any of the poll tax regulations, even though prayers have been laid? The 40-day period has long since passed and new orders have had to be put on the Order Paper. That date—22 May—is the key date. For those who had poll tax registration forms today, last week and the week before, the 21-day period does not start until 22 May. Why has the House not debated those regulations?
Mr. Wakeham: I think it best if I deal with the question of debates through the usual channels. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that my right hon. Friend was wrong in what he said in his statement. However, that is a matter not for me but for the court next Monday.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will there be an opportunity in the near future to have a debate on general defence policy, which is very much sought after by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition?
Mr. Wakeham: I realise that. I cannot promise a debate next week, but a debate will come pretty soon, I think.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement on the future of Short Brothers, Belfast? Is he aware that the company announced yesterday that there were to be 700 redundancies? It is vital that the House should have an opportunity, at the earliest possible date, to question the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the reason for these redundancies and discover whether they are a consequence of the past and present performance of the company or whether they are in preparation for privatisation. We need an early opportunity to press these questions.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at Question Time next Thursday. The appropriate level of employment in Shorts is a matter for the management of Shorts and not for the Government to decide.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Given that it appears that the only way in which one can ensure a next-day delivery of first-class mail is to have an ex-parte injunction banning the delivery, is there any prospect of having a debate on the future of the Post Office monopoly?
Mr. Wakeham: That is an important subject, but I cannot find time to debate it next week.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have an early debate on the Government's propaganda machine? We could then discuss water authorities. Without any authority, they are embarking on a campaign on behalf of the Government, in which about.£30 million is involved. At the same time, the Yorkshire water authority is proposing to sell off customers' names, as it claims, to raise revenue—revenue that, presumably, will work on behalf of the Government. Is it not time that we had a debate, a statement or Government intervention to stop a public service industry, which is publicly owned at the moment, propagandising on behalf of the Government?
Mr. Wakeham: If the debate next Tuesday is not about that matter and some related interests, I have no idea why the Opposition sought to put it down for debate. Opposition members will get a firm answer in that debate, and matters will certainly be clearer afterwards. The advertisements about which the hon. Gentleman is talking are purely commercial matters for the companies concerned to decide.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, further to the EEC scrutiny point, there will be dismay among members of the Select Committee on European Legislation and other hon. Members that the Lingua programme documents are not to be debated next week, before the meeting of the Education Council of Ministers on Monday 22 May? The Select Committee has recommended those documents for debate. Does that not make a laughing stock of the whole business of scrutiny?
Mr. Wakeham: I had a meeting with the Chairman of the Select Committee yesterday. I thought that we made considerable progress in identifying ways in which we might be able to improve some of those matters. I recognise that they are not totally satisfactory at the moment, but I am struggling to find better ways of doing it.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Leader of the House has clarified the position of the Football Spectators Bill. Apart from the utter insensitivity of the Bill towards Hillsborough, will not the Bill come rather late to the House? Will he give the House an assurance that an early guillotine will not be imposed in an attempt to railroad the Bill through the House, when genuine divisions of opinion do not necessarily conform to party lines? Will he at least make sure that the Football Spectators Bill is not part of an elective dictatorship?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government have decided to have a pause in the passage of the Football Spectators Bill to allow a period of reflection following the Hillsborough tragedy. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, it is our intention to complete the Bill this Session. The Bill enables us to deal with the long-standing problem of football hooliganism and take account of any relevant recommendations that Lord Justice Taylor might make. Questions about guillotines and matters of that sort are totally hypothetical at this stage.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend able to announce any progress in the long-standing discussions about sheltering from the weather our constituents who want to visit this place? If we can erect a permanent-looking structure on the Terrace, why can we not think of something for our constituents?
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate that these matters have taken rather a long time, but, as my hon. Friend knows, some quite complex discussions are taking place with those along the passage and with others. We are seeking to make progress. I hope that it will not be too long in coming. I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: When he considers the business for next week will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the House is under an obligation to find time in July for a debate on Hong Kong? In Hong Kong, about 5 million people for whom the House is responsible are anxious to hear the views of the House on the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the revised basic law draft for which the consultative period will terminate before the House resumes in the autumn. This is a major issue in which the House has an important part to play. Will the Leader of the House confirm that time will be found for a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: We must first wait for the report, and then we will consider the question of any debate.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Further to the questions that have been directed to my right hon. Friend about foreign affairs, does he not agree that there have been some remarkable changes all over the world with direct or indirect effect on Britain? Will he recall that he was sympathetic some time ago to the idea of having regional debates on foreign affairs? Does my right hon. Friend, therefore, not conclude that the logic of those two

1003
important factors means that we need to have many more foreign affairs debates than we have been used to in the past?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that my hon. and learned Friend is keen on having more foreign affairs debates, but there are only a certain number of days in the year and only a certain number of debates can be fitted into that period. I am sympathetic to my hon. and learned Friend's point of view and I will do my best. However, I cannot do the impossible with the number of days available.
Mr. James Lamond: In view of the Government Actuary's report on our pension scheme, and the possibility of the Treasury reducing its contribution because it feels that there is too much money in it, should there not be a debate about it in the House? After all, hon. Members are concerned, for example, about the widows of late Members, whose benefits could be increased if there is more money in the fund than is necessary. Surely, we should have some say about what happens to our money.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that there is much doubt that before too long the House will have some say in those matters—whatever I might think about it. I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman by telling him the position. I have been in touch with his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who is the chairman of the managing trustees. I have suggested that he and I, together with his fellow trustees, should have a meeting in the near future to discuss how best to deal with those matters.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): Will my right hon. Friend accept that, regrettably, his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dyke) is totally unacceptable? The Lingua programme extends European competence into a field in which it has not had competence before. There will be a meeting of the Council on this subject on Monday week, when a decision might be taken. If we have not debated it in the meantime, Parliament will have no influence over an extension of Community competence. Will my right hon. Friend do something to increase the power and influence of this House over European legislation? We hear today that the European Commission is conniving and cobbling together with the European Parliament measures on exhaust emission, which are against the recommendations of the Council and against the interests of the environment, but which are in favour of increasing the power of the European institutions that are cobbling this together. This is totally unacceptable. There is nothing we can do about it, because we cannot assemble a blocking minority in the European Council. Could my right hon. Friend look into this? The Government got us into this mess. It is totally undemocratic. How the hell are we going to get out of it?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend understandably went rather wider than the question of next week's business. I have already indicated that I regret that I have not been able to fit in the debate that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) wanted. I will look into the matter and see what, if anything, can be done about it.
So far as my responsibilities go—the scrutiny by the House on European legislative matters—I agree that matters are not satisfactory and I am seeking to find a way
1004
that will improve the situation. On the more general matters of European policy, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made her position and that of the Government extremely clear.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that every year some 70,000 African elephants are illegally killed and that 80 per cent. of the world trade in ivory, much of which goes through Hong Kong and other places in the far east, is also illegal? Today the Tanzanian Government have made application under the 1973 Washington convention for the registration of the African elephant as an endangered species.
Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for the Government to arrange a debate on this subject in which they could indicate their support for the Tanzanian application for registration and the actions that they are taking, within their power and purview, to prevent trade from illegal ivory coming through the British Crown colony of Hong Kong, which is a major conduit and a major cause of the death of so many African elephants and other endangered species?
Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, without looking into this. I cannot accept everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. Nevertheless, I recognise that this is a serious matter and although I cannot promise him an early debate on it, I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I shall either write to the hon. Gentleman myself or I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend to do so.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: While welcoming the debate next week on the EEC and appreciating the contraints on Government time, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that the last time that we had a debate in this House on non-EEC foreign affairs was in November last year on the Queen's Speech? In view of the enormous and significant changes taking place in Eastern Europe, will my right hon. Friend at least give some thought to the possibility of a debate on Eastern Europe, especially in the light of next month's visit by General Jaruzelski of Poland?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right that there is a need for such a debate and I wish that I could find an early date on which to hold one. However, although I shall do my best, I cannot promise such a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the non-elected Tories on the Bassetlaw district health authority are seeking to have the Bassetlaw district general hospital opt out of the current administration? Surely that action is illegal since there has been no legislation on this matter and it is being taken solely on the strength of the published White Paper. Will the right hon. Gentleman check up on this with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, on whose advice 50 hospitals have now decided to opt out? The Secretary of State for Health must be using some loophole that goes against the traditions of the House if he is encouraging such actions before we have seen a Bill, held a Committee stage or had the enactment of any legislation whatsoever.
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is absolutely right to seek

1005
discussions among the hospitals to ascertain what sort of interest there is for the proposals in his White Paper. There will be legislation soon enough. The hon. Gentleman's real problem is that so many hospitals seem to think that this is an interesting proposal.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend find the time next week to arrange a debate on the attempted Minorco takeover of Consolidated Gold Fields, bearing in mind that the Takeover Panel has recently sought to move the goalposts and that some of us feel that the takeover should not be permitted to go ahead until we have had a chance to debate it on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Wakeham: That bid has been cleared by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and it is for the shareholders to decide on its merits. The question of any Takeover Panel ruling is a matter for the panel and I cannot therefore promise my hon. Friend an early debate in the House on that matter.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Leader of the House has referred to conversations with myself about European scrutiny. May I thank him for giving me the opportunity of presenting the views of the Scrutiny Committee and say that we look forward to his evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure in due course?
Will he turn his attention to two items of business for next week? In relation to Thursday's business, is he aware that the Scrutiny Committee believes that it will be more useful for six-monthly debates to be prospective, even if on a subject suggested by the Government, rather than retrospective? In respect of the business that he announced for Wednesday, which he said was "control of concentrations", will he confirm that that is a proposal to transfer control of mergers from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Her Majesty's Government to the Commission in Brussels? If it is, does he think that even at this early stage, one and a half hours after ten o'clock is a suitable length of time for debates of such importance, and will he reconsider that?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about our meeting yesterday. I am glad that he is looking forward to the evidence that I shall be giving to the Procedure Committee next week and I look forward to his evidence which, I believe, will be given the week afterwards, although I am not absolutely sure of the date.
I shall certainly look at the terms of the motion for next Thursday to see whether there is any way in which I can meet the hon. Gentleman's request. I must confess that when I saw that I was to announce a debate on "control of concentrations" I was not too sure what it meant, but it is to do with EC matters in relation to company mergers, which is an important issue. The question of how long the debate should be is a matter for discussion through the usual channels.
Mr. Chris Butler: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 835?
[That this House condemns the actions of the Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation and the honourable Member for Rossendale, the Junior Minister at the Department of the Environment, in ignoring the wishes of the tenants of Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation to have a ballot so that they can determine the
1006
landlord of their choice, instead of having housing associations foisted upon them; and calls upon the Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation and the Department of the Environment to give the tenants the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights.]
Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate this early-day motion. It incorrectly asserts that the tenants of the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation will not be given a choice about their future landlord. Should not that mistake be set right? Should we not have an opportunity to put forward the advantage of housing associations over Socialist borough landlords?
Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. It is an important issue and I wish that I could find time to debate my hon. Friend's point. I can confirm that there is no question of denying tenants the right to choose their ultimate landlord. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made it clear that there will be a ballot about transfer of housing when the necessary legislation is in place, and that tenants' wishes will be respected. Meanwhile, the housing associations are being used on a temporary basis as management agents at Warrington.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Leader of the House has already agreed that there should be a debate on the Select Committee's report on toxic waste and the Government's response to it, which many people consider disappointing. When does he envisage that the debate will take place? Have he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Government Chief Whip not been able to pencil a date into their diaries for that debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is an important subject but I cannot add anything to what I have already said.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Why is the Second Reading of the Human Organ Transplants Bill to be taken in Committee upstairs rather than on the Floor of the House? My right hon. Friend knows that a small number of people are opposed to the Bill and they will be deprived of the opportunity to participate in the discussions. Those, who like me, take such a view, feel resentful that we shall be unable to make our voices heard on the matter.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend holds views on this matter. I think that he will agree that his views are probably in a minority but, nevertheless, they must be respected. The reason for the Bill being considered by a Second Reading Committee is that that is what the House resolved to do. The Bill will return to the Floor of the House on Third Reading. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is on the Committee.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible to have a Question Time slot every time the so-called Secretary of State for the Environment is taken to court? That has become such a regular event that perhaps there should be such a slot.
Has the Leader of the House had discussions with the Home Secretary about the proposed rally this weekend of Nazi fanatics? Why are well-known Nazi and fascist fanatics being allowed into Derbyshire for an event that is deeply deplored by the overwhelming majority of British people? Why has there not been a statement from the Home Secretary?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's first suggestion would have the disadvantage of guaranteeing that he would be at every session to ask a silly question. The hon. Gentleman's second point is serious and I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. John Redwood: I agree with those who say that next Thursday's debate should be prospective. Will the House have the opportunity soon to debate the interesting work on new roads and railway lines said to be taking place in the Department of Transport? Will we he able to link that with the recent welcome statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about abolishing the Ryrie rules and therefore allowing a new increase in private capital, in addition to expanded public provision?
Mr. Wakeham: I can imagine that my hon. Friend's last point, which is important, could well form part of the discussion in the later stages of the Finance Bill. The matter relating to roads is important, but I cannot promise an early debate on it, although I feel that it will arise in one form or another before too long.
Mr. Greville Janner: In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), the Leader of the House said that he would refer to the Home Secretary the problem of the proposed European neo-Nazi gathering in the east midlands. Is he aware that what is required is not a referral but a statement tomorrow, or it will be too late to prevent people with criminal records for violence from entering the country, and too late to prevent the event from occurring?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that we need a full debate on the infiltration of Nazi movements into this country, not least because of the rally on 27 May at which, apparently, there is to be a skinhead concert organised by a man with a criminal record for violence—a person called Ian Stuart of the Screwdriver band? We must take these matters seriously. For some reason that I do not understand the Home Secretary, who is a resolute opponent of Facism and Nazism, has not replied to the letter I wrote to him 10 days ago. May we have an urgent statement?
Mr. Wakeham: I still think that I was right to answer the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) by saying that I would refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend is of course already aware of these matters and is no doubt taking whatever action is appropriate. However, in view of the concern I shall see to it that this is drawn to his attention.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to arrange for a suitable amendment to be tabled to the Opposition's Supply day motion on publicity next Tuesday, so that the House may consider the position of the Leader of the Opposition who, among others, has to receive mendacious literature on housing, education and other matters from Ealing council? Can arrangements be made for him to be sent the true facts about the issues on which the council has misinformed people?
Further, can an amendment be tabled to enable the House to consider the wrongful expenditure of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money on minority interests which discriminate against the majority? I have in my hand a
1008
leaflet that Ealing council has put out at public expense advertising a self-defence course in Ealing that is only for lesbians, thereby discriminating against all other women.
Mr. Wakeham: The Government will certainly consider what is the appropriate amendment to table to the Opposition motion for the debate next week. We cannot do that until we have seen the terms of their motion. There is nothing to stop my hon. Friend tabling an amendment to the motion if he wants to do so. Which amendments are selected is a matter not for me but for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Home Secretary is still in charge of the BBC? Does he realise that there has been a series of strikes there in the past few weeks? When many of us on the Labour Benches visited the picket lines at Bush house, Broadcasting house and the Television centre we were astonished to learn that there are people at the BBC who take home.£80 a week, while others, such as Wogan, pick up millions. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the top four directors at the BBC have had a salary increase of 33 per cent. in the course of the past year, bringing their total earnings between them to.£340,000? What is good enough for Tory apparatchiks at the top of the BBC should be good enough for those doing the donkey work.
Mr. Wakeham: I can understand that the hon. Gentleman has had a hard week. He has spent the week having his basic Socialist principles marketed by other people and I do not think that he liked it very much. I can understand why he asks such a ridiculous question.
The Home Secretary is not in charge of the BBC, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. The BBC operates under an independent charter; perhaps some of us might have different views on it if it did not.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend has arranged for a debate on Europe on Thursday. As, in future, many decisions that affect Britain will be taken by the Council of Ministers, will he arrange for such decisions to be discussed in future at a reasonable hour in this House a short time before Ministers attend the council, so that hon. Members may express their views on matters that are vitally important to our constituents?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is quite right. Part of the review should enable us to have debates earlier, with at least a number of them being at a more convenient time. Perhaps there might be a better allocation between the debates that are held upstairs and those which are late at night. It requires agreement with hon. Members in all parts of the House. That is what I am seeking to obtain.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the Leader of the House arrange next week for time to be available for the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) who replied to question No. 3 this afternoon to withdraw the statement that he made about a school in my constituency, Ellesmere road? The statement was totally misleading and scurrilous. It will do nothing to resolve the small problems in that inner-city school. May I inform the House that this morning, contrary to what the Minister said, there was an assembly with parents, teachers and pupils present? While there have been some small problems, it does no credit to the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and try to exploit the problems that we have

1009
in the inner city. The school is on an even keel and it is well managed. It is under an education authority that has been commended by Her Majesty's inspectors.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for a minute the strictures of the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly refer to my hon. Friend the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in the near future on the rights of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland to representation in the House by the mainstream political parties in view of the overwhelming vote yesterday at the Perth conference by the Scottish Conservatives in support of Irish Conservatives who wish to have official Conservative candidates to vote for? Surely he must think that it is wrong that we exclude 1·5 million of our citizens from full participation in the political process that we all enjoy.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important point and that my hon. Friend has strong views on it. I am not sure that it is a matter appropriate for debate in the House, certainly not at present.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Leader of the House was quite wrong to dismiss in such a peremptory fashion the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he asked for a debate about the BBC dispute. It affects the House because BBC listeners were deprived yesterday of the opportunity to listen to the delightful experience, in which we were all able to participate, of Gummer-baiting. We should have an opportunity to debate the matter. It seems appropriate that we should discuss a dispute that has been caused by management at the top of the BBC giving themselves 30 per cent. increases while telling the rest of the workers in the corporation that they have to take a pay cut. Will the
1010
Leader of the House reconsider his answer? Can we have a debate on the position within the BBC? Perhaps we could combine it with a discussion about televising Parliament.
Mr. Wakeham: We have debates on broadcasting from time to time but, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, pay within the British Boradcasting Corporation is a matter for the management and the staff to negotiate and deal with. It is not in my view a matter that is suitable for debate in the House. That is the point. With regard to a television debate, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know, though not as pleased as I am, that the report has been completed and will be published in the very near future.
Mr. Frank Haynes: You are a real expert, Mr. Speaker; you always leave quality to the very end. Is the Leader of the House aware that I serve on a Select Committee and work like billy-oh? One person who comes to the Select Committee is a marvellous man from a wonderful Department, the Parliamentary Commissioner. Is the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members from both sides of the House make use of that wonderful Department? Since I have been here we have never had a debate on the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I ask the Leader of the House to pull his socks up and consider having a debate on the report on the Floor of the House so that people outside as well as in the House may know about the Department and exactly where they should go with their problems.
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly share the high opinion that the hon. Gentleman has of himself, and I think that it is also shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
This is the first time since I have been Leader of the House that I have been asked for such a debate and I shall look at the matter. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall arrange such a debate in the near future, but, coming from him, the request has a better chance than if it came from anyone else.

Points of Order
4.15 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter on which I have given you notice, albeit brief.
The answers to questions 14 and 15, answered by the Foreign Secretary or a junior Minister, were unfortunately omitted from yesterday's Hansard. I am sure that that was simply an error, but on this occasion it was a sad one because question 15—
Mr. Robert Hughes: —was your question.
Mr. Janner: It was my question, of course.
I asked a question to which, not surprisingly, the Government did not give an answer. It concerned the Government's deplorable failure to take any action on the proposed Nazi rally this weekend. That should not have been omitted from Hansard. May I ask, please that that matter be drawn to the attention of the Editor of Hansard and that there be some procedure so that when an emergency is recognised there can be a special printing of the missing material, which can perhaps be delivered as a leaflet to at least 35 million homes?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. and learned Member for drawing that to my attention. In the interests of accuracy, I must tell him that question 14 was answered with question 3 and was correctly reported in Hansard.
Mr. Janner: Only mine was left out.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, the hon. and learned Gentleman's question was left out. That was a mistake and it will be corrected in Hansard. The missing text will have been reinstated when the bound volume is published.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have a duty to announce to the House when any hon. Member is charged with a criminal offence, but I am unclear whether that would be the case if a Minister was imprisoned for contempt. Since the leaflets that were the subject of an injunction yesterday are apparently still being delivered today, it would be interesting to know whether the Secretary of State for the Environment is in imminent danger—welcomed by many millions—of being committed to prison. We should know whether it would be incumbent on you, Mr. Speaker I o make the necessary announcement.
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. If, sadly, any hon. Member were to be arrested, I have a duty to report that, but the hon. Gentleman raises a different matter.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of people in my constituency have expressed concern that yesterday the Minister for Local Government claimed that the London borough of Islington was distributing misleading leaflets about the poll tax. That is not the case. The leaflets are accurate. They have been legally cleared and no action has been taken against the borough council. What can be done in the House to correct the information given by the right hon. Gentleman so that the people of Islington can be assured that the information they are receiving from the borough council is correct, in contrast to the information that they are receiving from the Government?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just done it.

"Working for Patients"
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Social Services Committee of Session 1987–88 on the Future of the National Health Service (HC 613) and the Government Response thereto (Cm. 599).]
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 and 9 o'clock. However, I appeal to those hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called before that time to bear that limit in mind.
4.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That this House approves the programme of reform of the National Health Service set out in the White Paper, Working for Patients (Cm. 555), and the reaffirmation of the basic principles of the National Health Service which will continue to be available to all, regardless of income and financed mainly out of taxation; and believes that the proposals in the White Paper will raise the standards of all of the health service to the high standard of the best and will lead to an extension of patient choice, a more responsive health service, better value for money and an even better standard of health care for the decade to come.
I returned yesterday from a 24-hour visit to Geneva, where I took part in the affairs of the World Health Assembly, an annual gathering of Health Ministers from the member states of the United Nations who discuss the affairs of the World Health Organisation and health core policy in general.
I was struck during my brief visit by the fact that the subject of health care is now remarkably similar in many countries. Indeed, I dare assert that in practically every developed country, on both sides of the iron curtain, Governments are now involved to some degree in quite drastic reform of their health care systems.
What we are addressing—the British Government have been addressing this consistently throughout our period in office—is a great change in the problems confronting health care systems. There is an explosion in the cost of health care of all kinds. The level of demand for health care is rising at a rapid rate, largely because of changing demography and the huge increase in the proportion of elderly people in our population and in similar countries.
In countries such as ours, the expectations of patients and professionals are much higher than they were even a decade ago, and medical advance and rising expectations go on remorselessly. It is absorbing when considering health care policy to note that, whenever one looks at the affairs of a great health care system—in this case the National Health Service—one is looking at one of the great challenges facing Governments throughout the developed world. It is a challenge that must be tackled without unnecessary delay and it must be solved correctly if our great health care system is to rise to the increased costs, increased expectations, increased demands and satisfy our population.
I can promise nobody that this process of reform will be free from political controversy, because when this trade union of Health Ministers is gathered, it is amazing to discover that health is at the heart of public and political controversy in just about every major state one can mention, for the reasons I have given.
1014
In some countries, Governments are finding great difficulty in making progress. In the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, an extremely controversial programme has been put through, largely aimed at getting down what they regard as their unacceptable costs and rescuing a bankrupt social insurance system. It is not adding to the popularity of the Government there as they carry that through.
In Hungary, on the other side of the iron curtain, the Minister of Health has been attempting to introduce new charges for patients, for their prescriptions and pharmaceutical goods, and to introduce the concept of private insurance and so on—at present a popular idea throughout the Socialist world. When I met her, I got the impression that she had had some setbacks and was having to abandon the controversial proposals that she was keen on a month or so ago.
In New Zealand, a great report was produced for the reform of that country's health service, taking its starting point from our Griffiths proposals of a few years ago and setting out proposals for a market for health care which I found attractive. The Socialist Government in New Zealand have abandoned those proposals in the face of resistance from their medical profession and are now starting again to tackle the problems of management and use of resources.
Opposition Members have a great narrowness of view on these issues. It is important for us to place in context what we are doing. We are tackling problems that are bound to face any responsible Government in modern circumstances in coping with the pace of change in health care. In this country we are determined to be more successful than others have been, and we have begun to address these problems many years before most other developed countries.
Some of my hon. Friends—indeed, some of the faint-hearted on both sides of the House—may ask, "If there are always political difficulties, why bother to reform the Health Service at all?" Last weekend Brian Walden, with whose views I seem to agree more nowadays, implied more or less as much and invited the Government to give up reforming the NHS because, as he put it, it was impossible to talk common sense to the British public about it. He implied that it should be allowed to decline unchanging and be left to its own devices. Other Ministers abroad would agree about the political difficulties.
It is an easy subject on which to alarm patients as soon as any reform is advocated. It is a feature of great professions, here and abroad, that they are instinctively suspicious about change and jealous of their practices and procedures. It is therefore necessary to embark on reform realising that it will always be a difficult and sometimes controversial process.
The reason why the Government have published their White Paper and embarked on this reform is straightforward. We want the British NHS to rise to these challenges, with which others are having to contend. We want to ensure that in this country we have a better NHS serving all our patients, even in the face of those challenges. We shall not be overwhelmed by the pressures and, once reformed, our Health Service will remain in the forefront of the world's health care systems.
Mr. Michael Grylls rose
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way shortly, but if I do so often, I shall take too long to speak in what will anyway be a crowded debate.
There are other straightforward reasons for reforming the National Health Service and for remedying problems that already exist. Although the Opposition are on the point of producing policy proposals of their own, they sound sometimes as though the Health Service belongs to them and is a perfect, unchangeable and unimproveable system which does not require reform. Although the present system is excellent, and although its principles of being free at the point of delivery, being financed out of taxation, and providing treatment on the ground of medical priority must be retained, its delivery of health care is not always perfect and could be improved.
The most obvious perception that people have of the service's inadequacies is the great variation in waiting times for certain types of surgery, which vary from place to place throughout the country—sometimes for quite inexplicable reasons—by comparison with other health authorities whichse allocations have been made in similar ways, but which in some cases keep up with the demand for specialties better than their neighbours.
Anyone managing the service and trying to identify where the taxpayers' money goes will find wide variations in the use to which that money is put. I refer to the vexed subject of drug and prescribing costs, which now total £2,000 million annually and are rising rapidly. Some general practitioners spend nearly twice as much as others on drugs per patient, even though they appear to have similar patient lists. Some GPs refer more than 20 times as many of their patients to hospital as do others. A fourfold variation is quite common, and will obviously have an effect on the ability of people locally to deliver patient care.
If one examines the detail and some of the things that the introduction of better management has started to throw up, it becomes clear that anyone who imagines that the Health Service is perfect as it is and should not be improved, but merely requires more money, is deceiving himself. In Lancashire, for example, we found a specialist in community medicine who refused to allow GPs to perform child immunisation, with the consequence that uptake rates in the area concerned were amazingly low. A London ophthalmologist decided to keep discharge decisions for all his patients to himself, but toured his wards only once a week. As a result, some of his patients waited six days in a hospital bed before they could be discharged. I could cite many similar examples. They have been dealt with, but many more have yet to be.
One great variation is the way in which patients are treated as people. The sensitivity that is exercised and the willingness to give information to patients vary from place to place, and there are many ways in which performance in that regard could be improved. That is what lies behind our White Paper reforms. If one is to reform the Health Service, one might as well reform it in a way that not only protects the service but gets rid of inequalities and raises its performance to the standards already achieved by the best, so that access to health care across the country is the same.
Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, despite the rather sad and Luddite-like opposition of the British Medical Association and of the Labour party, once the public see the results of his far-sighted reforms in establishing a competitive market
1016
for health care—something there has never been before —they will appreciate that that is the only way of improving the delivery of health care to all our people?
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: There was nothing wrong with the Luddites.
Mr. Clarke: I hear some critical cries from Opposition Members. Probably my ancestors and those of many of my constituents were Luddites, so I must be careful; Ned Ludd came from my part of the world. However, parts of Nottinghamshire have moved on by comparison to those represented by our opponents and most people in the Health Service accept the case for change that I make.
What they are reluctant to do is to agree to specific proposals. We have to explain that the White Paper is necessary, for the reasons that I have given, and then take them with us in implementing the changes to produce the improved situation.
Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister accept that when looking at differences in prescribing the quality and quantity of drugs, there is some merit in looking at various areas? If area is compared with area they are never alike. Perhaps the Minister would look at the question of a practice in Gleneath which was accused by his Department of over-prescribing, to the extent that an extra post was created for a doctor to look at it. He found out that there was no over-prescribing but that the prescriptions were necessary because of the prevalence of dust-related diseases in that area.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with that entirely. It is obviously not the case that all variations between areas of practices have no clinical explanation, but we also know that in some cases there is no clinical explanation and that there are places where the medicine chests of patients are full of drugs that they do not want. Some practices carry on repeat prescribing for patients whom they have not seen for a very long time. Where those cases occur and where there are no clinical reasons, if we can catch that waste we can divert the resources to better use within the Health Service. We are aiming to ensure that where there are no clinical reasons, and only there, high prescribing costs are tackled.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely plain that although the immunology rate and expectation of life in Lancashire are bad, in Lancaster itself we are extremely good at immunology and the expectation of life is higher than the national average?
Mr. Clarke: The case that I described was in one part of Lancashire. The practice has now been stopped and the situation has been improved. I know that my hon. Friend is very pleased with the advances being made and the level of care attained by the health authority in her constituency.
Going on, therefore, to the need to carry people with the reforms, I believe that, despite the formidable difficulties of embarking upon reform, we are already making progress in satisfying people inside and outside the service that this is a sensible way to proceed in order to make sure that our National Health Service remains as good as it should be. In recent weeks, between the publication of the White Paper and this debate, there have been a number of very interesting developments. I can

1017
certainly think of three, that I will begin by citing, which show that the Health Service is already on the move in the direction of accepting worthwhile reforms.
The first development, which I will deal with briefly, because we debated it last week, is the advance we have made on the contract for the payment of general practitioners. I am glad to say that last week we reached agreement with the negotiators for the profession. They have agreed to commend to the profession a new form of contract which offers great benefits to the service, to patients and to GPs, particularly those who do the work and hit the highest standards.
We accepted that it was desirable to have a new contract, that we should set performance targets for the vaccination of children and the screening of women. The Government's targets were accepted for the highest payments. Those practices where a doctor makes a night visit to patients so that they see a doctor from the particular practice will be paid at a higher rate than those that use commercial deputising services and it is agreed that capitation is a good reflection of the hard work that GPs do. All those things are now accepted and I believe that the way is clear for raising the standards of the family doctor service.
Progress on that one front, which was in the air when the White Paper was produced, shows what can be achieved on other fronts where there is still controversy. We asserted to each other in discussions about the contract that we shared exactly the same aims in efforts to improve the general medical service. By sitting down together and talking about how best those aims could be achieved we were able to make progress and agree on reforms in the service for the benefit of patients. That approach offers great prospects for the other features of the White Paper. Discussion and the support of the profession are plainly a key element in ensuring that satisfactory progress is maintained.
Mr. John Redwood: The fourth objective in the White Paper is particularly welcome: appointment times that mean something, and an attack on waiting lists. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that he will receive support from both sides of the House and from the profession to ensure that that objective is implemented swiftly?
Mr. Clarke: I do not wish to discuss leaked documents about the Labour party's proposals, but Labour seems to have pinched part of its health proposals from our White Paper. On that subject Labour seems to be supporting us. I believe that the public support us very strongly, and we now look to health authorities to implement that support in practice throughout the country.
My second point about the progress that we have made is that many of the changes proposed for the rest of the service in the White Paper have already been accepted, and I find that they do not provoke controversy in discussions with the profession. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is trying to intervene: I do not think that he and others appreciate the extent to which discussions are turning on those parts of the White Paper that still pose difficulties. People have not noticed that key proposals are being accepted by consultants, nurses and others throughout the service.
1018
Let me try to help the House to understand why that acceptance makes me already sure that the necessary changes will come about. I think that it would be difficult for any hon. Member to claim that he had recently met a consultant or nurse who opposed the idea of better financial management to enable both doctors and nurses and the management to know more about what they are doing and where the resources go.
It is now some weeks since I met either a consultant or a nurse who did not think that medical audit or quality control—another key issue—were a good idea, and who did not accept the Government's framework. There has been a dramatic change in opinion since four or five years ago. I have worked in the Department before, and all these ideas have quite a long history. A few years ago it was difficult to find a consultant who did not regard the idea of financial management as a commercial intrusion in his affairs, and the idea of clinical budgeting as a threat to his clinical freedom. Medical audit, when first canvassed by the royal colleges three or four years ago, was regarded as a significant threat to clinical freedom by a large proportion of the profession.
What has now been accepted with enthusiasm is the idea that the Health Service needs to know how it spends its resources. It needs management information so that it can control the use of those resources, and the continuing quality checks that medical audit will ensure. Because of that acceptance, such proposals are about to become matters of little controversy and less interest in the outside world.
A great transformation will be wrought in the Health Service. The age of the computer, of information technology and of management decisions based on a knowledge of what things cost and where the vast resources go will come into the Health Service as it came into most other giant organisations a few years ago. Personal involvement in quality and output and the comparison of performance with that in other parts of the service will also come in. Management and clinicians will acquire far more information than they have ever had about what they are actually doing for their patients, how successful their activities are and how they are using their resources.
A few years ago my favourite comparison was between the NHS and the Indian state railway, because of its vast size and the way in which it was administered. Now the NHS is about to become an up-to-date, efficient, well-managed organisation. More information will become available, particularly to those at the sharp end —the doctors and nurses in the hospitals and practices. What we must decide is what to do with that information, and the White Paper shows the way, explaining how we can use our ability to control the service, improve its performance and serve patients better.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Has the Secretary of State seen the latest edition of "Conservative Newsline", which contains a large photograph of him under the slogan
"Our commitment to the NHS is absolute"?
Out of the same newspaper flutters a glossy leaflet from a company called Prime Health Plus advertising private medical insurance. Does he understand that such cynicism is the basis of many people's failure to take seriously the Government's plans for the National Health Service?
Mr. Clarke: My commitment to personal choice is also absolute. Every country in the developed world, including most behind the iron curtain, is now developing private health care systems. Only the British Labour party continues to believe that they are an unwanted intrusion into health care. The reforms of the National Health Service will ensure that private health care in Britain has a strong competitor in the National Health Service, and that people will look to the National Health Service for a comprehensive service and then decide for themselves whether there is some feature of it that they wish to add to or enjoy outside it.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Secretary of State said that he had consulted practically everyone in the National Health Service, but what consultations has he had with the public? Is he aware that in Nottinghamshire —his county and mine—Bassetlaw health authority has decided to set up a trust to opt out of Bassetlaw hospital? There has been no consultation with the public, almost all of whom voted Labour last Thursday. The decision has been taken by non-elected Tories with no consultation whatsoever with the public. The consultants that the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about will all become directors and set their own salaries, as will the management who will decide about waiting lists and many other matters with no public consultation, agreement or referendum.
Mr. Clarke: Bassetlaw district health authority has taken no such decision in the terms described by the hon. Gentleman. I shall return to the reports about self-governing hospitals, but the hon. Gentleman misunderstands entirely what is happening in Bassetlaw. I shall return to that point.
I was explaining that we have achieved a substantial change of opinion within the Health Service that I would never have expected to happen five years ago. People accept the case for modern financial management and much more quality control. Almost without exception they accept that it will enable us to ensure that the money follows the patient to where the work is done best and reflects patient priorities.
The White Paper sets out a considered framework, over which we took a lot of time, showing how the new information can be used to create a better National Health Service for patients. How do we allocate resources best? In our opinion we should introduce competition and choice to ensure that resources go to where the quality of care and efficiency are highest. What about the role of the patients? We shall ensure a more patient-friendly and patient-led service by sending the resources with the patient to where, so far as is possible, he and his GP wish him to go.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to continue for a little longer.
The discussion on the Health Service has already moved on from when the White Paper was published. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been approached by people concerned about the Health Service in the past three or four months, and I have no doubt that we have all been approached in the past week or two. Currently, the debate appears to be that we should go more slowly. All occupations have their buzz words, and
1020
the current buzz words are that it is all very interesting but we should have pilot studies, change the timetable and slow down.
Another theme that comes through strongly is the fear about the cost of taking on board the modern management systems which the Health Service, unlike other large businesslike organisations, has never had before.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is not a business.
Mr. Ashton: It is not a business.
Mr. Clarke: I said that it was businesslike. I welcome all those suggestions and I shall address them in my speech. I welcome them for one important reason. When people come to me suggesting that we should study and go more slowly and asking about the cost of introducing the new system, they are talking about how the changes should be implemented. Already, within three months the debate has moved on, except possibly in the Labour party. The debate among everyone else has moved on to how we implement and not whether we implement. It is that matter which I propose to address now.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a little while.
First, how we implement depends on what people mean by pace. We no longer have time for some traditional ways of tackling issues in the Health Service because they have not been so successful in the past. I will not agree to some great multidisciplinary committee being set up, which starts by studying a small number of pilot schemes and takes years over discussion and evaluation. In great public services of all kinds, one makes little progress by that means.
We had an experiment on financial management—the resource management initiative—which began on six pilot sites. There are still people at the head of the profession who say that we should not have extended that initiative until we had evaluated fully those six pilot schemes and there are even those who claim that we are in breach of an agreement. I must spell it out to such people that we are in breach of neither the spirit nor the letter of that agreement in the resource management initiative.
The initiative was so popular at the six pilot sites that we are now extending it to 50 more hospitals, which were contenders for the right to take part in the next phase of the resource management initiative. As the initiative rolls out, our methods will, of course, evolve. There will still be plenty of time to evaluate the first six sites and to apply the lessons as we extend the initiative to all hospitals. The rolling out of a process that we steadily evolve with the help of those who work on it—the doctors and nurses in the case of the resource management initiative—is a principle we can apply to other areas.
There are consultants who say they need financial management systems, but ask about the cost. We must be careful about the cost. We do not need all-singing, all-dancing computer and information technology systems straight away in every hospital and we should all be in favour of resisting salesmen who sell expensive equipment in the belief that everyone needs it. However, there will be costs. I have made it clear that, where cost is required up

1021
front for investment in new systems, we will provide it, over and above the money required to maintain progress in expanding patients' services.
We had already made £42 million available in the last public expenditure round in the autumn for rolling out the resource management initiative and other programmes for this year. Having seen where we are now and how matters are progressing, I can tell the House that there will be another £40 million of new money, over and above last year's settlement, available for the predictable costs of extending financial management systems in 1989–90. For the sake of accuracy, I had better tell the House about that in the words agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who, as ever, has been helpful on these matters because he is committed to the National Health Service. I will be making available an extra £40 million in the current financial year to cover the additional work in the National Health Service and in my Department to begin implementing the review. That brings the total available for implementation this year to over £82 million, which will be used to provide financial information to doctors, to fund preparatory work and projects in, for example, general practitioner referral patterns and to provide resources both in staff and consultancy in my Department for the implementation of my proposals.
That new £40 million is intended to enable us to introduce the measures the doctors want. They are measures that the consultants inside the service welcome. The new money is being provided so that the costs of implementation do not cut into the provision of medical care for the patients and the planned rate of expansion. That is the second area in which there has been great progress since we produced the White Paper.
The third area in which we see progress in the Health Service was touched on by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw a moment ago. It is now being reported in the newspapers because of local discussions. Many units in the National Health Service are expressing interest in what we describe as self-governing status under the new contracting arrangements for the National Health Service. Moreover, although this has not yet appeared in the newspapers, large numbers of general practitioners are interested in the practice budgets that we propose, which give GPs more influence than ever before and more say about where their funds should go.
Let me return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, as the same questions will be asked in many other places. Let us be clear what is coming in from National Health Service units to the regions. At the moment, we are receiving expressions of interest, and only expressions of interest. No hospital has yet decided to become a self-governing hospital; hospitals are in no position to decide that yet. At the moment we are receiving approaches from people who work in the service who are attracted by our new ideas and who recognise the potential for their patients. Very detailed discussions will have to follow before anyone can contemplate whether applications for self-governing status can go any further. We shall work on the applications, and the hospitals and units will acquire much more information about what is required. Everyone will be able to reach a more sensible conclusion once we know what is involved.
1022
In the case of self-governing hospitals, everyone in the locality affected will want to know what care services the district health authority will require the self-governing hospital to provide—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members want to leap to oppose what they call opting out before they even know what it entails but we have reached a stage at which an explanation of what it entails might be forthcoming. We shall also need to know, in the case of every unit, what capital costs will be passed to the accounts of that unit. We shall need to know that in order to measure the unit's use of resources in future.
Mr. Spearing: This is all about money; it has nothing to do with health.
Mr. Clarke: The Labour party does not have a policy on health, except in so far as it relates to money. When asked what their policy on the Health Service is, all Labour Members ever say is that they will spend more money on it.
Our proposals are not all about money. I was about to say that there is another thing that we shall need to know about every self-governing unit. Given that all the units are attracted to our proposals by the proposition that they could improve the services that they offer their patients, they will need to work out their plans for the development and improvement of their services.
We shall need to consider how the board of trustees should be formed. We shall need to evaluate whether they are competent to run the unit. As the White Paper said, we shall also need to ensure that the consultants in the hospital are involved in the process of management.
At the moment, therefore, we are receiving expressions of interest in a proposal which is deemed to be a good idea by those who work in the Health Service. That process will be followed by a protracted period of discussion of all the details before any decisions are made. Whether we have a self-governing hospital anywhere in the National Health Service will depend on decisions made individually and case by case and probably at least a year from now. [Interruption.] Despite the wishes of the Opposition, we shall have an intelligent and continuing discussion with the units of what self-government will mean.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, given the old-fashioned and myopic attitude of the Labour party, it is interesting that more and more staffs, patients and expert managers are keen on the idea of opting out?
Hon. Members: That is not true.
Mr. Clarke: Yes, and the reward that some of them will receive for expressing interest is the same absurd barracking from the Labour party with which it is greeting our proposals today. The Opposition have attempted to misrepresent our proposals by implying that the hospitals will be leaving the National Health Service and suggesting that the idea poses a threat to staff and patients. Despite all that, the idea has been recognised as being of substantial interest to those who work in well over 100 units in the National Health Service, who see an advantage in having more freedom of action to develop their services and use their resources as they think best.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall not give way to barracking.
Mr. Martin Flannery: It is not barracking.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Clarke: It is not barracking? The hon. Gentleman surprises me. I fail to see why I should give way to hon. Members who are already making all the noise that they want to make.
In due course we shall proceed in the same way with general practice budgets. I think that a large proportion of GPs with lists large enough to make them eligible for the first wave are very interested in the idea of controlling resources. (Interruption.] Of course; I am dealing with the pace at and methods by which we shall proceed. Of course no GP will tell anyone at the moment that he will have a practice budget. What he wants to know—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are not interested"] They are interested; they are in favour of the idea. What they and we will now need to do is to discuss how a general practice budget would operate. We shall need to discuss the level of resources required by a practice to have a GP budget and negotiate the right level of resources to enable GPs to feel confident that the system is, indeed, an advantage to them and to their patients.
The method of proceeding that I have described is based on the substantial response that we have had, which shows great interest in our ideas on the part of those engaged in hospitals and in general practice. We shall work on those ideas with people who have expressed willingness to discuss them. They will now be involved in a most protracted process of debate and discussion about the implications of the idea for the National Health Service and for their units, their hospitals and their practices in particular.
This is a careful, measured method of progressing with reform, working in partnership with those in the Health Service who want to work with us so that we can ensure that we make the use that we must make of the new information available to the service, in concert with those who recognise the new potential for improving the service.
Mr. Lofthouse: The Minister may be aware that, in the Pontefract health authority area, we are used to opting out. In 1987, on the basis of the allocation allowed by Government to shorten waiting lists, the Pontefract area health authority decided on a scheme to cover 500 operations at Pontefract general infirmary. It later changed its mind and allocated that money to the private hospital at Methley park which ended up performing 200 operations instead of 500. Three hundred of my constituents did not get their operations. That is the effect of opting out.
Mr. Clarke: The use of "opting out" to describe the process by which hospitals become self-governing is a grotesque misuse of the phrase. It says something for the parliamentary skills of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr.Lofthouse) that he gave the words a completely different meaning so that he could introduce a completely different issue. All health authorities are charged with the responsibility of using their resources in the most effective way for their patients. If health authorities can find a way of using spare capacity in the private sector to the benefit of their patients,
1024
marginal costs with part of their funds, I would encourage them to do so. I shall discuss with the hon. Gentleman at some other point the success or otherwise of the exercise in Pontefract.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way again immediately.
There are other important matters to which we must address ourselves now that the Health Service is beginning to move down the path of reform. With everyone accepting the need for new systems and quality control and with many people exploring the prospects for self-governing hospitals and for GP practice budgets, countless questions will need to be considered. That is why we produced eight working papers, although we could have produced twice that number with little difficulty. There are many other details to be worked out in concert with the profession.
People ask about the planning for a comprehensive service. District health authorities will remain charged with the legal duty to provide a comprehensive service. They will retain all the money in their hands apart from that which goes to GPs with practice budgets who will be providing their contribution to the service, to ensure that their funds are used and distributed in the locality to ensure ready access of all their residents to a comprehensive range of services of the required quality.
People ask about limitations on GPs' rights to refer. I have dealt with GPs' rights to refer. Many people have asked about what the GPs' position will be if the DHA has the money to place contracts and plan local services. They ask whether it will inhibit the GP's right to refer where he wishes. Under the present system, if it remains unreformed, the GP's theoretical total freedom to refer to whomever he or she wants is steadily diminishing. There is no ability to refer across administrative boundaries with any funds to finance the receiving hospital for the treatment of patients.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: When will the Secretary of State talk about patients, not money?
Mr. Clarke: One million patients every year are transferred, and the money does not go with them, and that is a principal cause of a large number of the financial crises that hit the newspapers. The hon. Lady is so wedded to what we have that she will preserve it. She likes the fact that, sometimes, efficient units run out of money precisely because there is no finance to go with the patients when a referral is made across administrative boundaries.
GPs will be involved in the new system. If they do not have practice budgets, they will be far more involved than ever before with district health authorities in deciding how a district authority uses its funds to provide a pattern of service, first, to meet its obligation to give a comprehensive service to their patients, and, secondly, to reflect that GPs' chosen pattern of referrals for the area. Our new system will give GPs much more ability than ever before to influence how resources are distributed, particularly in referring their own patients.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: One group of people whom I should like to be especially considered are the chronically sick on expensive medication. They believe that they will be unattractive to the average GP, particularly a GP on a practice budget, who will say, "This

1025
patient will take too much of my budget, so I will try to push him somewhere else" Will such people be properly considered?
Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that, in a practice budget—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] A practice budget will be constructed to protect the clinical needs of the patient list. It is not even a new point; we thought of it miles before we published the White Paper. That is why we say that practice budgets should be negotiated. We cannot work on so much per head. We must negotiate with GPs a practice budget that reflects the age and chronic sickness of some of their patients and the actual costs that they are likely to incur. I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that nothing in our proposals will ever threaten a chronically sick patient with the risk of being refused the treatment or medicine that he or she will require.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman after so many interruptions. His answer seems to be at variance with an answer given by the Minister of State, who said that only in exceptional circumstances would that kind of provision be made. That worries those of us who are concerned about the chronically sick and disabled. Is the Minister giving the House a categorical assurance that all chronically sick and severely disabled people will have special provision with their GPs?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who is sitting alongside me, will speak later. He told me that he does not believe that he said what the right hon. Gentleman alleged. No doubt any misunderstanding can be sorted out later.
As I have said, a practice budget will be negotiated on the basis that it needs to reflect the likely costs of dealing with a collection of patients, taking account of their age and chronic sickness. Obviously, it will proceed only on that basis.
There are other matters with which I have no time to deal now, but they are of great importance to those who work in the service and we must resolve them by the process of careful discussion over the coming months to make sure that our changes are implemented in the right way. First, medical teaching causes a great deal of concern. On undergraduate teaching, a working party is already established, involving my Department, the Department of Education and Science, the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council—all professional interests—to make sure that the need for medical teaching is protected.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has referred to that matter, as anxieties are building up in medical schools and universities. Representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the medical schools are anxious to help, but they would like to know what their position will be as soon as possible.
Mr. Clarke: I realise that they are anxious about undergraduate teaching. Of course, a steering group reflecting the full range of interests is already considering that matter. There is also medical and nurse training. It is essential that the National Health Service, however organised, continues to produce the right supply of trained
1026
medical and nursing manpower. We must ensure that the training needs of the service are protected by our proposals, that medical schools are not threatened and that any additional costs are covered by our proposals. We must ensure that self-governing hospitals can be required to make their contribution to the required training effort of new doctors and nurses. Plainly, standards must be the same throughout the service, and they must be set by the royal colleges, as they are now. We need to talk through all those points.
For example, I refer to an extremely important policy contained in the document entitled "Achieving a Balance", which is of great importance to the Health Service. I remain totally committed to the principle of achieving a balance. However we organise the Health Service and however many hospitals are or are not self-governing, we must retain the ability to ensure that the possibility of achieving a balance is continued so that we have the right balance between training posts and career posts. That is what I see occupying the real debate.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: I will give way for definitely the last time.
Mrs. Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that over 40 per cent. of students reading medicine are women? Is he aware also that there are real anxieties that qualified women will not be able to get partnerships in practices and that medicine for women will be greatly affected by his proposals?
Mr. Clarke: I think that the proportion is a bit higher than that. It is my personal prediction, based on no expertise in the matter, that fairly early in the next century, the majority of doctors in this country will be female. We are obviously going in that direction.
Last week, we made changes in the GP contract, designed to meet the fear that we might unintentionally deter women from entering general practice. Changes are to be made in the system of basic practice allowance, and the way in which we look at practices as opposed to individual partners for GP contract purposes, which will meet those fears. I have always thought that the fears about deterring women from general practice were exaggerated. Nevertheless, we made moves to try to accommodate them, because we were anxious to ensure that we should not create any new artificial barriers to women entering general practice. The agreement shows that we thought we had reached—
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Quite right.
Mr. Clarke: It is no good the hon. Gentleman trying to be more catholic than the Pope. The BMA is satisfied that we met that agreement. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is out of date.
We will proceed on the same basis. The matters to which I referred are ones on which we need a constructive dialogue with the profession. If people in the profession have fears about medical training, research and achieving a balance, they should first discuss them with us and accept our undertaking that we intend to meet them and, secondly, make a constructive contribution to the proposals about how to tackle them.
We have reached the stage at which everybody should move on from trying to find reasons why they are against

1027
each and every proposal for change contained in the White Paper to making some contributions of their own if they can think of a better alternative. Some quite senior bodies in the Health Service have not yet reached the stage of putting forward anything other than criticism of what we put forward. The time has come for us to ask for their considered reactions on subjects such as research, medical training, and so on. They are beginning to come in.
I am sure that we will get no such contribution from the Labour party, but we will get a contribution from the service. Just as the Labour party has been left behind by our move on GPs' contracts, it will be left behind by its position on Health Service reform, as it sees the Health Service being transformed in front of its eyes, so that it provides a service that is better for the patients, allows patients a bigger influence on priorities inside the service, delegates more real management responsibilities locally and produces a service of which we can all be more proud.
The common sense of last Thursday will be carried forward in future discussions to ensure that we produce a better Health Service. No doubt sometimes we will face controversy and sometimes we will find persuasion easy. The Government are determined to fight for a better Health Service to the extent that we need to. I would like to reason for a better National Health Service. I believe that all reasonable people inside the service will work with us to attain the aim of a much improved Health Service—one which will work not only for patients, as the main title of our White Paper implied, but for care for the 1990s as its subtitle implied.
5.10 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"recognises that the programme of fundamental changes to the structure of the National Health Service set out in the White Paper, Working for Patients (Cm.555), will fragment the health service, undermine continuity of care and reduce patient choice; believes that competition on the basis of price will threaten quality of patient care and standards of professional training; rejects the White Paper's proposals for increased commercial use of National Health Service funds and National Health Service facilities for the treatment of private patients; notes that there was no reference in the Conservative manifesto to these sweeping changes in the National Health Service and that since their publication they have been rejected by every organisation representing medical opinion and by an overwhelming majority of public opinion; deplores the persistent failure of Her Majesty's Government to respond to the Griffiths Report on Community Care; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to postpone any major structural changes to the National Health Service until they can be submitted to the electorate in a General Election."
I shall begin by agreeing with one of the Secretary of State's observations from the Dispatch Box. I entirely agree that we must be aware of salesmen selling very expensive products. He does, of course, come to the Chamber to sell the most expensive White Paper in the life of the Government, and possibly the most expensive in the history of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. At the end of January, the Secretary of State answered a parliamentary question in which he said that the budget for the launch of the White Paper would be £1 million. A couple of weeks later, when replying to a parliamentary question from myself' he said that the outturn cost on the budget for the launch of the White Paper had been £1,400,000. I am advised that that sum comfortably exceeds the launch cost of the last Jeffrey Archer novel.
1028
There are a couple of ironies about that expenditure. First, there is the obvious irony of a Secretary of State producing a White Paper that claims that it will achieve cost-effectiveness within the NHS, when he cannot keep the budget for the launch of that White Paper to within 40 per cent. of the budget. An even greater irony—the one obvious way to measure the outstanding waste of his largesse—is that he does not appear to have persuaded anyone to be taken in by it. If the Secretary of State was a Labour councillor and had spent so much money to so little purpose, he would have been in severe danger of being surcharged by the Prime Minister to get her money back.
Last week I drew attention to the fact that the White Paper had been rejected by just about every shade of medical opinion. I must say that on one point I was wrong, and I shall therefore make a correction to what I said. I indicated that the one medical body that was the exception to the rule was the Conservative Medical Society. At the weekend I was distressed to read in a Sunday newspaper that the Secretary of State
"came under criticism yesterday from members of the Conservative Medical Society, who expressed worries about the proposals in the White Paper. Mr.Frank Ellis, a consultant surgeon from Guy's thought the proposals for some hospitals to opt out would create a two-tier system. He said: 'Those who conform will be favoured…and those who won't will tend to be neglected'."
There we have it—even the Conservative Medical Society has gone overboard. I apologise to the House if I misled it last week.
I wish to draw attention to the way in which the White Paper has been rejected not only by the people who work in the NHS, but by the public who depend on the NH S. There is no better demonstration of the way in which the public have demonstrated their rejection of the White Paper than by the presence on the Benches behind me of my new hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), whose spectacular victory last week was not just a remarkable victory for the Labour party, but a victory for the National Health Service. I take some satisfaction in that I was able to make my modest contribution to my hon. Friend's election. However, the 36 hours that I spent in the Vale of Glamorgan were nothing like as influential in winning votes for my hon. Friend as the three hours that the Secretary of State spent.
Last Friday I heard the Secretary of State several times express regret on television and radio that he had reached agreement with the doctors over GPs' contracts only an hour after the polls had closed, which was too late to rescue his candidate in the Vale of Glamorgan. The voters in the Vale of Glamorgan, who switched to us, were not doing so because they were distresssed by the fine print of the GPs' contracts. There were not clusters of voters hanging about outside the polling booths just before closing time, delaying their decisions until they heard what concessions had been given on the minimum list size that would qualify for the basic practice allowance.
The Secretary of State deludes himself—although I suspect that he does not delude his Back Benchers—if he believes that that was the issue. The voters were sending a clear message to the House that they do not want to see a Health Service driven by commercial demand rather than medical needs.
The voters of Glamorgan are not alone in that view. All the evidence that we have acquired in the past three

1029
months from opinion polls, hon. Members' correspondence and public meetings gives a resounding thumbs down to the White Paper. I concede that there are members of the public who have supported the White Paper. I was interested to read a report in The Scotsman on Tuesday of a public meeting in Dumfries which overwhelmingly came out against the Government's White Paper. There was, however, one voice raised at the meeting in support of the White Paper's proposals; to the distress of the Secretary of State, that one voice was raised by the town's local undertaker.
The Secretary of State keeps telling us that his intention is that the NHS should be more responsive to its consumers. In the light of all that evidence of public opinion, I suggest that he should listen to what the consumers are trying to tell him.
I was interested that the Secretary of State spent yesterday in Geneva. I confess that I only made it to the Westminster Grand Committee Room, where I met a large number of organisations representing those same consumers. There were more than 50 representatives of more than 20 organisations. Twenty of those organisations completed a questionnaire as part of the consultation. All were organisations representing particular groups of patients and users of the NHS, such as RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, the Family Planning Association, the National Federation of the Blind of the United Kingdom and the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital. The answers of those 20 organisations revealed an overwhelming and profound anxiety about the White Paper's proposals. When we asked them if they believed that budgets for GPs would make them more cost-effective without affecting patient care, five of the 20 disagreed, 14 strongly disagreed and one did not know. When we asked them whether hospitals should opt for self-governing status, I concede that one out of 20 agreed. However, three disagreed and 15 strongly disagreed.
I admit that it was not a representative gathering. It was a gathering that differed from any random sampling of the public in that it consisted solely of people who were well informed about the Health Service and who had given years of service to voluntary organisations concerned with health. Their opinion was a resounding no to the White Paper.
Mr. Tim Yeo: What will the hon. Gentleman say to the 1,000 consultants who will need to be sacked when the £43 million saved by competitive tendering under the Government is thrown away by the Labour party, if it ever gets the chance to put into practice the proposals published earlier this week?
Mr. Cook: I have met many consultants in the past three months. It has been an interesting experience for me and, I expect, for them, because there has been a degree of therapy when I have consoled them for the loss of the affection of their Government. I suspect that I have probably met 1,000 consultants during that time, but I have not met one who has expressed the least anxiety about losing his job under a future Labour Government. However, I have met many consultants who have expressed some surprise at the priorities of this
1030
Government who, as a result of their White Paper, proposed to increase the number of accountants in the Health Service by 1,000 while increasing the number of consultants by only 100, which gives a neat arithmetical guide to the priorities of the White Paper.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid the question asked of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo). If the hon. Gentleman believes that the test of a Health Service policy is to ask 20 group representatives his chosen questions on that matter in the Grand Committee Room, will he ask those groups whether they would support his party's proposals to end competitive tendering in the Health Service, which would cost the Health Service £100 million? That is the sum that we have saved by the policy that the Labour party has always opposed.
Mr. Cook: We asked precisely that question in the consultative document that I issued last September. I assure the Secretary of State that the overwhelming majority of the responses that we have received have been supportive of the fact that if one wants to run a Health Service, one needs a health team that is motivated and committed to the Health Service. Such a health team would not consist simply of consultants and the Royal College of Nursing; it would also include ambulancemen, porters, cooks, domestics and everybody who keeps a hospital functioning.
On the Secretary of State's extraordinary point that the response from those 20 organisations reflected any loading in the question, let me put this challenge to him. I will happily recall all those 20 organisations and put to them questions on GPs' practice budgets and on hospital self-governing status in any terms in which the Secretary of State cares to frame them—I should be extremely surprised if the answers were any different.
I should add that the questions raised at the meeting yesterday were much more penetrating than those in the intervention of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo). The National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants asked reasonably, "What will happen to respite care when every bed in the hospital has to be paid for by contract?" Life is only just bearable for many carers because their GP colludes with them in arranging temporary admission to geriatric wards for their elderly relatives to give the carers a break. How many GPs will still do that if they have to pay for it out of their fixed budget? What price will be placed on the sanity and family life of carers in the new cost-effective Health Service?
The association called Asthma Care asked what would happen to the prescriptions of its members under the new limits on drugs budgets. The progressive management of asthma is now based on preventive medication. It is not based on waiting for acute attacks and then remedying them; it is based on prescribing before attacks happen. However, that preventive medicine can cost between £20 and £40 per month for cases of serious asthma. Because of the new drugs limits, how many GPs will feel obliged to revert to the old method of "wait and see" and wait for the acute attack—
Mr. Kenneth Clarke. None.
Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State assures us that there will be none, but he has been much less robust and blunt

1031
in his explanation of the drugs budgets to the House and to the public than he has been in his explanation to doctors of how they must buckle-to under the new GPs' contract.
The Secretary of State would have us believe that the drugs budget is not firm and fixed but that it is elastic and will bend and give. However, I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to pragraph 7.16 of the White Paper, which is explicit in stating:
"Each year the provision made for FPS drug costs in the Parliamentary Estimates will be divided into separate firm budgets among the 14 health Regions … RHAs and FPCs will be expected to work to the budget they have been given."
I do not deny that the Secretary of State is technically correct. Yes, those authorities can exceed their budget, but only if they meet the extra cost by cutting it out of other expenditure on patient care. That is freedom, but it is the freedom to freeze expenditure on prescriptions and to cut expenditure on other services.
It is dishonest to pretend that that freedom is anything other than cash limits by any other name—[Interruption.] That is perfectly true, because it is in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own White Paper. It is also true that it is disingenuous of the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends to complain that patient organisations have been misled when they reasonably argue their well-informed anxieties about that paragraph—
Mr. Clarke: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for intervening twice when at first I did not intend to intervene as all, but his speech is solely designed to raise fears among all the groups that he is talking about. If the hon. Gentleman is quoting the White Paper about the effect on GPs, will he quote from the relevant part, paragraph 7.19, which states:
"Where a GP practice exceeds its indicative budget, the FPC's first recourse will be to offer advice and"—[Interruption.]
"where necessary, to bring a process of peer review to bear on the GPs' prescribing practices"?
That means that another doctor will give advice. Further steps will be taken only if there is no clinical reason for prescribing excessive quantities of drugs.
The hon. Gentleman's description of the White Paper is designed to instil fears into asthma sufferers or whichever group he is talking to. Does he really think that that is rising to the challenge of the events in the National Health Service, to which he should rise if he is serious about its future?
Mr. Cook: The question that I asked was not of my devising. It was brought to me by those asthma sufferers who had looked at the White Paper and felt anxiety.
Is the Secretary of State willing to say now that he will withdraw the clear and explicit statement in paragraph 7.16 and say that there will not be firm budgets in the regional health authorities, that the regional health authorities will not be expected to work to such a budget, and that he will compensate them if they exceed that budget[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that those questions are irrelevant. If GPs are to remain free to exceed their indicative budgets, will the Secretary of State advise the Southwark and Lambeth family practitioner committee—
Mr. Jerry Hayes rose—
Mr. Cook: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I am addressing my question to the Secretary of State. We are entitled to know whether we are
1032
dealing with a fixed budget. Is it a cash limit or, as the Secretary of State would have us believe, something that can be ignored?
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The patient will look to his GP for his prescription. It is clear in the White Paper that no patient need fear that his doctor will refuse to give him the medicine he requires. No doctor will be driven into bad clinical practice. Regional health authorities do work to cash limits now for the hospital service and they will work to cash limits. The regional health authorities' cash limits will not—
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Clarke: No, I am not taking—
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Two Members of the House cannot be on their feet at the same time. I call Mr. Cook.
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Clarke rose—
Mr. Cook: No, I am on my feet—[Interruption.]
Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my experience, when an hon. Gentleman has the courtesy to give way, he cannot then revoke his giving way, decide that he does not like what is being said and leap in to try to take half my answer which he will then no doubt use out of context in the way that he has just used those quotations from the White Paper.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We had better get on with the debate. I call Mr. Cook.
Mr. Cook: Now we have it absolutely clear. It could not be clearer. The Secretary of State has just said that regional health authorities are, so far, under cash limits for hospital expenditure and that they will now be under cash limits for drug expenditure as well. We now have that clearly and firmly on the record. Those who are concerned about people with high prescription costs have every right to be concerned and to bring their anxieties to the House.
Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No. I have given way three times to the Secretary of State, and I shall now proceed with my speech.
I shall turn to those hospital sectors to which the Secretary of State has just referred.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), having given way, then to stand up because he does not want my right hon. and learned Friend to complete his answer which the public want to hear?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that a large number of hon. Members wish to participate in this debate. Let us get on with it.
Mr. Cook: I am mindful of your observations, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State was good enough to say that a large number of hospitals had expressed an interest in opting out—[Interruption.] Will my hon. Friends allow

1033
me to proceed? [Interruption.] On the contrary, I have succeeded in doing exactly that which I am accused of not being able to do. I have been through the list that contains a number of reputable trade journals and health service journals. It is an interesting list. There are hospitals which are not in the list of those which have submitted an interest in opting out.
There are currently six hospitals in the resource management initiative which, the House will recall, was to have been the means through which hospitals would acquire the information to price a contract and the key to unlock the door to opting out. Of those six hospitals in the resource management initiative, five wrote to the Secretary of State saying that they had resolved not to express an interest in opting out. They all went into the resource management initiative because they were interested in better financial management. They all welcome, as did those consultants who have worked in the resource management initiative, the opportunity to manage their resources. However, they never entered into it on the basis that it would be paving the way to opt out. There is not a hope—
Mr. Clarke rose—
Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State addressed the House for 52 minutes and he has already intervened three times in the 20 minutes of my speech. Of course, I shall as a matter of courtesy give way to him again on this occasion, but I would like to point out that other hon. Members have rights in this House.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman repeated something which he has said before about the letter sent by five of the hospitals in the RMI that were never, particularly, candidates for self-governing—[Interruption.] They were never special ones. The hon. Gentleman said that five of them had indicated that they were definitely not candidates.
I have a letter from Mr. Meecham, a consultant to the Wirral health authority at Arrowe Park hospital which was written to me after the hon. Gentleman first made that rather startling assertion. I shall read the relevant part about the statement that the hon. Gentleman made and which he has just repeated. It says:
"I certainly did not feel that any part of our letter made a judgement about self-government and would not have wished it to do so. I was amazed and dismayed therefore when a great deal of the coverage in the national press talked of the hospitals involved rejecting self-government or refusing to opt out. I certainly had not intended any such interpretation to be made. I had regarded our letter as a plea for taking it one step at a time rather than being rushed along without assessment of pilot projects being taken into account. Quite how the national press made the interpretation that they made, I do not understand."
The national press interpreted it in that way because the hon. Gentleman did. Arrowe Park will, in due course, decide whether it wants to be self-governing, as will the other five hospitals. It is totally untrue for the hon. Gentleman to say that those hospitals have rejected self-government and untrue for him to repeat it today.
Mr. Cook: It would not be magnaminous of me not to recognise such a useful intervention. I assure the Secretary of State that if he wishes to read any more such letters during my speech, I shall cheerfully give way to him.
1034
The Secretary of State's difficulty is that he is left with other hospitals in which there is barely a hope that they will have the adequate pricing information to opt out by April 1991, despite the haste with which the Department is cobbling together a software package that cuts corners. I note that the Secretary of State's director of finance information engagingly described that as a "quick and dirty approach" to the problem.
One reason that I am confident that some of the hospitals in the list will not be ready for opt-out in 1991 is that three of them have yet to be built and a number of the others are scheduled to be closed before 1991, including Much Wenlock hospital. I do not wish to disparage Much Wenlock hospital, which I am sure in its own way is a centre of excellence. However, it is plainly not one of the 300 major acute hospitals that we were originally told were prime candidates for opt-out. The dragooning of Much Wenlock cottage hospital into the list of hospitals for opt-out reveals a certain desperation.
The most telling demonstration of the fact that the Government are having difficulty in selling the concept is the frequency with which management has been obliged to express interest in flat defiance of the medical staff. I mentioned that five out of six hospitals in the RMI had decided to express no interest. The sixth, Guy's hospital, has expressed interest. Last night, the consultants at Guy's were so fed up with having Panama ballots by the management board, that they called in the Electoral Reform Society, which, in a ballot, discovered that two out of three consultants regretted that Guy's had not joined the other five hospitals in their letter to the Secretary of State.
Even more startling is the case of Leicester, where 140 consultants gathered and voted unanimously against opt-out. Subsequently, at a closed meeting of the management board, it was decided to nominate Leicester
Why is medical opinion so overwhelming in rejecting the concept? What is it that worries the profession? First, they are worried that it will fragment the Health Service. The proposal in the White Paper is written by people who see what happens to the patient in hospital as an isolated episode, with no connection to what has gone before or after. A simple model is one in which the patient collects his or her travel voucher from the local district general manager; the patient disappears to travel the long distance to the hospital in which the contract has been chosen by the district general manager, not by the patient; the patient may never before have been diagnosed; there may be no commitment to community services in the area from which the patient comes; the patient may have no prospect of returning as an out-patient; and there is no access to the medical records of the patient.
It is bizarre that the Secretary of State should describe such a concept as one that treats patients as people. The consultants have not been taken in by the idea that extra money will follow any extra patients attracted. They have been sharper in seeing through that fraud than the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Back-Bench colleagues. The structure proposed cannot produce extra funds for the hospital sector because there is no proposal to provide extra funds for it. The cheerful notion that everyone's hospital can receive more money by opting out rests on a simple delusion. As the consultants at Guy's hospital in their letter to The Independent the other day observed:
"The only way we can get more money for Guy's is by concentrating on what is profitable, not what is needful."
Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that if a hospital chooses to opt out, it will have to take on a huge debt to buy its own buildings and equipment from the Government? In many instances, it will only be able to service that through extra fund-raising, sponsorship or selling off land.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend understates his case. The truth is that not only hospitals which opt out will be faced with these charges. Every hospital in the health sector will be faced with them. They will be faced with a payment on capital charges, not just for rent for the roof over their heads but for every piece of equipment in the building worth more than £1,000. Heaven knows what additional costs that will entail by way of administration of the immense, ponderous effort of gathering together such a mammoth inventory, merely to enable Conservative Members to know where every piece of equipment worth £1,000 is located.
To return to the argument about whether money will follow the patient: even to succeed in selling treatments that are profitable rather than needful, these hospitals will have to compete against each other merely to stand still. The fundamental dishonesty in the White Paper is that it continually presents competition as resulting in an increase in quality—because the hospitals compete on quality—when the White Paper is really written with the intention of lowering the cost to the NHS by obliging these hospitals to compete not on quality but on price. And the first victim of competition on price will he the quality of patient care.
Anyone who doubts this has only to remember that the contracts will be awarded by health authorities desperately juggling to make ends meet now. On Tuesday, the National Association of Health Authorities issued a statement pointing out the difficulty that it was having coping with 8 per cent. inflation on a budget based on a forecast of 5 per cent. It now calculates—
Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. His interventions—he has made one in every speech that I have made in this Parliament —are always worth hearing.
The National Association of Health Authorities now estimates that the cumulative under-funding of the hospital sector in the lifetime of this Government exceeds £3 billion. That is why hospitals up and down the country are running out of money to treat their patients.
Mr. Favell: I greatly resent the hon. Gentleman saying that hospitals that give good value for money do not give good service. Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport has twice been top of the value-for-money league in the north-west, and it gives an excellent service.
Mr. Cook: I am terribly sorry if I caused the hon. Gentleman offence; I shall make a point of not giving way to him next time.
There are undoubtedly many excellent hospitals which provide value for money, such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Why on earth is it necessary, then, to turn the whole system upside down to tackle the problem of under-funng—
Mr. Hind rose—
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has already raised a point in my speech, and once is enough for anyone, apart from the Secretary of State.
The consequence of this under-funding was perfectly illustrated only yesterday in a parliamentary answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). It confirmed that, of the 11 body scanners in operation in the Trent region, seven had to be paid for by public appeal. That is the type of Health Service to which we have been reduced—the Health Service of the collecting can, a Health Service in which the harsh reality is that large numbers of health authorities end each year broke. In such circumstances, they will have no choice but to award their contracts on the basis of where they can obtain the cheapest ones.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. One of the difficulties at present is that, since there is an efficiency trap, beds and wards are closed at the end of the year because hospitals run out of money. Under the proposals in the White Paper, which will make the money travel with the patient, does he agree that precisely the opposite will obtain and hospitals will be given a financial incentive to open the 20 per cent. of NHS beds that are closed for stupid economic reasons?
Mr. Cook: I must try again, perhaps a shade more slowly. There can be no removal of the problem of under-funding at the end of the financial year, because no more finance is proposed for the kitty. Even if the hon. Gentleman is correct that some hospitals will attract more money for the patient—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Let us assume for a moment the hypothesis proposed by Conservative Members, in which these hospitals will try to undercut each other and will therefore receive no extra money. The corollary of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that other hospitals will face the problems of bed and ward closures even earlier in the year because they do not have the necessary resources.
The most spectacular, technicolour failure of the White Paper was also the most conspicuous omission from the Secretary of State's speech. The right hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the House for 52 minutes in his own speech and for seven during mine without once alluding to the words "community care". The White Paper manages to run to more than 100 pages on the NHS without a single proposal for better patient care in the community. That is a failure that fully matches the deplorable failure of the Government to respond to the Griffiths report one year and two months after its publication. If the Secretary of State wishes to tell us that we must now wait for another White Paper, I shall cheerfully give way to him for the fifth time so that he can name the date when the Government will give their response to the report.—That has managed to silence even this Secretary of State.
Every now and again we see the consequences of this neglect. Last night I sat in the Library and read yesterday's report by the British Geriatrics Society on the abuse or elderly people. It makes harrowing reading. It contains case histories of frail, elderly people, battered and bruised in body and emotions, and often abused by close caring relatives who have been driven to distraction by the strain of constant attendance without break, sleep or help.
I was particularly moved by the case of a daughter who gave up her flat to move in with her mother and sleep on her sofa. The daughter was finally found trying to strangle

1037
her mother with a towel after a day in which, in 24 hours, she had been called 17 times to lift her mother on and off the commode.
This type of condition is the major challenge facing the health and social services at the end of this century. We must provide care and nursing for the growing number who find themselves in conditions that cannot be cured but for whom appropriate services and support from the Health Service can make the difference between pain, squalor and isolation on the one hand, and comfort, dignity and a life of interest on the other. The White Paper is wholly silent on how we should assist these people.
Only one help is offered for the health care of the elderly—the tax relief for private medical cover. No one could read the report by the British Geriatrics Society and still believe that this proposal is relevant to a single one of the case histories I have mentioned. It is a proposal as fatuous in its irrelevance to the real health needs of the elderly as it is central to the political dogma of Conservative Members.
Here we come to the real threat posed by the White Paper. It would be a mistake to judge it as no more than a ragbag of wrong-headed impractical proposals, full of glaring omissions. There is a thread that holds it together. To do the Secretary of State justice, he has a strategy. His strategic objective is to destabilise the National Health Service and replace it with a commercial one. It is a strategy that is not difficult to spot. It keeps breaking to the surface all the way through the White Paper. It breaks through in the suggestion that opt-out hospitals should use NHS facilities for private patients, in the suggestion that general practitioners should use NHS money to buy private treatment for their patients and in the obligation on health authorities to give equal preference to private hospitals in awarding contracts for medical treatment.
We are at the start of a long journey. We can already see where we will end up—with market medicine as it is practised across the Atlantic, where 30 million Americans have no medical cover, where health means organisations are put on the second floor to discourage expensive, disabled people from enrolling, and where patients die in casualty rooms while the accountant is finding out who will pay for them.
If that does not move Conservative Members, let me warn them about what happens to well-heeled people like the people whom they represent. American women are twice as likely to have their wombs removed as British women. American men are two and a half times more likely to have their prostate rebored as are British men, and three times more likely to have their gall bladders removed. That is not because they have any greater need for those operations but because the people who sell the operations believe in what they sell. When a doctor examines a patient, he comes to the conclusion, "Your gall bladder is worth more to me than it is to you." Market medicine gives the worst of both worlds. It denies the poor and the unhealthy the treatment that they need, and it cons the healthy and the wealthy into treatment that they do not need.
We are in danger of losing a Health Service that is motivated by dedication and replacing it with one that is driven by financial targets. We have had plenty of occasions recently to note the danger of what we will lose
1038
and how important it is. We have been able to note it in the succession of tragic events with major loss of life during the past 18 months. Hillsborough is the latest in that succession. We have had Piper Alpha, Lockerbie and Clapham. On every one of those occasions it has been the ambulancemen, the casualty departments, and the nurses of the National Health Service who have turned out to handle the emergency. It is to them that we turn on such occasions.
The Prime Minister has been assiduous in visiting each disaster. On every occasion she has been good enough to say how wonderful the emergency services have been, as they were, but they are just as wonderful between disasters on every other day of the year when they do not provide the opportunity for a photo call. If those services are to be there when they are needed, we have to sustain them all the year round. We must give them the resources that they need to do the job. We must heed the advice that they offer on the future of the service. Above all, we must give them the commitment that we believe in the service that they provide. It is because right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side do not believe in that service that we will vote against them tonight.
5.52 pm
Sir Gerard Vaughan: Because so many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall speak only briefly. There was a great deal of laughter, particularly from the Opposition Benches, during the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I found what he was saying distressing; and it was increasingly distressing as he went on. I worked for the whole of my life in the National Health Service until I came to the House.[Interruption.] I will not indulge in the sort of remarks that have just been made.
What troubled and distressed me, and should distress the whole House, was the constant attempt of the hon. Member for Livingston to undermine people's faith in the Health Service and to create anxiety among people who do not understand what is happening and alarm in places where it should not exist. I would have expected from the spokesman for the Opposition a much more serious look at what the Secretary of State has recommended.
May I remind hon. Members that the National Health Service was started on an all-party basis? Today the Opposition are attempting to undermine the service. [Interruption.] Yes. They are a backward-looking, unserious group of people who are not taking proper account of what has been proposed by the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Livingston quoted the Conservative Medical Society. I was at the meeting to which he referred. What he said was a total travesty of what happened. My right hon. and learned Friend will agree. I am an honorary consultant at Guy's; what the hon. Gentleman said about attitudes within Guy's was also a complete travesty of what is happening in the hospital. When he goes round hospitals I wonder whom he talks to. Is it only his union chums, who wish to be activists within the Health Service? They are not the people who talk me.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is disputing whom my hon. Friend speaks for. Do you think that in the course of his remarks he will make a disclosure

1039
of his interests which, according to the Register of Members' Interests, include the directorship of Private Medical Centres plc and the joint chairmanship of Spahealth Ltd.? Do you think that in his trip down memory lane the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that he has those relevant interests which bear directly on the debate?
Mr Deputy Speaker: The House knows that it is customary for hon. Members to declare their interests during debates.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: I have nothing to say. They would not be in the Register of Members' Interests if I was worried about them. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary interventions prolong debate and waste valuable time.
Mr. Allan Rogers: on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman also has strong connections with the British pharmaceutical industry. Will he declare those interests before proceeding with his speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We had better let the hon. Gentleman get on with the speech.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said at the start, I propose to speak briefly. I wish to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on what he is proposing for the National Health Service. He is putting forward his proposals with great courage and determination. A great many doctors and nurses have been talking to me and telephoning me to tell me how much they support my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals.
Some doctors have been telephoning me not to criticise what my right hon. Friend has proposed but to ask what it all means. That is where part of the problem lies. The Secretary of State is putting forward very complicated proposals that are difficult to understand. They need much explanation. Opposition Members find it easy to use them to misrepresent people's attitudes.
Mr. Harry Greenway: No doubt my hon. Friend will consider the question of resources. Will he draw attention to the £2 billion to £3 billion more that is going into the Health Service in the current year? [Interruption.] The Labour party is wearing its heart on its sleeve about resources—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many speeches going on.
Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour council in Ealing put up the rates on Ealing hospital by £500,000 two years ago and that it is putting them up by another £500,000 this year? Labour does not care.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is talking about evolution. Opposition Members do not seem to realise that, as the proposals in the White Paper are put into effect, so the situation will change.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that some Scottish Members have been inundated with letters about the ending of the care attendance schemes in September?
1040
Those schemes have given carers the respite that they need to enable them to continue caring for their mums and dads and sons and daughters at home rather than have them go into hospital, yet the Government are deaf and dumb in the matter. They have not come to the aid of those carers or of the patients that they look after. There has been no emphasis on community care. I do not like to criticise hon. Members who are sincere, but they must look at what we are seeing. I am being sincere when I say that the Government are condemning many carers who cannot take any more. Please take that into consideration.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: I know in whose hands the NHS is safest—my right hon. and learned Friend's.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right when he says that the introduction of more information and of medical and clinical audits will change the situation. For the first time, people will begin to know where the money is being spent and where there are places for the treatment of their patients.
Recently, in my constituency, I had the problem of a lady who required a hip operation and was kept awake every night in pain. The waiting list in our locality for that operation is two and a half years. When I asked the health authority to inquire where else she could go it could not provide that information. It did not have the resources to find out where she might go. I had to phone round and find a hospital where she could be admitted virtually immediately. That should not be done by a Member for Parliament; it should be done as a matter of course by the local health authority, and that will be possible when the information comes through in the way that my right hon. and learned Friend has proposed.
No doctor would object to a medical audit. It is agreed on all sides that they would be of benefit to us. It is regarded in the same way as a consultant regards a second opinion. If it agrees with him, it strengthens his hand, and, if it disagrees with him, he is interested to know why somebody thinks the job could be done better in a different way.
I shall not go on any further. I know that Opposition Members will be pleased because they do not want to hear too much from someone who has been working in the field. Anyone who goes round the hospitals, as I do, will hear people complaining about the frustration created by delays and the waste under the present system.
My right hon. and learned Friend was right to remind us of what is going on overseas. That is relevant because every other major country is facing the same sort of problems that we in Britain face. Unless we face up to that, we shall not have the services or the reduced waiting lists that we wish. Therefore, I strongly support what my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to do in this difficult area.
6.2 pm
Mr. John P. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you and hon. Members will bear with me while I make my maiden speech in the course of this important debate. I should like to start by thanking you and all hon. Members for the wonderful welcome that I was given on Tuesday when I took my seat and also to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the individual welcomes that I have received. I hope that the warmth that has been shown towards me will continue for many years.

1041
It is customary in a maiden speech to pay tribute to one's predecessor and, if possible, to avoid controversy. The first custom I am sure that I can meet without difficulty, but I am not so sure about the second custom, given the controversial nature of the debate. But I thought that a safe formula would be to refer to my predecessor's maiden speech in 1951. Unfortunately, it was controversial. Sir Raymond Gower referred not only to the burning issue in Wales of devolution, but to the unbalanced economy and the adverse effect that that was having on his constituency and south Wales.
Therefore, I went even further back, to the maiden speech of Dame Dorothy Rees. Surprise, surprise, I found that she discussed the crisis in housing, homelessness and the problem of eviction, a major issue at the time, and the unbalanced economy. I was going to go back even further until I was told that Lynn Ungoed Thomas was an expert on the NHS and its introduction, so I thought that it might be better to miss that as well.
It is a great privilege for me to pay tribute to Sir Raymond Gower. He commanded tremendous respect within his constituency for 38 years, not least my respect as I had the honour of standing against him at the last general election. During that time, he helped his constituents tremendously. He was definitely a consensus politician and most certainly a one-nation politician. That is why he gained so much respect.
The best tribute that I can pay to the man is to refer to an experience that I had in 1979 when I contested a local election and we had the general election at the same time. I was canvassing for myself when I knocked on the door of a family who referred to themselves as Labour supporters all their lives. They said that they would vote for me in the local election but for Sir Raymond in the general election. I asked why. Surprisingly, they did not say that it was because he had helped them on a particular issue or that he was a good constituency Member of Parliament. Instead they said, "He is a friend of the family." For constituents to refer to their Member of Parliament as a friend is a great tribute, and if I can live up to that I shall be very proud indeed.
My constituency is a beautiful one, as many hon. Members know, having been there in the past three or four weeks. It is made up of the industrial town of Barry, which is celebrating its centenary this year and comprises approximately 50 per cent. of the population, and the beautiful rural Vale of Glamorgan with its rolling green hills, lush farmland and one or two nice suburbs.
My constituency has done reasonably well. It enjoys a higher than average household income and wealth in Wales, and the majority of people there consider themselves middle class. That was why I was delighted to be elected by them last week.
I have no doubt that one of the major issues in that election—in fact, the major issue—was the NHS. The matter is simple. With few exceptions, one's level of income or social status do not matter. My constituents, and, I believe, the British public, recognise that private medicine cannot meet the nation's health needs. In particular, it cannot meet the health needs of the chronically sick, the disabled and the elderly. That message came across clearly during my campaign.
1042
My constituents were not concerned just about the reform of the NHS. My constituency already has major long-standing health issues with which to deal. For example, my constituency does not have a major casualty unit and that is completely unacceptable. It is dangerous in two ways. First, people have to travel long distances to receive emergency treatment, and, secondly, should there be an emergency or accident in the home, mums will often wait until the following morning to go to the local part-time minor casualty unit, thinking that they are doing the best thing by not putting pressure on the Health Service. That can be dangerous, because the hours immediately after a knock, a scrape or an accident are important.
We do not have, and have not had for some time, an adequate ambulance service in the constituency. In the western Vale of Glamorgan, one ambulance serves the entire area between 6 pm and 10 pm and between 12 midnight and 8 am. If there is more than one emergency, it has to be decided to which one to send the ambulance, and I have pointed out the problem of long distances. It was heart-rending when, during the by-election campaign, I spoke to a local lady, Mrs. Margaret Taylor, who told me how she lay in the road in Llantwit Major town centre for 45 minutes awaiting the arrival of an ambulance following a road accident.
In addition, we are faced with the proposed closure of the children's orthopaedic unit in Rhydlafar hospital, which is on the border of my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) but which is used by my constituents. We are also faced with a proposal to shut the most popular hospital in the Vale of Glamorgan, Sully hospital, because clearly, in view of its location, it is a prime development site. It is a beautiful hospital and my constituents do not want it to be closed.
The proposed reforms in the White Paper were the icing on the cake. All the problems to which I have referred are problems of under-funding and none of them will be met by the proposals in the White Paper. Indeed, when I had the privilege of having a private meeting with general practitioners in the constituency, before making any reference to the proposals in the White Paper they made it clear that under-funding was the major problem facing the NHS.
It has been a privilege to have this opportunity to make a short and non-controversial speech in a most important debate. I wish to thank my hon. Friends for all the help that they gave me during the by-election campaign, and I extend special thanks to the Secretary of State for Health for the assistance that he gave me. I look forward to making far more controversial speeches in the future.
6.12 pm
Sir Barney Hayhoe: The hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who has come to the House after a memorable by-election victory, has lived up to the traditions of the House in every way in his maiden speech. He spoke with great fluency and absolute sincerity. His speech highlighted local issues of great concern and he paid a most gracious tribute to his predecessor, Raymond Gower, who was a well-loved colleague of hon. Members in all parts of the House and

1043
of the staff at all levels. I am not sure how long the hon. Gentleman will remain here, but we shall be eager to hear him again, perhaps in a more controversial mood.
Before dealing with the main issue of the debate, I must first declare my interest with a pharmaceutical company, as outlined in the Register.
What a contrast there was in the opening speeches. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a reasonably argued and realistic speech about improving patient care. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on the other hand, used his considerable skills to make some amusing cracks, which we enjoyed, some political points, but little else, apart from a moving section concerned with community care.
I imagine that hon. Members on both sides are waiting anxiously to hear the Government's response to the Griffiths report, which was published in the middle of March last year. It is important for the Government to declare their position soon on the important matters raised in that report.
The fundamental issue facing the nation is how to improve our highly cost-effective—at least compared with other systems of health care in other countries—National Health Service. The service can of course be improved, and must be made better able to meet the increasing needs of patients, needs which have been amplified by demographic factors and by the pressure of medical advance. More attention must be concentrated on prevention. We do not have a National Health Service so much as a national illness service. The more that we can move towards a genuine Health Service, by dealing with prevention, the better.
Mr. Michael J. Martin rose—
Sir Barney Hayhoe: I normally give way but I will not on this occasion. More than 90 Minutes of the time available for the debate has already been used by the Front Bench speakers. Mr. Speaker has appealed for short speeches because so many hon. Members are anxious to take part.
The White Paper contains much that is good but, regrettably, too much that is questionable and ill-defined. Although the review arose from the funding crisis in the NHS of 1987–88, the White Paper says little, if anything, about money. To borrow a comment from a distinguished former Prime Minister, it is a menu without prices.
I am quick to welcome the increased funding that was announced by the Secretary of State this afternoon to help with some of the proposals in the White Paper, and I welcome the substantially increased resources for the NHS announced in the White Paper on public expenditure. But the White Paper that we are discussing is not only a menu without prices; it is a menu with attractive dishes, some without recipes and others untried and untested.
The White Paper is strong on objectives. Who can quarrel with seeking to improve consumer choice, with pressure to achieve higher standards and extended medical audits, with exerting market pressures to try to ensure the most effective use of resources, with more local control, whether in hospitals or elsewhere in the service, and with measures designed to use more effectively the taxpayers' money that is devoted to the NHS?
The White Paper is, however, weak on detail. The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the serious and notable omission of anything about community care. As I said,
1044
more must come from the Government soon for that area. The White Paper is a brilliant piece of Civil Service drafting because it is capable of sharply differing interpretations by those who read it.
True to form, the Opposition parties have gone over the top with their criticisms and forecasts of doom and disaster, never recognizing—they have not said a word about this today—that if their economic policies had been pursued, the resources to provide improved health care, better education and improved social security benefits would not have been available. One must always remember that we are able to devote more resources to these services because of the success of our economic policies.
Not surprisingly, the response of the British Medical Association, the doctors' trade union, was shrill. However, the considered criticisms made by the Joint Consultants Committee deserve careful consideration. The JCC speaks on behalf of the royal colleges and its views must be taken carefully into account by the Ministers concerned. The consultants' co-operation is of the highest importance in any change within or development of the Health Service. The Government's decision to reject the recommendation in the doctors' and dentists' pay review body award of £1,000 extra for consultants was a perverse and curious way of seeking those consultants' co-operation with the reforms that lay ahead.
The White Paper is capable of differing interpretations. The subject of drug budgets was referred to a few minutes ago in a slightly acrimonious exchange. The White Paper makes it clear that drug budgets for GPs and for practices are indicative. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has emphasised time and time again that no patient will be denied required medication because of lack of money. However, there is a basic inconsistency between that clear statement and the firm drug budgets that will be imposed on regions and on family practitioner committees.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor)indicated dissent.
Sir Barney Hayhoe: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister shakes his head, but I have yet to see spelt out any assurance to the contrary. I shall be very pleased if that is given. It appears that, because mention has been made of firm budgets at the regional level—my right hon. and learned Friend himself used the phrase "cash-limited"—those outside the House have interpreted that as overriding my right hon. and learned Friend's comments about indicative budgets and there being no possibility of a patient suffering as a result of them.
Mr. Mellor rose—
Sir Barney Hayhoe: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to finish making this point.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State stresses, quite rightly, the vital point that general practitioners will not run out of money for their patients' prescriptions and that there is no question of their scrips bouncing when they are presented at the chemist, as would a cheque if no resources were available to meet it. Nevertheless the dilemma remains, and it would be helpful if it could be resolved.
I remember well that when I served in the Treasury and in the Department of Health and Social Security, the

1045
Treasury was always seeking to cash-limit the drug budget. In seeking to control public expenditure, obviously it would do so. However, the reference in the White Paper to firm drug budgets for the Health Service as a whole and at the regional level owes nothing to the Department of Health but I suspect was inserted by the Treasury representative. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has repeatedly stressed the importance of general practitioners remaining unconstrained by cash limits. I am happy to leave it at that.
Mr. Mellor rose—
Sir Barney Hayhoe: The same rule must apply to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister as to others. He will have an opportunity to respond when he winds up.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on reaching agreement on a contract for GPs. This matter should not have been muddled up with the White Paper anyway. I shall not apportion blame, but it is a pity that the contract could not have been got out of the way before publication of the White Paper. It is splendid that agreement has now been reached. I only hope that, when the members of the BMA meet in larger numbers, they will not disown their negotiators. That would be very serious and would damage the prospect of making real progress in improving health care in this country.
My right hon. and learned Friend made reference to another dilemma when he spoke about the speed at which the proposals could be implemented. The White Paper is clearly unrealistic in its apparent time scales. I am glad that the words now being used by Ministers appear to qualify these timings. Professor Alan Williams of the centre for health economics at York university, in commenting on the proposals for improving the efficiency of the NHS, stated that they
"have much to commend them. But they are thrown together with all sorts of untried ideas, and set for implementation in a recklessly short time span, mostly without pilot testing, experimentation or evaluation. Pursued in a more deliberative and selective manner, with time for the collection of evidence and mature reflection, they could do the NHS a lot of good. Pursued with such haste, in this authoritarian and dictatorial manner, it just seems irresponsible."
My right hon. and learned Friend confirms that pilot projects and controlled experiments are not buzz words either at Richmond house or at No. 10 Downing street —but perhaps staged implementation or realistic programmes will be adopted. They are essential for success. Steady progress and development are better than a wild rush to upheaval—and perhaps to electoral disaster.
I am glad that the White Paper contains none of the wilder radical proposals for overturning the present, largely tax-funded, basis of a Health Service that is available to all and free at the point of delivery.
I have sought to make it clear that I am not all that enamoured by the White Paper. Parts of it could certainly have been much better, but it could have been much worse. At least it is clear that its desirable objectives provide a basis for sensible and reasonable development and for discussion between Ministers, civil servants and representatives of the professions. I am prepared to give my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt—perhaps I should say of many doubts—as I
1046
believe that we both want a better National Health Service providing better patient care. With good will, that objective can command general support.
6.27 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: There has been attack, counter-attack, accusation following accusation, words spoken, written and shouted about the National Health Service review and its implications, which has led to the burying of the reasons for that review in the first place. Not long ago, the House was in the throes of a debate about the Health Service crisis in response to the almost nightly scenes of young children, the elderly, and other seriously ill and chronically sick patients being refused admission to our hospitals and to the life-saving treatment that they desperately needed. All that was the result of a lack of beds and resources. We all agree that that situation was brought about by systematic and chronic underfunding. A consequence of those debates and of the general furore over the crisis in the hospital services was that the Prime Minister announced a thorough and extensive review of NHS resources.
One year later, we find not only a White Paper full of holes and omissions that are not filled by the working papers, but one that fails to examine in any detail the financing and funding of the country's Health Service. There is no commitment to inject new resources; merely a tinkering at the edges with the old by transferring them from one area to another, including in and out of the private sector, in the hope that this will in some way cut costs while improving services. This purely a pipe dream.
The Health Service needs more hard and ready cash. Just this week, the National Association of Health Authorities has provided evidence that the review completely ignores. Its report shows an underfunding in England alone of £490 million this year with cumulative underfunding of £billion. Those figures show that the pressures on the National Health Service are continuing at an alarming rate and are likely to do so in the foreseeable future—something of which those who work in and those who use the service are very well aware.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the lack of any commitment to the adequate funding of these services is clear from the Government's White Paper. This has led patients and professionals to believe that the review was designed not to improve care but to cut costs.
Mr. Philip Hunt of the National Association of Health Authorities, which is by no means a blanket critic of the review, is reported to have said:
"It is very vital for the government to recognise and understand this history of financial pressures on health authorities if the reforms proposed by the white paper are to be successful or for the benefit of patients."
There has been much publicity over the opposition by doctors to the Government White Paper. I know that many of my hon. Friends have received very many letters and have been besieged by general practitioners and hospital doctors all expressing their concerns. But perhaps Dr. F. J. Parkinson of Redditch, who is not at all impressed by the Government's commitment to funding, is the best example. In a letter to the newspaper Pulse on 6 May this year, he wrote:
"I believe that the NHS review is a smokescreen for the underlying problem with the NHS. As the Commons Select Committee so rightly stated, the service is grossly underfunded. The proposals do nothing to tackle this problem and offer little that will benefit ordinary patients."

1047
The writer describes himself as a member of the Conservative Medical Society. He continues:
"As a Conservative I feel very ashamed at the manner in which the review has been presented—the white paper is a thoroughly bad document. The schemes outlined are vague, untried and really do not seem likely to benefit patients."
It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with a Conservative gentleman, but in this case I am in complete agreement.
My own stand on the matter of resources for the NHS has never been in doubt. I have often said, and said in the House, that how much a country can afford to pay for its health service is a matter of political will. We can afford a lot more than we are paying now and I would like to see a minimum of 2 per cent. increase over and above the NHS pay and price inflator on a long-term plan. I would like to see pay awards fully funded and proper provision made for any reforms or projects that the Government introduce. For instance, I would have no hesitation in committing Social and Liberal Democrats to fully funding the restructuring of the nurses' profession along the lines of Project 2000.
While on the subject of funding, I want to make it clear that Social and Liberal Democrats continue to oppose and would like to see abolished the recent tax relief to the elderly for private health insurance. We would also like to see the charges for eye tests and teeth checks abolished immediately and, in the long term, all such charges dispensed with.
One of the biggest failures of the White Paper is the total lack of costing of any of the proposals. This is very odd coming from a Government which prides itself on the use of marketplace methods. It is even more strange to watch the full-blown attempts to sell the product when the Government have no idea of the cost of the product, whether there is a market for it or, worse still, if the product is capable of working at all. It is even more disconcerting when I realise that it is my and other taxpayers' money that is paying for this folly.
I cannot understand why the Government did not attempt to test this product first. Is the Prime Minister concerned that pilot projects may show too many faults in the design, or is it due to sheer arrogance that pilot schemes have not been introduced? Worse still—I hesitate to make such a suggestion—is it that the proposals are all part and parcel of the Prime Minister's proclaimed aim to roll back the state, and will it therefore be implemented whatever the cost, in both financial and human terms?
Ministers justify these proposals with claims that they will improve patient choice and patient care. I agree that it may be easier for patients to change doctors but, with doctors rushing to increase their list sizes and incentives given to encourage them to form large group practices, how much choice will the average patient have? How many doctors will be within easy reach? How many of them will be women? There are patients who prefer to see a women doctor but, with the pressures to increase list sizes, many women will find it difficult to run or even join a practice, as has been mentioned already. In rural areas—this was referred to in the debate the other night—where doctors are few and far between, choice is already limited and will remain so.
In 1983, the Social Services Committee recommended an optimum list size of 1,700. Will the Minister tell me what has changed since that time? Social and Liberal
1048
Democrats believe that doctors need to spend time with their patients, and we would seek to lower the list size at present proposed.
Primary health teams with greater involvement for district and practice nurses, midwives and health visitors would free the doctor for more active diagnostic and preventive medicine and create a real community health service—a concept obviously alien to the authors of the present proposals.
The White Paper makes little provision for particular groups, such as the elderly, many of whom rely on community-based health services. Where is the guarantee of choice and improved care for them? In many respects the proposals may lead to a reduction in services as a result of hospitals becoming self-governing trusts.
These proposals will diminish health care in the hospital catchment area. Core services are imprecise and the term "local area" is not defined, making it very difficult to know whether people will have access to a full range of services within their own area. As the market and profit play a vital part in the Government's view of the Health Service, it is doubtful whether the present range of services will stay intact. This is even more doubtful when it comes to resource-draining services such as geriatric arid long-stay care.
The White Paper takes very little account of discharge procedures, after-care services, ambulance and transport services and many other aspects of patient care.
Major hospitals opting to become self-governing trusts will have a knock-on effect on other hospitals and services. The problems of lack of funding, lack of staff and poor pay will be shifted round the country, which will merely exacerbate them. Already many hospitals are suffering not only from a shortage of nursing staff but from shortages in all staff groups. The private sector, as well as other industries, contribute to this shortage. Obviously, hospitals not restricted by national pay agreements will attract the most qualified staff, making it very difficult for other hospitals in the same area or adjoining areas to attract the necessary personnel.
I know that the university medical schools are very concerned about how this proposal will affect their interrelations and responsibilities. They, of course, play a very important part in teaching, training and research. Centres of excellence will destroy the aim of universal provision of health care and the concept of a community-based comprehensive Health Service.
Dr. Michael Clark: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the creation of centres of excellence will destroy universal provision. Surely the whole idea of such centres—whether they specialise in health care, science, education or any other subject—is to set examples for others, and a centre of excellence in the Health Service will provide such an example. It will lift the quality of provision, and should not be criticised.
Mr. Fearn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I was criticising. Centres of excellence already exist which are doing a good job. I feel, however, that my point is a good one.
The Government are embarking on a course that has not been navigated. Ray Robinson of the King's Fund Institute, writing in the British Medical Journal, has said:
"Self governing hospitals will represent an untried form of organisation operating within an untested market environment."

1049
He continues:
"The white paper is about implementation not experimentation."
The review is certainly not about patients and health care. It is about management systems, accounting and information systems, and virtually nothing else. It ignores community care and the effects that the proposals will have on such services. Social and Liberal Democrats believe that community care should be a major priority for any Government, and we would introduce proposals along the lines of those recommended by Griffiths—which we consider solid and strong—with a commitment to provide adequate funds.
Where in the proposals is the "broad front" approach that Social and Liberal Democrats believe is so necessary for good health promotion? Where does it mention accident prevention, occupational health, social policy and environmental pollution, among other issues? Where does it discuss additional taxes on industries whose products lead to ill health?
Where is the patients' charter—mentioned in three speeches so far—to show that the Government really have the patients' interests at heart? We should like to see a guarantee of patients' rights, including the right to full information about their own medical condition and the options for treatment, the right to hospital treatment within a specified period and the right of access to a comprehensive complaints procedure. Where are the proposals to allow a patient to choose one of the alternative disciplines in medicine and treatment? Where is the choice of care for pregnant women? The White Paper virtually ignores maternity care and midwifery.
Where in working paper No. 5 is the guarantee that NHS buildings, of which most date back to 1918, will be brought up to an acceptable standard? We believe that an ambitious building programme is required to bring those buildings into the 21st century. In my constituency, Southport, a new hospital was opened last week by His Royal Highness Prince Charles. That hospital is the latest in the country and is exceptionally good: it will be a centre of excellence. We are very lucky, but many others are not so lucky.
Where in the proposals is the chapter on democracy and accountability? Social and Liberal Democrats believe that there should be a decentralisation of power in the Health Service, along with decentralisation of accountability. Elected representatives of the public should be involved in supervising the management of services.
At best the review is totally inadequate and a missed opportunity; at worst it will destroy the basic principles of our National Health Service. I would, however, commend it for one reason: it has united the nation in opposition.
6.43 pm
Sir David Price: One of the documents referred to on the Order Paper as relevant to our debate is the fifth report from the Select Committee on Social Services. I suggest to hon. Members who are not entirely enamoured of the White Paper that they may prefer to rally round the consensus politics contained in the Committee's 64 conclusions and recommendations. We reported seven months before the Government produced
1050
their White Paper, and having read the White Paper more than once—as well as the eight working documents—I still prefer our report.
Let me join every other hon. Member who has spoken so far in complaining that the White Paper says nothing about care in the community. The subtitle of the White Paper is "The Health Service: Caring for the 1990s", yet 14 months after the Griffiths report the Government are still saying that they will tell us "quite soon." In my view, community care is central to a future strategy for the Health Service.
I think that most people who have studied the service over the years will agree that it has handled critical cases remarkably efficiently; their criticisms relate to deficiencies in the treatment of chronic cases. The majority of such cases are not in hospitals but out in the community, and with the "greying" of Britain they are becoming increasingly significant. Put in supermarket terms, it is the rising problem of the shelf life of us oldies. I trust that I carry the House with me when I say that future policy on community care is mainstream in any sound strategy for health care as a whole.
As you have invited us to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with only one point. In my view the central proposal in the White Paper is the concept of an internal market within a publicly financed Health Service. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes that, by introducing the spur of competition—that is the phrase that he uses—by distributing funds for health care through a system of contractual relationships and by separating purchasing from providing bodies, the Government will make the NHS more efficient and services for patients—now to be regarded as consumers—will improve. That, I think, is a fair potted version of the essence of the White Paper.
This is an entirely new method of distributing health care. I am aware of no example elsewhere in the world of such an internal market within the public sector. It is therefore an entirely unproven proposition, which is why, in its report last July, the Select Committee recommended caution and trial. We said:
"If the concept of the internal market is to be taken further, it will require to be very carefully planned, monitored and assessed to ensure that too high a price is not paid for its benefits. It should not be introduced nationally before thorough piloting has been done."
That remains my view.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has thought about pilot schemes and has so far rejected them. I beg him to think again, particularly as the Health Service has not sufficient accountants, computer staff, personnel managers or contract managers to move at the pace that he intends. Let me remind him of what the late Lord Hugh Cecil wrote as long ago as 1912 in his famous book on "Conservatism":
"The surgeon dissects a dead body before he operates on a living one and operates upon an animal before he operates upon a human being: the mechanic makes a working model and tests it before he builds the full-sized machine. Every step is, whenever possible, tested by experiment in these matters before risks are run. In this way the unknown is robbed of most of its terrors".
That is precisely what my right hon. and learned Friend has failed to do. He has not robbed the unknown of most of its terrors, as the reactions of the medical and nursing professions have shown. His basic premise that the

1051
introduction of competition in to the National Health Service will ensure a better deal for patients is highly questionable. It is certainly unproven.
I refer the House to what the Financial Times said in its leader on 21 April:
"The United States, the country with the most competitive system, has by far the highest costs: it spends around 12 per cent. of GDP on health care compared with 8 to 9 per cent. in Europe. Britain, the country with the least competitive system, has the lowest costs, spending less than 6 per cent. of GDP. Yet there is no evidence that the average Briton is less healthy than the average West German or American. Nor is the United Kingdom record on innovation poor: in many fields the treatment available in the United Kingdom is among the best in the world."
Thus the basic premise of my right hon. and learned Friend's White Paper that increased competition will provide better health care remains totally unproven. The NHS would be once again reorganised, this time on an unproven premise. I do not know whose bright idea it was —some anonymous economic guru? I respect my right hon. and learned Friend's common sense too much to ascribe authorship of the White Paper to him. I have a feeling that he is arguing a dock brief.
Does that mean that nothing should be done about the known weaknesses of the National Health Service? Certainly not. I remind the House of what we said in the Select Committee report last July:
"Our principal recommendation in this Report is that the strengths of the National Health Service should not be cast aside in a short term effort to remedy some of its weaknesses. At present it is not possible to demonstrate which of the weaknesses of the National Health Service are a consequence of lack of funding and which reflect institutional deficiencies."
We went on to declare:
"A programme of persistent improvement … will provide a more effective way forward for the National Health Service than the search for a radical reconstruction of the service".
That may seem to my right hon. and learned Friend to be too slow a way of reforming the National Health Service. He appears to be a Secretary of State in a hurry, but what is the hurry? The National Health Service is not collapsing around his head.
I repeat my warning to my right hon. and learned Friend not to cast aside the strengths of the National Health Service in a short-term effort to remedy some of its weaknesses. I ask him to reflect upon the Aesop fable of the tortoise and the hare. He may fancy himself as the hare in the outside track, but I remind him that the tortoise won that famous race. My right hon. and learned Friend must try to carry public opinion with him, especially the medical and nursing professions, many of whom are not employees but independent contractors within the service.
I am not convinced that my constituents wish to see their GPs become born-again competitors, let alone medical yuppies. If the House thinks that I exaggerate, let me quote from my right hon. and learned Friend's speech to the annual dinner of the Royal College of General Practitioners:
"So in the coming months I will be asking patients to ignore the complaints of GPs who are reluctant to compete. GPs are being asked to compete for each individual's custom as a patient and they are being asked to compete for each individual's money as a taxpayer. We will all get an even better standard of service from those who compete successfully".
I wonder whether we will. A good bedside manner or a good bazaar manner—I know which I prefer and which my constituents prefer.
1052
I therefore beg my right hon. and learned Friend to abandon his ambitious idea to be a hare, to be a pace-setter, and to content himself with being a good, efficient tortoise. I invite him to take his time about the proposed reforms; to initiate some pilot schemes; to add a lot of green edges to his White Paper; and above all to consult and discuss with an open mind. If he bounds ahead at his present pace, he may well end up not a victorious hare, but politically a jugged hare. That would be very nasty for him. It is not a fate I would wish upon him. I invite him to join us tortoises.
6.54 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Unlike at least one Conservative Member, I wish to declare an interest. I am the joint president of Manufacturing, Science and Finance—a union with 40,000 members ranging from consultants to professional white collar workers, junior hospital doctors and GPs. I also speak on behalf of the 625,000 other members of the union and their families who use the National Health Service.
I have followed the Secretary of State's career with great interest. I have seen him in the Department of Health, I have seen him as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the Department of Trade and Industry and I have seen him back at the Department of Health. Today he seemed most uncomfortable. He appeared to be what he is by profession, a barrister, reading a brief with which he was not particularly happy. He did not give us the answers that we were waiting to hear and, as we have heard, he did not provide the answers that his hon. Friends expected. The best advice I can give the Secretary of State is to go away and think again.
No right hon. or hon. Member would deny that there is room for improvement in the National Health Service. It is highly successful and cost-effective, but we must always consider the priorities. The National Health Service demands money. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said, Britain spends a smaller proportion of GDP on the National Health Service than other European countries do, certainly less than our fellow members of the EEC, except Spain, Portugal and Greece. Surely we do not want to be reduced to that level.
I believe that by providing a universal Health Service, we provide a better service than other European countries. Certainly it is extremely efficient. The White Paper does not take into account what is at stake. The National Health Service is treating people. We are not dealing with items on a production line. The White Paper is all about cost-efficiency. It is not about providing more resources and, of course, it will lead to higher administrative costs but not a better service to the people who use it.
When the Secretary of State was discussing the White Paper—and there was very little discussion of it—why were the people who use the Health Service not consulted? I suggest that had the people who use the Service been consulted, quite a different White Paper would have been presented to us today. If the Secretary of State had consulted those who use the National Health Service he would know their opinion. I see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is in his place. No doubt he will make a speech later. I do not know whether he uses the Health Service, but certainly the Ministers at the Department of Health do not use it, apart from the Secretary of State who always claims to do so.

1053
It is a great pity that Ministers do not use the service more, especially the Prime Minister. If they did, we should have a different White Paper. If people had been consulted, they would have said that rather than urging GPs to have bigger lists, it would have been better to have a reduction in the number of people each GP treats, so that hard-working GPs would have more time for each patient.
I will now deal, specifically, with the proposals in the White paper. Paragraph 2.13 says:
"Local managers…will…re-examine all areas of work to identify the most cost-effective use of professional skills…there is also scope for more cost-effective working in other professions, some of which, such as physiotherapists, speech therapists and chiropodists, make little use of non-professional helpers."
What does that mean? Does it mean that non-professional people will give physiotherapy? The mind boggles if that is the intention. Does it mean that there will be non-professional speech therapists? How will that help people with speech deficiencies? We need more speech therapists who are paid decent salaries, which is quite the opposite of the proposal.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Is my hon. Friend aware that already there are speech therapists who are, in a sense, non-professionals? Areas where the pay that speech therapists can command is low are unable to recruit them, so some hospital administrations have reclassified speech therapists as clerical and administrative workers so that they can pay them higher wages surreptitiously and so attract more staff.
Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful for that intervention. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that situation is nonsense. The truth is that the pay of speech therapists is low because it is an almost 100 per cent. female profession and that is one of the problems. Shall we have non-professional chiropodists attending to people's feet? The mind boggles.
Paragraph 3.12 says:
"NHS Hospital Trusts will be free to settle the pay and conditions of their staff, including doctors, nurses and others covered by the national pay review bodies."
What does that mean? The MSF has already been told by a leading London teaching hospital that it will pay more in certain grades, but that there will be fewer people in those grades. People such as speech therapists are already overworked and they can hardly cope with their work loads. If some of them are paid more and there is a reduction in numbers, an inferior service will be offered.
Paragraph 9.12 says:
"The Government believes that there is scope for much wider use of competitive tendering beyond the non-clinical support services".
One of the lessons already learned from competitive tendering in the Health Service is that it gives an inferior and less effective service and the person who suffers is the patient. God forbid that competitive tendering should be applied to professions.
According to today's newspapers, at least 140 hospitals are interested in opting out, which means that 200 hospital units could be affected. In Warrington district health authority, Warrington district general hospital is interested in opting out. If the core hospital opts out, it will be impossible for Warrington health authority to plan
1054
health care for an expanding area. That will be the case for many health authorities where major hospitals are intent on opting out and it will be impossible to plan health care.
Mr. Flannery: When the Secretary of State was speaking, a whole crowd of us wanted to know who would take the decision to opt out, and although he later intervened four times himself, he would not give way. We do not know whether it will be a democratic process or an undemocratic process. The Secretary of State funked the question every time and would not tell us who will take the decision to opt out.
Mr. Hoyle: I agree with my hon. Friend that we want the answer from the Dispatch Box tonight and I hope that the Minister of State will take note of our comments. From the White Paper, it appears that almost anyone can ask for opting out, including the loosely termed "leagues of friends"—whatever that means. Ultimately, it will be the Secretary of State who will decide, not the people who know about the health priorities in their area. That is the wrong way to run the Health Service, especially as it will mean that local needs will not be taken into account.
We know that the hospitals that opt out will receive a major share of resources, which will be their pay-off for opting out. If the hospitals that opt out receive more, they will attract more consultants, more nurses and more hospital staff. As a result, hospitals that have not opted out will become inferior. They will be unable to attract staff or to provide the same medical services to the people who need them. That is not a desirable state of affairs.
Until now, health authorities have been able to plan for the needs of their area. We want to retain that local input and we want them to be able to plan in that way. The White Paper says:
"Health authorities…are neither truly representative nor management bodies."
That is correct in a sense, but the White Paper proposes to take away the representative bodies by taking away the people from local authorities who serve on them. There will be five non-executive members, probably drawn from business, five executive members who are managers of the health authorities and hospitals, and a non-executive chairman.
To what extent will the new bodies be accountable for the health of the district? The Minister must give us an answer. What say will local people who use the Service and the staff have in whether local hospitals opt out? What say will they have in how the health authorities conduct their business? There will be no local input. How will local people who are patients be able to affect decisions about health care in their district? The Minister must answer that question.
Is it desirable that the managers of hospitals should be members of the governing body and so run them? If managers are below par, who will bring them up to scratch? Managers on the management body are hardly likely to bring themselves up to scratch, so surely independent people should do so. I can envisage great difficulties arising.
I might say something about all this other nonsense —for example, the suggestion that to raise money local health authorities might sell insurance services in hospitals. I suggest that the last thing that people want to be offered when they are ill in hospital is an insurance policy. An even more nonsensical suggestion is that health authorities might sell cars on hospital forecourts. I do not

1055
know where that suggestion came from, but having heard the Secretary of State try to sell his White Paper I am inclined to ask who would buy a used car from him; it would be a brave person indeed. Let us stop all this nonsense.
I think that what is in prospect is privatisation little by little. The Government are afraid of saying, "We will privatise the NHS"—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker announced that the 10 minutes rule would be applied.
Mr. Hoyle: As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have given way to one or two of my colleagues, but I shall finish my speech within my 10 minutes. I have nearly—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his allocation of time—10 minutes from 7 o'clock.
Mr. Hoyle: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am almost ready to finish. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
We shall end up with what they have in the United States—a cheque-book service with high administrative costs which takes into account people's means rather than their needs when they go for treatment. What we need in this country is a service financed—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
7.11 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: I shall confine my remarks to the proposals for self-governing hospitals. I do that because today Stepping Hill hospital, together with Stockport infirmary in my constituency, announced that it was one of six units in the north-west to express an interest in becoming self-governing. 1, for one, am mightily pleased. For many years now, I have felt that the two hospitals in my constituency offering acute services would be far better placed if they ran their own affairs, free from influence and interference from the region or from Whitehall.
I must declare an interest because long before I was elected to the House in 1983 1 was a director of a retail pharmacist. I have had an interest in health in a minor way —first as the secretary of the Conservative health committee, then as a member of the Select Committee on Social Services, then as a PPS in the old Department of Health and Social Security and now as a PPS in that most benevolent godfather to the NHS of all, the Treasury.
I have been convinced that the real power over what goes on in hospitals—in wards, operating theatres and out-patient departments—is far too remote from the people who actually administer health care. The proposals for self-governing hospitals will give units the opportunity to control their own destiny, and I am delighted to hear that Stepping Hill hospital, with Stockport infirmary, could be one of them.
The accident and emergency department, orthopaedic department and ENT facilities are at the Stockport infirmary while all the other facilities are at Stepping Hill. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will give me a little of his time to allow me to explain the difficulties that Stockport infirmary and Stepping Hill are experiencing because they are on separate sites. Between them they have 930 beds. Because they are on a split site, there is a
1056
constant parade not only of specialists but of patients between them. Not only is that far from satisfactory; it is dangerous to patients.
At present, we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance of disposing of the infirmary and I would wholeheartedly support such a move because the neighbouring Station approach in Stockport is being developed and the infirmary could be disposed of for a small fortune. The unit could then be placed on one site at Stepping Hill, thereby enhancing services and making life a great deal more satisfactory for the staff.
Despite the problems that arise because the unit is on a split site, the standard of treatment is high. The service is caring and cheerful and in recent years—as I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—the unit has come top of the north-west value-for-money league for both in-patient and out-patient cases.
I pay tribute to Fred Richards, the district health authority chairman and Peter Milnes, its general manager and to other members of the authority who have had the confidence in Stepping Hill and the Stockport infirmary to suggest them for self-governing status. If the proposal is accepted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State I have no doubt that the hospital services in Stockport will be even better for staff and patients alike and I believe that the same consideration would apply to general hospitals throughout the country.
I am convinced, as I said, that the decision-making process is far too remote. The unit in my constituency has an annual turnover of £25 million, yet a capital scheme of more than £15,000 has to be referred to the district health authority. Larger schemes go to the regional health authority, to Elephant and Castle and then to Whitehall, passing through dozens of bureaucratic hands and committees. Far too much information on day-to-day management matters is referred upwards to Richmond house and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, far too little finds its way into the hands of those who really know what is going on —the sister, the consultant and the unit manager, who constantly complain that very little of the information that they collect, which is subsequently processed, finds its way back to them. I am glad to hear that my right hon. and learned Friend has plans to correct that.
The long tail of bureaucracy will be docked when hospitals become self-governing. Information systems will be needed but it will be much easier to have an information system for a single unit than a system serving the whole of the acute hospital sector.
Staff are bound to fear the unknown; we all would. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it crystal clear, however, that the salaries of personnel will be unaffected, as will their terms and conditions, unless they opt for a package that they consider advantageous. That could well happen, as free-standing hospitals will have a keen interest in retaining the best of their staff. Today I spoke to Derek Caldwell, the excellent unit general manager of Stepping Hill about the proposals to make Stockport infirmary and the Stepping Hill hospital self-governing. He said that he looks forward to the change and to being able to provide far better conditions for the nurses who work there. He is enthusiastic about the possibility of creche and welfare facilities and better shift patterns to give those who work at the unit a better quality of life.

1057
Patients, too, are bound to be better off. Recently, I went to Belgium, and I think that my experience will be of interest to the House. In Belgium, the percentage of GDP spent on health is very similar to that spent here. Some of the hospitals are built by local communes, some by the state, some by universities and some by groups of doctors. There is a multiplicity of providers of care. The cost of treatment is met by national insurance schemes and, as here, treatment is largely free. The national insurance scheme covers virtually the whole of the population and is popular with doctors, patients and staff.
I met the chief administrator of Antwerp university hospital. I asked him, "What is happening with the waiting lists in your hospital?" He said, "What do you mean?" I said, "How long would one wait for a hip replacement?" He said, "About a week." I said, "How can they do it within that time?" He said, "If we do not do it, the hospital down the road will do it." That is precisely what my right hon. and learned Friend is proposing for patients in the United Kingdom. He has my wholehearted support. I cannot wait to support him in the Lobby tonight.
7.19 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on his fine maiden speech. He will make a major contribution in the next two years, and an even bigger contribution two years after that when our party forms a Labour Government.
A special group is affected by the proposals; I refer to disabled people. For them, the White Paper is a menacing document. The omission to mention disabled people is menacing. It demonstrates that their long-standing problems will be neglected. There is no mention in the White Paper of disability, and only a passing mention of the mentally handicapped. Bearing in mind that 6·2 million disabled people are important customers of the National Health Service, such studied neglect and total disregard is disturbing.
Despite its name, the National Health Service is not solely concerned with health. For some people, perfect health is not possible. The National Health Service rightly concerns itself with their welfare and rehabilitation and doing what it can to improve health and the quality of life.
Disabled people today are apprehensive and anxious because their needs, which are different from those with acute illnesses, will be even more neglected after the Government use their usual majority to implement their proposals. There is no reference to the serious shortage of qualified therapists whose skills do much to make disabled people's lives tolerable when their limbs malfunction.
People who need hip operations rightly get operations, but those whose limbs do not work are not given proper provision. There is no mention of staffing improvements to care for people with hearing difficulties, and there is nothing about vital support services. There is not even a suggestion of safeguards to reassure disabled people that existing services will be maintained. Let me quote one glaring example. Many people in this country need wheelchairs and artificial limbs. That service is to be incorporated into health authorities in 1991. It is not mentioned in the White Paper, either, and I do not understand why.
1058
The health of disabled people is just as important as that of anybody else. When people lose their limbs and become immobile, they will find that the Disablement Service Authority has advised general practitioners to look hard at whether artificial limbs or wheelchairs are needed. That means that they will be carefully scrutinised before they get an artificial limb or a wheelchair. They will be means-tested. What sort of Government would impose that kind of hard, steely approach on people who require that vital service? For the first time in decades, severely disabled people will have to fight to get artificial limbs or wheelchairs.
There is nothing for which the Secretary of State or his sidekick, the Minister of State, should be proud. Those people should be properly assessed, fitted with limbs and provided with wheelchairs, rather than be deprived of them. [Interruption.] There is absolutely no point in the hon. Member grinning. I am making a serious point about disabled people. There is nothing to smile about. I am accusing not the Secretary of State but one of the Government Whips.
The major deficiency of the White Paper is its failure to acknowledge and react to the importance of co-operation between the agencies that give disabled people essential support. I refer to the hospital service, primary medical care, and social service departments. All those agencies act in concert to provide whatever pattern of services is required for each disabled person. They are inextricably interlinked and intertwined. If there is reduced NHS commitment, there will be less co-operation and no certainty that essential information is transmitted and that each piece of the jigsaw will be present when it is required. As a result, a disabled person's quality of life will be diminished.
The philosophy behind the White Paper is that we will no longer aim for the best possible treatment for everyone but will focus on value for money. Of course it is right to examine and improve the efficiency of acute services. I do not blame the Secretary of State for doing that. He is quite right to attempt it. But disabled peoples' problems do not respond to the cut of the surgeon's knife. How will value for them be measured?
I hope that the Minister of State will listen to my next point, because I did him a disservice a moment ago. I want the Secretary of State also to listen. The White Paper includes some words about a Health Service being more responsible to patients' needs. However, a doctor at the BMA conference said that the White Paper proposals would act as a great disincentive to GPs to take disabled people into their practices. Their needs could fall by the wayside.
Disabled organisations are unhappy about the proposed changes that give financial incentives to doctors to have a minimum of costly patients. For example, diabetics cost £500 more a year than the average patient. If a diabetic family were to move into an area, how welcoming would a local GP be? GPs have always been the gatekeepers of hospital provision, but, for the first time, they will have an interest in restricting it. Even though most GPs are people of integrity and humanity, it is a backward step to create a system that provides incentives of precisely the wrong kind.
Before the Secretary of State gets too annoyed, I inform him that I challenged him when I said that the Minister of State had said that special provision would be made only in exceptional circumstances for chronically sick and

1059
disabled people, who would be more expensive to the Health Service. In his reply, the Secretary of State said that the Minister of State had denied using the words I had attributed to him. The Minister was right to deny those words, because they had been, in fact, used by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State was asked whether doctors would seek to remove patients from their lists on budgetary grounds. His reply included the words
"in exceptional cases adjustments will be made in respect of individual patients who need more costly treatment"—[Official Report, 4 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 85.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has had his ten minutes.
Mr. Ashley: I am sorry if I have exceeded my time. I must sit down now. If I have done any injustice to the Secretary of State, I am sure that the Minister of State will correct me.
7.30 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a comparison between operations carried out in hospitals in the United States of America and those carried out in this country. He said that a substantial number of operations carried out in American hospitals were of dubious value. I think that he was really saying that he was proud of the Health Service, because fewer such dubious operations are carried out in National Health hospitals.
I found that to be one of the hon. Gentleman's most interesting comments, because, for the first time, he was holding up a standard for the Health Service. I believe that that is of considerable value and is, perhaps, the core of the philosophy behind the Health Service, which is that the aim of the Service should be to provide medicine and treatment for everyone who needs it, based on sound medical judgment. I hope that whoever winds up for the Opposition will give an indication of whether they accept that basic philosophy of the Health Service, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Livingston. It is not simply a question of the number of operations or treatments performed; there is also the fact that necessary and useful treatment is being given to everybody who needs it.
I find it difficult to understand in the present structure of the Health Service how that standard can be obtained, and how we can be sensibly advised about the attainment of that standard, without doctors in hospitals and in general practice playing a much bigger role in determining the priorities of the Health Service, which too often are determined, in effect, by administrators and by constraints on budgets at the end of the year. Therefore, one of the features that I welcome in the White Paper is the greater potential role that will be given to consultants and to general practitioners in determining those matters within the limits, and perhaps to some extent beyond the limits, of their practices.
I believe that the principal fear to which the proposals have given rise is the fear of a significant number of patients that, as a result of the proposed indicative budgets, they will not get the medicines and the treatment that they need under the Health Service. 1 have read the White Paper and the working papers that touched upon that subject and I believe that, on a fair reading of those papers, there is no need for those people to have such fears. It is plainly not intended in the White Paper to do much
1060
more than to give a nudge to practitioners, who are or may be over-prescribing or who have the most expensive drug budgets, to consider other ways of treating their patients which are more in line with general practice and which would be equally good, and probably better, professionally. Paragraph 7.15 of the White Paper makes it clear that the White Paper's proposals are certainly not intended to prevent people from receiving the medicine that they need.
It has never been possible in the Health Service for a doctor to have unlimited powers of prescription. There have always been means of dealing in one way or another with over-prescribing. I believe that most people with whom one discusses the Health Service, and who have a good knowledge of what is going on within it, accept that there is some over-prescribing, and many think that there is a substantial amount.
Some patients feel that their doctors have not done their jobs unless they have given them a prescription at the end of their visit. It is too easy for many doctors to satisfy their patients in that respect, because they feel that that is what is required of them. Publicity is needed to encourage patients to question the treatment that their doctors recommend, to ask them to justify the medicines that they are being prescribed and to satisfy themselves that they are useful and that they will not have side effects that will nullify any benefit.
The variations in prescribing that are reported in the White Paper are striking. There are variations between £26 a head in some practices and £48 a head—nearly double —in other practices. It is clear that there is an immense variation, too, in the practices of general practitioners in referring patients to hospitals. In fact, there is a variation of as much as twentyfold. Some general practitioners do the parliamentary equivalent of hon. Members writing to the Minister on virtually every matter that comes before them. Obviously, there is room for a much more sensible practice for prescribing medicines and referring patients to hospital.
Some Opposition Members have exaggerated the rigidity of the indicative budgets, because paragraph 7.17 of the White Paper makes it clear that practices may exceed their indicative budgets for good reasons. Good reasons will be acceptable reasons for going over the top of the budget.
Taken as a whole, the fears that some hon. Members have expressed about the proposals in connection with general practitioners are exaggerated. The proposals should be applauded for the opportunities that they will give for better standards of medical practice, better prescribing and for a more sensible method of referral. Above all, they should be applauded because they will involve general practitioners and consultants much more in the determination of priorities and in the actual spending of money in the Health Service and I believe that that could be of considerable benefit to the Service.
7.40 pm
Mr. John Hughes: It is possible that the Government's White Paper would never have come to the House if the quotation above Southwark council house was enshrined above the entrance to this Chamber and reminded each hon. Member that the people's health is the highest law. Unfortunately, that philosophy is not contained in the White Paper.

1061
If there has been one constant and unchanging facet of the Government in the past 10 years, it has been their attitude towards the National Health Service and in this instance the constant has been their duplicity. The recently published White Paper is the culmination of that duplicity and it is a good illustration of the dictum that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
No one in the real world is under any illusion other than that the White Paper is simply one more step in the deconstruction of the Health Service. It is privatisation by another name. Although some commentators are happy to parrot the Downing street advice and may believe that devolution and improvements are part of an agenda for change, their voices are outnumbered. The Secretary of State's White Paper has invited almost universal scorn and has forged some unlikely alliances.
The people who have spoken up against the White Paper—the GPs, the consultants, the junior doctors, the nurses, the Health Service workers and, most importantly, the public and the patients—may have been ignored by the Government but they have not been misled by a Government headed by the greatest scalpel wielder of all, who is not noted for her sensitivity when wielding that instrument and whose cutting philosophy has savaged the Health Service.
The proposals reflect that inhumane philosophy. They are accountancy proposals, set to balance the books numerically at a grossly under-funded level. They are asset-stripping proposals, which will fragment and decimate the Health Service. They will spawn a Health Service unable to respond to a crisis situation and unable to provide in a foreseeable and especially cold winter the future urgent treatment that will be required by 40,000 to 60,000 elderly citizens who cannot afford to heat their homes or to pay for gas or electricity and whose lives are at risk from hypothermia. The proposals ignore the reality of life in Tory Britain. They gloss over the decimation of service in the past 10 years.
The proposals also ignore and gloss over the treatment of the mentally ill who are now subjected to a conveyor-belt system in which they occupy beds on throughput basis. The pertinent fact that has not escaped the Government—the accountants—is that more hospital beds are required for mentally ill patients than for any other type of patient. The Government have realised that if they can get rid of those mentally ill patients, they can either close the hospitals or push other patients through the system. That is being encouraged by the new management pay structures, by which managers are paid bonuses on the rapid discharge of mentally ill patients. Those patients are sent home on a weekend's leave and when they return, their beds are occupied. They become community flotsam and eke out a miserable existence, roaming the streets.
A crisis exists and the Government's proposals will compound the problem with the voluntary organisations being left to pick up the bill. The Salvation Army carries the brunt of the problem. It provides shelter for the mentally ill who are forced to roam the streets. However,
1062
even the Salvation Army is under constraints and that is why so many people with a history of mental illness now exist in squalid bedsits or cardboard boxes.
The Government's proposals fail to make allowances for the disparities in health that can still be observed. Far removed from this cosseted Chamber exist members of our society whose circumstances are a condemnation of the callous system. We step over them when we use the Underground and we see them sleeping in doorways, but we ignore them, and these proposals also ignore them.
The great inequalities and disparities that exist between communities that live side by side in the same region are becoming increasingly clear from fresh evidence. Numerous studies at local authority and ward level have pinpointed pockets of poor health that correspond to areas of social and material deprivation.
One advantage of the present National Health Service is that an overview of the health needs of the nation could be given consideration and that that could be reflected in long-term strategic planning. The nation's health would suffer if long-term planning were inhibited.
The Government and their advisers follow the outlook of Burke and Hare. The Government, the Tory think-tanks, the Adam Smith Institute and all the other scavengers and agents of scavengers have had their eyes on the Health Service for a long time. They measured it for a coffin years ago. One can only imagine how they must have salivated as they studied the books, how their palms must have begun to sweat as they read the accounts and the inventories, and how they must have sighed when they began to comprehend just how much of the people's money was wrapped up in the National Health Service, just waiting to be liberated into their clammy little hands.
However, there was an obstacle—the public would not wear it. Opinion poll after opinion poll told the Government of that, so it was necessary to plan a waiting game. The Health Service was kept short of funds and in due course it was forced to begin a sale of its assets. We know the formula. Bed closures plus rationalisation of service equals closures of hospitals plus disposal of sites. In Coventry, where my constituency lies, this has meant the closure of two hospitals and a number of smaller units in the 10 years of this Prime Minister's Government.
Nevertheless, it was still just a trickle. The problem confronting the Government was how to turn this trickle of equity leakage into a flood, on to which a fully privatised Health Service could be launched.
The White Paper is the solution to that dilemma. Having starved the National Health Service for 10 years of the revenue allocations with which to run its service and having starved it of the capital resources with which to develop its sites, the National Health Service has a good deal of excess capacity. In my constituency, for example, the Coventry Walsgrave hospital has the capacity to handle 8,000 more operations annually, yet patients suffer unnecessarily because the surgeons are prevented from carrying out as many operations as they would like despite the obvious demand. Although theatres are available to carry out the operations, they cannot be staffed because of lack of money.
Having dictated that health authorities must appoint new managers for each of their hospitals, having encouraged them to employ managers with experience in industry, the Government are now proposing to create hundreds of little businesses out of those hospitals—

1063
businesses which undertake work on behalf of the health authority but which can just as easily undertake work on behalf of the private sector. That is the crux of the matter.
The proposals are supposed to be based on the Government's belief that the market is a superior mechanism for the allocation of resources. I do not believe that, because there is not a shred of evidence to support it and although I might believe many things of this Government, I do not believe that they cannot read. They know that private health services throughout the world are a shambles and that they are inefficient and costly to run. We need only to look at the number of unnecessary operations carried out in the United States of America, the vastly greater administrative costs of private systems, the tangle of litigation with massive amounts of money diverted, not into better health care, but into solving the legal mess. Those systems fail to provide for the elderly, mentally ill, physically handicapped and so on.
The Government's White Paper will reduce the National Health Service to the same sort of shambles as a private health care system. It will sink a greater proportion of resources into the pit of that adminstration, reduce the responsiveness of the National Health Service to be able to identify the need, and divert the nation's resources to those who are already well served. The key to that is the privatisation of hospitals, to remove them from public control and put them in the hands of managers in ready-made or management-manufactured groups who are prepared to soil their hands.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has used his allocation of time.
7.51 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: The review of which the White Paper is the outcome was called for by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in reponse to widespread concerns about the performance of the National Health Service. My response to previous concerns over the years has been that the NHS, like the welfare state, was conceived during the last war and was based on the conditions that existed before it, and that half a century later, our health services should be encouraged to reflect the ambitions of today's families and their ability to afford to provide for their health needs privately.
For some time, 1 have supported the concept of a health tax, which would be separate from income tax, which would bring home the real cost of the NHS to taxpayers and which could be rebated for private cover. There was no other solution to remedy the unrelenting growth in the demand for resources, and the sheer cost to the Health Service of the growing number of elderly people and of advanced medical technology. The royal commission said as much in 1979.
There was no other way to avoid the series of crises that have scandalised the NHS over the years, or to end the more recent horror stories about health authorities running out of money, wards being closed and operations being postponed that prompted this review. In 1982, the think tank report to the Cabinet recommended precisely that: a shift from a tax-based Health Service to private insurance. As the House knows, the Prime Minister was totally opposed to this privatisation of the Health Service, and she abolished the think tank that proposed it.
Surely there can be no greater evidence than this, together with the massive increases in resources that the
1064
Government have provided, of their commitment to a state-run, National Health Service, paid for out of general taxation and free at the point of delivery. The White Paper confirms that commitment, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on its aims and the ingenuity of its proposals. I bitterly regret the reactions that we have received from the British Medical Association and from our constituents who have been inspired by some of its members.
I accept that some reactions that I have received from my doctors have been constructive and helpful. However, I utterly condemn the way that some doctors, although by no means all, have totally misled their patients into writing to us, without having any idea what the White Paper proposes. I have received far too many sad and distressing letters from patients such as diabetics, who rely on continuous medication and have been told that, in future, they could be denied treatment. I have received letters from patients who have been told that hospitals are to go private, doctors will be forced to take on more patients than they can handle and to limit the cost of medicines that they prescribe and that treatment will be related to income. None of those statements is true, and it is wholly irresponsible for doctors to scare patients, especially elderly ones, in this way. I believe that the BMA has lost much good will as a result of its campaign.
I turn to what is actually proposed in the White Paper. I welcome the downward delegation of responsibilities to local level, and the option for hospitals to become self governing within the NHS. That will result in the sort of better-organised, more personal hospital service of which local communities were once proud and which many of my constituents feel has been lost in recent years due to excessive bureaucracy and the disappearance of matrons and local hospital boards.
There is no reason why any hospital should not be free to offer its services to health authorities and practices outside its own area. Every hospital is different and develops its own expertise and specialities. My right hon. and learned Friend has emphasised that there is no question of hospitals ceasing to provide non-profitable services. The opportunities that will arise from the proposed new funding arrangements, with money following the patient and the ending of RAWP, the Resource Allocation Working Party—which has been so unfair to my own district health authority—will be better appreciated when they are better understood.
The availability of practice budgets is an imaginative idea which, I am sorry to say, appears to have been widely misunderstood by GPs, who have overlooked the fact that it is optional and entirely voluntary, and is available only to those larger practices already experienced in handling larger budgets. A budget-holding practice will have greater flexibility to use on behalf of its patients and wider opportunities to obtain quicker treatment from the most appropriate hospitals at a price that can be negotiated. That must be in everybody's interest and will bring down waiting times considerably.
It cannot be right to permit a system that tolerates waiting times of a year or more for treatment in one district, when the same operation can be obtained in a few weeks in another district. In my district, the current waiting time for dermatology is five months, for neurology nine months, and for ophthalmology six months. Those waiting times are totally unacceptable. The White Paper proposals will enable GPs to know where the quickest

1065
treatment can be obtained and make it available to their patients. My only concern is that there will be adequate transport arrangements for patients who seek treatment outside their own areas and adequate post-operative treatment when they return. I look forward to my hon. learned Friend assuring me on both those points in his wind-up speech.
The proposed encouragement of longer patients lists has also been misunderstood. No professionally responsible practice will give less time to patients because it has opted to accept those who have asked to be added to its lists. It is in demand because of its good reputation, which it has earned at the expense of other practices known to be less caring. Patients usually know who are the best doctors and who are the ones who are never there. Under the proposals, the hardest-working doctors will be properly rewarded, and that has to be right.
Similarly, no good doctor will prescribe inappropriate medication because of the introduction of indicative drug budgets. There was no evidence that this was the case following the introduction of the limited list, which was greeted with howls of protest five years ago and which has now enabled an extra £300 million to be spent elsewhere on improving health services. When it is realised that only 3·5 per cent. of all prescriptions are for patented products, it becomes self-evident that the remaining 96·5 per cent. of the drugs bill open to generic prescriptions represents an enormous potential for savings that has been estimated at an annual saving of £700 million.
It has been clear for some time that the Griffiths reforms for more efficient management of our health authorities have proved a disappointment. I fully accept the White Paper's proposals for streamlining their management. I should, however, record the opposition of my borough council to the proposed removal of councillors from the local authorities, although they will not be precluded from serving on local authorities if they have a management role to contribute.
I am glad that the White Paper does not seek to abolish the community health councils, one of which I served on myself. They can provide a much more effective channel for local views, including those of local authorities, on the quality of local services. It will be up to them to hold local health authorities, hospitals and practices accountable for their findings.
As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I remain critical of him for not referring in the White Paper to the Griffiths report on community care, which is now more than a year old. I anticipate that he will put that right as soon as possible. Apart from that, I offer a warm welcome for his proposals. Given our record of more resources, doctors, nurses and treatment than ever before, they can only help to make a good National Health Service even better.
8.1 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: As the Secretary of State said, the debate on these proposals is moving on. It is moving on from the ground of principle, which the Government have already decisively lost, to the ground of the implementation of this extraordinary contraption—the network of cash limits and contracts. On
1066
this new ground, the Government's prospects are, if anything, much worse than they were on the ground of principle.
Wriggle though the Government may, it is clear that the network of budgets is intended to constitute cash limits. Cash limits have already been extended for the first time to family practitioner services under the Health and Medicines Act 1988 which recently became law. GPs fully expect, and are entitled to expect—and the wording of the working papers gives them good grounds to expect—that these budgets will become cash limits.
We are also told in the working papers that the contracts which hospitals which opt out make for their patients are to be legally enforceable. We are told that it is to be hoped that that will not necessitate too much litigation, and that some arbitration mechanism may be introduced. I suppose that, if a person has a coronary bypass operation at an opted-out hospital, and it goes wrong, he will be uncertain whether to head for the High Court or the hospital.
These are real anxieties. The administrative machinery that these working papers are intended to promote gives grounds for considerable anxiety. On 22 March, a document was sent out from the NHS management executive to regional health authorities, and it has received all too little publicity. It set out what the regional health authorities must do by 5 May—a date that has already passed. Among the proposals in the document are not only suggestions for employing a great many extra staff administrative staff and for the creation of a great many administrative positions in all sorts of individually specified support services, but a hard-to-find proposal that regional health authorities should have expressed a view by 5 May on whether blood transfusion and ambulance services should be put out to contract. These are the forced administrative marches on which the Government are having to embark to get the proposals through.
The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that the doctors have started from a basis of outright rejection of the proposals, but some of the most telling criticisms of the proposals have come from doctors who support them. I instance, from my region, Mr. Brendan Devlin, who supports the White Paper's proposals and is a consultant at North Tees general hospital. He says that he is worried that the consultants' car park will be completely taken up by the Porsches of yuppie accountants. It is clear from that that many people who have a right to be wary of what the future holds, and who have already expressed themselves on political and administrative grounds supporters of the White Paper's proposals, are fearful about whether they can be implemented.
The Government will also change the mechanism by which cash allocations start to flow through the system. The principal element in these cash allocations is to be a bob-a-nob one-allocation per head of population. We are assured in the White Paper that that means that resources will automatically flow to areas of growing population, but it is not pointed out that they will also automatically flow away from areas in which the population is declining.
The system of allocations proposed for practice budgets, prescription budgets, and regional and district health authority budgets cannot be implemented merely on a per capita basis. The system will not bear the weight. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) has already celebrated the end of the RAWP mechanism, but he should be careful lest, as the Government's

1067
proposals go into operation, something far more horrendous than RAWP replaces it—a mini-RAWP for every NHS authority and hospital, and for every general practitioner in the country. The information that the Government have at their disposal cannot bear the weight of such a system, and they are foolish to try it.
Our information about prescription budgets leads to the amazing conclusion that the lowest spend per head is in Oxfordshire, and the highest spends are in Merseyside, the north-west and the north. There is nothing surprising about that; what is surprising is the belief, in the face of that information, that the Government can allocate these resources on a per capita basis and expect matters to continue just as they are now in the north-west, Merseyside and the north.
There are certainly grounds for grave concern. Abolition of RAWP and the introduction of per capita budgeting is disastrous news for areas which have depended upon RAWP and in which per capita spends are higher than the national average because of the make-up of the population. It may be of interest to note that this is not just a north versus south issue. Areas where prescription spending is very high in the south include Dorset, which includes Bournemouth, and the Isle of Wight, which includes Ryde, Shanklin and Ventnor—all areas in which inconvenient elderly people hang on and in which per capita spending will work against them.
These proposals are an administrative nightmare and an absurdity. The Government should be cautious about pressing forward too rapidly with this sort of proposal. We do not have the administrative machinery in place to support their implementation or to protect the Government from the inevitable disasters that will ensue.
For several years now, the Government have cash-limited hospital services; now they are starting to cash-limit general practitioner services. By means of the poll tax/community charge, they are cash-limiting local authorities' social services. How will the strain of caring for the growing numbers of elderly people on whom the bulk of health and social service money in spent be taken up? We cannot put a price tag on a stroke patient, a mentally handicapped patient or mentally ill person. The attempt to do so will be foolish and will produce widespread public unrest: it will not work. When I visited the largest voluntary aided hospital in central Brussels recently and saw over the door the sign, "We take American Express", I saw what the Government intend. The proposals are not working for patients; they are working for lawyers and accountants.
8.9 pm
Mr. Robert McCrindle: I support at least the broad thrust of what the Government are seeking to achieve in the proposals outlined in the White Paper. Unlike those who are wholly critical and negative in their submissions on the White Paper, I do not see the proposals as necessarily cast in stone. I hope during the next few minutes to express a few reservations, all within the general ambit of broad support for the Government's proposals.
I can never understand why those who oppose the Government's proposals for reform of the National Health Service seem to consider that, alone among our national institutions, after 40 years and with some obvious imperfections, the National Health Service should remain
1068
unchanged. There are many things that few of us wish to change, but there are areas that demand attention as the whole structure of the country changes during the 1980s and as we move towards the 1990s.
I am slightly concerned about the speed with which the Government seem to be aiming to introduce the changes. There has been a good deal of discussion in the debate about the hare and tortoise and so on. While I do not want pilot schemes, inevitably some self-governing hospitals will get into operation more quickly than others. We should watch carefully the progress of the early self-governing experiments. I should be happy if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister could assure me that that is the broad intention of the Government.
It is difficult to understand why critics of the proposals assume that we have either the proposals for change embodied in the White Paper or increased funding of the National Health Service. By no means are the two mutually exclusive. The reason why there is no reference in the White Paper to increased National Health Service funding is that is not a new policy. We have been increasing beyond the rate of inflation the amount spent on the National Health Service all through the decade during which we have been in office. I am irritated when some people, instead of submitting positive proposals, assume that we have the White Paper proposals or increased funding. My support for the proposals depends upon the assumption that we shall continue to improve funding of the National Health Service.
Although the Secretary of State has dealt with the matter already, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I return to the point about the elderly people who have been frightened by the expressions of opinion of a number of people opposed to the proposals. They have said that, when the proposals are fully implemented, there will be real difficulties in taking care of the elderly patients on doctors' lists. As I understand it, the allocation which it is proposed to make to a general practitioner will take full account of the fact that there is an age relationship in the composition of the doctor's list. I note with approval that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister is indicating assent. He cannot repeat that assurance too often.
In a wholly irresponsible way those who have been criticising the proposals have been unnecessarily and cruelly frightening old people. Old people have come to me —I suspect that my hon. Friends have had the same experience—saying that they are fearful of the consequences of the proposals; they think that they will be excluded from their GP's list for no other reason that the fact that they are aged. It is high time we nailed that lie.
I approve of the concept of self-governing hospitals, although we should be careful not to pursue the idea at such a pace that we risk damaging a new tier of choice for medical care. We already have the private sector and the National Health Service. They will continue, but an additional tier of choice for medical care should be welcomed rather than criticised.
Critics have given the firm impression that self-governing hospitals will be outside the National Health Service. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity in reply to the debate to make it crystal clear to people outside the Chamber that self-governing the hospitals may be, but outside the Health Service they will not be. I cannot stress that sufficiently. Malign

1069
propaganda of the blackest sort has been put around by, I regret to say, some members of the British Medical Association who should be ashamed of having done so.
In self-governing hospitals we are talking about an experiment. Certainly they will be a new dimension in health care. If a hospital decides to go along the self-financing route and finds later, for one reason or another, that that is not successful or if it wants to reconsider its decision, what will happen? I am not clear about whether such a hospital could be readmitted to the National Health Service. I should be grateful if the Minister would turn his attention to that.
On the question of prescribing, I have no doubt that there is a vast amount of over-prescribing by some doctors. The implication that the Goverment, as the representative of the taxpayer, have no responsibility for taking account of wide disparities in prescribing is folly in the extreme. I support the discouragement of expensive over-provision of drugs by some GPs in comparison to others that we have all noticed.
About five years ago we were told that the introduction of the limited list would affect the clinical judgment of general practitioners and that all we were interested in was saving money. In one year of operation of the limited list, we have saved £75 million. I ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Chamber how many complaints they get today from GPs or from patients that we are providing a less good service than we set out to do when the National Health Service was introduced.
I echo the sentiment of some of my hon. Friends that the White Paper proposals are one arm of an important reform. The other arm must inevitably be community care. We are having a slightly disjointed debate in that we cannot relate some of the attractive proposals to what we plan to do on community care. I hope that we shall get a response to the Griffiths report as soon as possible.
We are accused of privatisation of the Health Service. Do not hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side—
Ms. Joan Walley: May I point out that there are also honourable women here?
Mr. McCrindle: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon.
Do not hon. Members recall that, when an investigation was mounted a year and a half ago, the whole idea was that it would lead to privatisation? Some hon. Members on the Government side, including myself, expressed great concern about that. It is the fact that privatisation is not being proposed that allows me to lend my warm support to the proposals in the White Paper.
8.19 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: I am delighted to have an opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on his election and his speech. It is always exciting to be elected to the House of Commons, but it is especially exciting to be elected in the circumstances that he was. As for his speech, he combined humour with sincerity and we all look forward to listening to him again.
I have several things in common with my hon. Friend. One is that we are both members of the MSF which has a large number of its members working in the NHS, and 1 am sponsored by my trade union. I am also vice-president
1070
of the Socialist Health Association, which for decades campaigned to establish a national health service. It was on the basis of its work that the NHS was eventually created in 1948.
I have never heard anyone in the Socialist Health Association or in the Labour party claim that the NHS is a perfect institution. Nye Bevan himself would never have made that claim. We all know that the NHS needs to be improved and extended. It needs to be improved in the whole range of services known as community care and it needs to be extended in the sense that the influence of the Department of Health should be extended, into other policy areas, because we shall never improve the health of the British people unless we tackle the problems of unemployment, poverty, inadequate and unsuitable housing and a whole range of other social evils.
We have never pretended that the NHS is perfect, but the White Paper has nothing to do with those issues. It is concerned with one thing and one thing only—the cost of the NHS. That is not surprising, because it owes its origins to the traditional Tory obsession with keeping public expenditure as low as possible in order to make the maximum amount of room for tax cuts. That is what the White Paper is all about.
We all know that during the period of the Conservative Government the Health Service has had more money. Its money has increased by, on average, 1·6 per cent. in real terms every year. But we also know that the Health Service needs an extra 2 per cent. in real terms every year to take account of changes in population, improvements in medical techniques and other factors. The truth is that under this Government there has been a real cut in the money available for the NHS.
The Government are not concerned with trying to reduce the cost of the NHS by removing the causes of ill-health; they are trying to do it by relying on the traditional Tory belief in competition. They are particularly concerned with reducing the cost of the hospital service and they want hospitals to compete for patients and to compete on price. The whole point of the White Paper is to bring the ethics of business and the economics and techniques of the retail trade into the NHS.
The Government want to convert hospitals into health supermarkets. Everything will depend on what can be done most profitably and on the relationship between what it costs to provide a particular treatment or perform a particular operation and what patients or their doctors are prepared or can afford to pay. That is what is at the heart of the White Paper.
People in hospitals will become used to phrases such as "what the market will bear". The criterion for deciding whether treatment or an operation can be provided will be the gross profit margin, not an assessment of need. The prime consideration will be the cost of treatment, not its effectiveness. Everything will be based on what is cheapest, not what is best, and particularly not what is best value for money.
It has been said that the White Paper is a charter for accountants. That may be true, but it does not stop there. It is not only accountancy that will be extended in the hospital service: a sales and marketing department will have to be introduced for the first time into local hospitals. What is the point of providing an operation at a lower price than any other hospital if that fact is not advertised? Hospitals, like supermarkets, will be driven to advertise their prices. Sales and promotion will become the order of

1071
the day. It is not just accountancy that will expand: there will be a new department to promote, advertise, peddle and push hospitals to doctors.
General practitioners will be on the receiving end not only of sales representatives of drug companies, as they are now, but of the same sales techniques and promotions from hospitals as well. General practitioners will become small traders with their practice budgets. It is bringing hospitals into a vast market place.
Forty years ago, the main achievement of a Labour Government was to take the health of the British people out of the market place. It must be the top priority of the next Labour Government to repeat that achievement.
8.25 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I find it difficult to understand why the White Paper should be greeted with such an incredible fuss. I rather suspect that many people have not read it, and their reaction may be based on the BMA's reaction to it or on local comments put out by doctors and others, not least Labour politicians.
A number of factors have helped to make the reaction sharper than it deserves to have been. There has been some confusion over the general practitioner's contract. I hope that those issues have now been settled and that we can have a more rational debate about the White Paper. I made a summary of the points raised with me so far by local doctors and when the points relating to the contract were taken away there were many fewer controversial points left for discussion.
There is a fear of change. People are extremely cautious about changes in the NHS. There is an element of the hypochondriac in everyone, and people are prepared to imagine the worst circumstances and wonder how they will fare.
The Government may have underestimated the yawning gap that already seems to exist between their record on the NHS and people's perception of it. Conservative Members take it for granted that the amount of money spent by the Government has increased from £8 billion per annum to more than £26 billion per annum. A constituent wrote to me the other day and said that those figures were widely accepted as false. The fact that someone can say that of publicly audited figures shows how far we have to go in proving our bona fides in our proposals for the NHS.
The other difficulty has been that the reorganisation towards the centralisation of acute services on a district general hospital, a process which began long before the Government took office, has had the effect of taking acute services away from people, making people suspicious of any reorganisation in the NHS. They feel that specialist services have had to go further away from them and they see that as deprivation.
The situation is ripe for misunderstanding and for mischief makers such as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who made a disgraceful speech this afternoon. The difficulties for the Government may be compounded because the White Paper is long on description but short on explanation in some key areas. Many patients have got it wrong, many doctors are confused and there is genuine doubt in some quarters about how some of the new ideas will work when implemented.
One of the problems that we have experienced in my part of Essex for some time is that money has not been
1072
moving with patients, and I welcome the fact that it will do so under the new system. I am grateful for the idea that there should be per capita funding. That will be helpful to my constituents. The population of Essex has grown as the population of London has fallen, yet the resources have not come with those people at the same rate. If practice budgets will be a further reinforcement of the new arrangements I am prepared to welcome those as well. It is amazing how various aspects of that reform are being misrepresented. It is being suggested that patients may be forced to have the cheapest forms of treatment, but the matter should be examined from the other point of view, when it will be appreciated that the proposal will give doctors greater clout to obtain the better treatment that they want for their patients.
It is unsatisfactory that people must wait 24 months for a cataract operation if they want to go to their most local hospital in my constituency. If they were prepared to travel not a great distance, they could have the operation within a month. Under the present system, that choice is not represented to patients as clearly as it should be. I hope that it will he in future.
Some GPs in my area worry about access to other hospitals, especially when they are in other district health authority areas and, in some cases, in other regional health authority areas. There is great concern, for instance, about continuing access to Addenbrookes for people in the Saffron Walden area. I believe that, under the practice budget, doctors will have greater clout in securing access to Addenbrookes. Under the existing system they have come under threat of losing the right to refer patients to that impressive hospital.
But there is need for clarity on how contracts will operate in practice. By definition, a contract requires agreement on both sides, so while it may be said that a group practice or district health authority may negotiate a contract with a hospital, that does not mean that it will get a contract with a hospital. What will happen if a hospital refuses to make a contract with a DHA or group practice? Will there be a narrowing of choice for non-budget holding practices, whether they choose not to be budget holders or are not big enough to he budget holders?
Where the district health authority must negotiate on behalf of the GPs in its area to get in its contract the services that it wants, will there be a genuine meeting of minds between GPs and the DHA? GPs are sometimes influenced by their desire to refer patients to a particular consultant as opposed to a particular hospital. Can contracts be made so that GPs may pick and choose between consultants and hospitals?
As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, there is fear in the minds of some patients, in relation to indicative drug budgets, that doctors will put cost before effectiveness in prescribing. I do not believe that there is any foundation in that fear. Doctors will not overturn all their professional judgment in such a way. It is unfortunate, however, that some doctors have been prepared to play to that fear, so I understand why people have become worried.
The limited list experience shows that it is possible to achieve further savings. My father practised as a pharmacist for nearly 60 years. He regaled me with tales of the over-prescribing that could occur and the preference that some had for one drug over another when there was no generic difference between the two. There is scope for further improvement.

1073
To say that there is scope for improvement is not to castigate all doctors as irresponsible. My local doctors, favoured for the most part with modern premises for their practices, are working well with the PACT—prescribing analyses and costs—system, and some believe that that is the core of the future approach. They wonder whether we need move so fast to indicative drug budgets. At least the principle exists. I see nothing wrong with the idea of medical audit, especially when that audit on GPs is undertaken by other GPs.
I hope that the Secretary of State will go to some trouble to persuade the more cautious GPs that there are new opportunities as a result of the Government's plans. The Government hope that the practice can be a place where more can be done at the expense of more being done of a minor nature in the hospitals, that in future GPs will be paid for their efforts in that respect, and that if GPs have a particular interest in pursuing a line of medicine, they will be rewarded for that in a way that they are not rewarded now. It must be made clearer that such opportunities exist and that general practice will become an enriching experience in the widest sense under these plans, rather than a narrower, restrictive experience.
The White Paper contains some interesting, radical and imaginative ideas which merit not hysterical rejection but careful study. The fact that the Government are prepared to face these issues should be warmly welcomed.
8.35 pm
Mr. John McFall: I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on enabling me to hold a real old-style political meeting in my constituency. Such a meeting was called three weeks ago to discuss the National Health Service—it was convened by GPs in the area especially to discuss the White Paper proposals, and more than 350 people turned up.
They came from all social classes because of their concern about the effects of what the Government propose. At the conclusion of the meeting, a resolution was passed deploring the White Paper proposals, which I forwarded to the Minister. I shall therefore articulate the concerns of my constituents on some of the issues that concern them.
On Sunday I met an 82-year-old who has had his legs removed in recent months. He asked me to express his point of view to Parliament and to tell the Secretary of State that he wants to be looked after in the same way that my father was cared for after he had his legs off. For 10 years, my father was cared for by local district nurses. My constituent wants the same quality of care. I hope that the Secretary of State will take that and similar issues seriously and explain, when he replies to the debate, what proposals he has for people such as my constituent.
The Government have not been able to convince anyone of the wisdom of their proposals. Certainly they have not convinced the medical profession. They have not been able to convince the nation of the need for these changes because the blueprint for the White Paper plan was drawn up without reference to the users of the NHS. It was an exclusive group of people who drew it up. One had to be a Member of Parliament to be on the panel.
1074
Indeed, one had to be not just any Member, but a Tory Member. Even that was not enough. One had to be a Cabinet Minister.
That exclusive and closed group of people decided what was best for the NHS and the 55 million people of Britain. The changes sprang from an ideological perspective. They were not based on any objective analysis of the current position of the NHS or of the needs of society. That comes as no surprise to us, because the Prime Minister is on record as saying that there is no society. It must be easy for the Government to determine policy in that manner, because they have only ideological tenets to go on; there is no pragmatism in their approach, and that means that inconvenient facts cannot get in the way of what they want to achieve.
I have had more than 200 responses from my constituents and over a score of GPs have put their views to me on this subject. It is only fair, therefore, that I should articulate to the House some of the points that they have made, and I trust that the Minister will give full answers to those points. For example, one GP wrote to me saying that he was already doing much of what was being proposed. He wrote:
"For the last 15 years as a practice we have performed paediatric developmental assessments on our pre-school population. More than 90 per cent. of children are given all their routine immunizations within the practice. My part-time female partner has organised within the practice a Well Woman Clinic for all our female patients aged between 25 and 60. We do all our own night visiting. Three years ago we produced a practice information leaflet for patients and last year the practice produced an annual report. We have just purchased a second computer. Finally, we are interested in health education, having been instrumental in setting up 'The Vale of Leven Health Promotion Project."
That GP went on to write:
"I point these facts out simply to show that this letter does not come from someone opposed to change or who practises medicine simply with the aim of maximising income. I firmly believe that the White Paper proposals will undermine good general practice."
Writing about capitations fees, he said that he failed to understand how his standard of medicine would be improved by increasing the emphasis on the capitation element of his remuneration. He wrote:
"If I set about chasing heads, since there are only 24 hours in the day, I will have less time to spend on each patient. Equating good medicine with high patient numbers is arrant nonsense."
He wrote about the money-follows-patient argument:
"The White Paper says that 'the GP is the patient's key adviser'. This is true but I can foresee my being unable to refer my patient to the most appropriate consultant if that consultant works in a hospital outwith my Health Board area. My ability to refer such a patient will depend on my Health Board having made sufficient provision with the outside hospital. This obviously will not be a restriction in areas where patients can afford private medical care and thus medicine will become two-tier, with those who can afford it getting high quality care but those who depend on the NHS getting what their local Health Authority can afford."
That is a perverse version of patient choice, particularly for the poor, who do not have the money to move from hospital to hospital. Even if the patient can rustle up the money, one can be sure that their relatives might not be able to afford it.
In their White Paper, the Government insist on 20 hours' consultation per week, when GPs must see their patients face to face in their surgeries. One general practitioner writes:
"At present, I do not do so but in an average week I do spend 45 hours in clinical medicine, 3 hours in practice

1075
administration and am on call for a further 25 hours (and being 'on call' usually entails going out in the evening to see patients and having disturbed sleep one night in four)."
What price the Government's rationale for 20 hours' consultation in the light of that?
As to increased choice, another GP writes:
"The principle that practice budgets will lead to increased choice for patients is fundamentally flawed. I have freedom of choice at present to refer my patients to any specialist that I like and the proposals in this White Paper can only restrict that. These proposals if implemented will also mean that some of my patients will have to travel longer distances for their care."
Another general practitioner writes about the place of women doctors:
"As a woman doing part-time work in general practice, it appears that the present proposals may well prevent me continuing to practise medicine."
In Scotland just the other day, the organisation Women Doctors for Choice was reported as commenting that
"the emphasis on capitation payments discourages doctors from taking on extra partners, as that would reduce their income."
That provision will discriminate against women GPs, and when one remembers that females consult their doctors four times more frequently than males, that must mean less choice for female patients too. One doctor also comments:
"I note that the needs of the chronic ill, elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped appear not to warrant comment in the Paper."
The White Paper puts a price on the patient's head. The Government say that it is their intention to help people, but they will do so only in part. They will not go the whole way. The White Paper proposes a system such as that of the United States, where 40 million people have no private health insurance whatsoever and in addition, 1 million people every year transfer to a different hospital purely on financial grounds. The White Paper will do nothing for the community. My constituents tell me so, and I hope that the Minister will listen and will at least give them an intellectual response to the points they make.
8.42 pm
Mr. Richard Alexander: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on his excellent and enjoyable maiden speech. My right hon. and hon. Friends will clearly endeavour to win back that seat in the next general election, but meanwhile we wish the hon. Gentleman well, hope that he will enjoy his time in the House, and look forward to hearing him speak again.
To listen to some of the attacks made on the White Paper in the House this afternoon and outside it on other occasions, one would think that all was well with the Health Service and always had been. Basically all is well, but our critics ignore the fact that just over a year ago, people were marching in the streets and constituents were writing to us about the Government's intentions. Despite ever-increasing funding, the Health Service seemed to be failing to deliver in certain respects. The public were asking where the money was going and what was wrong.
As a consequence, the most fundamental review of the Health Service since it began 40 years ago was undertaken. Since the conclusions of that review and the publication of the White Paper, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and virtually every Conservative Member has been subjected to one of the most abusive, damaging and misleading campaigns that I can remember
1076
since first entering the House. The Opposition's knee-jerk reaction was predictable. They shamelessly used the Health Service and the public's concern as a political weapon, and their allies in the British Medical Association conducted a campaign of misinformation that was at the very least unhelpful, and which in many cases unjustifiably played on the fears of the most vulnerable in our society —the old and the sick.
Some of that propaganda was contradictory. It was claimed both that the Government were forcing doctors to take on more patients than they could cope with, and that they were forcing doctors to turn away the old or chronically sick. The contradictory nature of those accusations seems to have gone unnoticed, for smear and innuendo are what matter. Some patients are told that doctors may be limited in the extent to which they can investigate unusual symptoms, while others are warned that restrictions will be placed on the amount of money that doctors can spend on drugs. Some critics send out letters with death's heads on them. One of my constituents wrote to the local newspaper saying that she was told that the number of doctors would be reduced as a consequence of the White Paper.
That is all very nasty stuff, and completely one-sided. The White Paper's critics never tell patients that some doctors have been over-prescribing for years and that the monitoring of drug budgets is meant not to cut necessary expenditure but to defeat unnecessary prescribing. Neither do the critics reveal that the cost of drugs is now more than the cost of the doctors prescribing them, that some doctors prescribe twice as much as others, and that the White Paper's objective is to root out bad practice and to encourage the best. The critics' motto is, carry on, doctor; throw more money at the problem and then ignore it.
That is not the way in which I want to see the Health Service progress. Instead, we must honour the principle that has held good for 40 years of a comprehensive Health Service available to all regardless of income, and financed mainly from taxation. Instead of guerrilla warfare, let us start again, by accepting my right hon. and learned Friend's total commitment to the NHS. Let us recognise that funding has increased by 40 per cent. even after inflation, from £8,000 million in 1979 to £26,000 million this year. Let us accept that there are now 7,000 more nursing and midwifery staff and 14,000 more doctors, enabling many more people to be treated.
We must recognise also that wide variations in the provision of health care still occur throughout the country; that people wait much longer for operations in some areas than others; that the cost of treatment differs by as much as 50 per cent. between hospitals; and that there are enormous variations in drugs bills as between one GP and another. We should start by accepting those indisputable facts, and conclude that improvements can be made to the overall operation of the Health Service that have very little to do with the amount of money that is spent.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should acknowledge in turn the genuine concern felt by Health Service professionals that certain significant details have yet to be spelt out. Most right hon. and hon. Members have received a helpful briefing from the Royal College of Nursing and from the Association of Community Health Councils that are couched in much less strident language than that used by the BMA. Their concerns should be examined and my right hon. and learned Friend should respond to them directly. So much

1077
opportunity for excellence is provided by the White Paper that one can only be saddened by the hostility with which it has been met by some Health Service professionals.
A shining exception to some of the attitudes of the Health Service to the White Paper concerns the proposal to allow health authorities and hospitals to become self-governing trusts. The Opposition's reaction to this locally and nationally—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is in his place, referred to it this afternoon—was predictable. They called it back-door nationalisation and said that real patients would not be treated, that it was just taking the Health Service into a privatised area. Such fears are nonsense, but the fact that nowhere in the White Paper are these things ever suggested does not deter the Opposition at all.
The Bassetlaw health authority, which partly covers my constituency, has expressed an interest in becoming a National Health Service trust. It is not proposing to opt out. It has not even decided to become a trust. It has simply expressed an interest. It has consulted widely, with consultants, with the staff and with the Manchester health authority. The opposition has been totally political and I condemn the blanket refusal even to consider looking at the proposal. It gives an opportunity and a possibility for our health authority to come out of the clutches of the region and be able to run its affairs as it knows best. It will, I believe, be the patients who gain, and the losers will be the party politicians and those of the Left who try to deprive the patients of its benefits.
8.51 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I have listened with great care to Conservative Members trying to defend the NHS proposals. There has been great paranoia on that side as they have constantly tried to defend proposals which are clearly indefensible.
I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). He came to the House tonight, apparently, to nail a few lies, as he put it. He came to the House to tell us that self-governing hospitals will not be outside the NHS. I have read the White Paper and I agree with him that that is what is proposed in it. But what we, our constituents and doctors worry about is what it will lead to eventually. It is the first step towards privatisation and that is what Conservative Members have failed to tell us tonight. They hide behind the words in the White Paper, knowing perfectly well that the Government really want to privatise the NHS.
The Prime Minister herself prefaced the White Paper by saying that the needs of the patient would be paramount. That word is used in the Children Bill as those of us who have been on the Committee on that Bill know. The Minister of State knows exactly what I am talking about because he, too, is on that Committee. We have looked in the dictionary and we find that "paramount" means of the greatest importance, or pre-eminent. But we do not get the impression that the paramountcy of the patient's needs is the thread that runs through the White Paper.
The Prime Minister uses another phrase:
"to secure the best value for money."
That, in my view, more accurately describes the way the Government look at the changes in the NHS. To be charitable, on the one hand it means keeping a tight
1078
budget, but on the other it means making do with fewer resources by imposing budgetary controls on doctors' practices and self-governing hospitals.
The Government claim that the overwhelming hostility to their proposals stems from wicked doctors spreading fishermen's tales. They also hide under the cloak of that now well-worn phrase "We cannot get our message across." We have heard it all again tonight—a combination of doctors, an antagonistic press and a hostile Opposition making matters worse for the Government in trying to get their message across.
My belief, shared by my constituents, is that these proposals are inherently wrong and that the public have been right. Time after time in the last few weeks we have heard the public speak with a united voice. That is why the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) is in his seat; the public of Wales spoke on the Government's proposals for the NHS. I congratulate him on his victory and it would be churlish for any hon. Member to deny that it was due to the fact that the Government have failed miserably to tell us what they really mean by the NHS proposals.
What is also significant, and the Government must take this on board, is that in that same election a GP stood on an anti-NHS-proposals platform and he did not gather the small number of votes a normal fringe candidate gets; he polled almost 1,000 votes. The Government must surely remember that lesson.
Why are people unhappy with these plans? It may be unpalatable for those on the Government Benches, but it is true to say that we in Wales have an emotional attachment to the National Health Service because we know that the architect of that Service came from Wales. But even judged against hard facts, this review will spell disaster for the patients and hospital services in Wales. In Gwynedd, for example, we have seen this year proposals to close small village or community hospitals because the area health authority has, it says, been starved of cash. I am pleased to see the Minister who has responsibility for health at the Welsh Office in his place. He and I have debated these issues about hospitals in Gwynedd.
We have heard even from Conservative Members tonight the view that the community care provisions of the Griffiths report have not been debated. There is not a single community hospital in my constituency that meets the criteria set out by the Department of Health and there is no plan to build one in the immediate future. In addition, very much as the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said about disability, there are no discernible plans to develop services for the elderly. We all know of terrible situations in which constituents ring hon. Members late at night distressed because hospitals have told them that their elderly relatives have to leave and find a home elsewhere. This lack of co-ordination between the Health Service and social services departments of local authorities is something we must discuss. That is why it is vital that we discuss the Griffiths report quickly.
In terms of the rural scene in Wales, the element of choice is meaningless. How can a doctor in Holyhead make a choice about which hospital is most suitable for his patient? The nearest acute hospital is 20 miles away and he has to make arrangements to travel there. Where does he go if Bangor cannot take the patient or the waiting list is too long? He goes to Bodelwyddan, which is 70 miles away. The choice is meaningless in rural Wales.

1079
I believe that these plans are doomed to failure. All the brave words of the Secretary of State, and, I expect, of the Minister in responding, will not convince people that the reforms are necessary and in the best interests of our people. It would be far better for the Government to save face tonight and withdraw these plans than to destroy the Health Service and be destroyed at the next election.
8.59 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: There is little doubt that the National Health Service is a respected British institution, and those who have used it seldom criticise it. Until recently, however, most of us received complaints in our postbag from people who had not used it, and who wanted a better service. Those complaints came because expectation was greater than provision.
Now we find that there is nothing wrong with the Health Service at all. Constituents are writing to us, "Please do not change the Health Service: leave it as it is." Doctors, too, are writing to say, "Do not change anything. We have the finest health service in the world." Even doctors who have, in the past, written to complain are telling us to leave the service as it is. They are saying that for the time being, that is: I suspect that if we leave the service as it is it will not be long before they write again to complain that they want a review of the Health Service because they think that it should be improved.
Those who say that we should leave the service as it is add a proviso. They say, "Leave it as it is, but give us more money." They do not acknowledge that, over the past 10 years, real-terms funding has increased by 40 per cent.
Following the introduction of the White Paper, I met doctors in my constituency in small groups of four or five. I managed to see between 25 and 30. I did a deal with them: I said that I would see them whenever they wanted, wherever they wanted and, within reason, for as long as they wanted. I would listen to and respect their views, and would put them to the Minister even if I did not entirely agree with them. [Interruption.] Are not hon. Members in the House to represent the views of their constituents? Do we represent only the views with which we agree? I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that they represent their constituents' views.
The doctors' side of the bargain was that their views would be put to me first hand, not second hand through the agitation of the old, the sick and others in need of health care. The doctors respected the deal, with the exception of one practice. I have listened to their views: I have read the report of the general medical services committee: I have made written and oral representations to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have honoured my side of the bargain with doctors in Rochford, Rayleigh, Runwell and South Woodham Ferrers. Unfortunately, as I have said, one practice did not honour its side.
My speech has two aims. The first is to represent again the doctors with whom I struck a bargain; the second is to refute the misleading information put out by the practice to which I have referred. Let me begin by saying that it is a shame that the White Paper and the GPs' contract were allowed to be on the agenda on the same time. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) that the contract should have been dealt with eeparately, and should have been out of the way before the White Paper came into the arena.
1080
What did the doctors whom I saw wish me to communicate to the Health Ministers? First, on the contract side, they were worried about the targets for immunisation and cervical smears. I am delighted that there has been agreement on two levels of target, a higher payment at high percentage levels and a lower payment at lower percentage levels.
The doctors were also worried about the "face-to-face" rules, which they feared would be too bureaucratic, and about the fact that the target of 20 hours excluded home visits, which they considered unfair. I tended to agree with them about that, and I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend has amended that proposal as well.
Some senior doctors were naturally concerned that their pensions would be affected by withdrawal of seniority payments. They also made the fair point that someone who has been a GP for a long time is worth more than someone straight out of university who still has considerable experience to gather. I am pleased that, in consultations with the GPs' negotiating committee, my right hon. and learned Friend has amended that as well.
The doctors were also apprehensive about practice budgeting, which they thought might be time-consuming and complicated. They feared that it would be difficult to budget for outside patient services. I did not necessarily agree with what they said, but I promised to make their views known. They were also anxious that commercial decisions should not override medical ones—and rightly too—but they had no objection to any pay review looking at their expenditure, whether budgetary or otherwise.
Doctors and, indeed, some of my constituents are concerned about the make-up of the family practitioners committee. The doctors point out that it is proposed to include only one medical man among the 11 members. My constituents say that there will not be enough lay people on the committee: there will be far too many administrators, and it should be more evenly balanced.
Of course, some doctors were sceptical about self-budgeting hospitals. The Southend and Rochford hospitals, however, have seized the opportunity to volunteer to become self-budgeting, and are looking forward to better funding as a result.
The practice that put out false propaganda made none of its views known to me at first hand: they all came through sick and elderly people who were anxious about that false propaganda. Let me give some examples. It was claimed that GP services would be cash-limited, leading to a rationing of care. The truth is that any savings from efficiency will lead to extended care. The practice said that hospitals would be encouraged to become budget holders, whereas in fact they are to volunteer. It also said that the sum of money per patient was equivalent to an X-ray or a short course of drugs, and that if a patient needed a hysterectomy she would use up the share of the whole street in which she lived. The truth is that there will he no cut-off of funds, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).
The practice said that doctors would receive financial incentives to ask patients to go private, and that if they did not go private, doctors would have to put them in the cheapest possible hospital. The truth is that there are very few incentives—the only incentive to go private is the tax relief for old-age pensioners—and doctors will be encouraged to send patients to the most convenient hospital with the shortest waiting list.

1081
The doctors say that they will be offered rewards for not treating patients, or for delaying their care. That is a gross travesty: I cannot even find the proposal in the White Paper that they have twisted. It is complete invention. They also say that the Government want GPs to become "rationers" of health care, and thus take the blame for the underfunding of the NHS, which the Government will then use as an excuse to end the Health Service as we know it. The truth is that the Government want more partnership in the NHS, and want to carry GPs with them.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take note of the points that have been properly and courteously made by the majority of doctors in my constituency, both those that I have quoted in my speech and those included in my written representations. I also hope that he will refute the scurrilous, irresponsible and unprofessional propaganda from that other practice.
9.7 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: I, too, am here to represent my constituents, particularly the many women among them. I am extremely pleased to have an opportunity to speak. It should be pointed out that so far no woman Member has spoken, and the concerns of women—especially the many women carers about whom we heard earlier, and who are given no information in the White Paper about the future of community care—should be put on record.
We are talking about a paving Bill. There has already been a paving Bill for the privatisation of water; now we have one to bring about—presumably following the next general election, which the Conservative party mistakenly thinks that it will win—the wholesale demolition of the National Health Service, privatisation and complete dependence on market forces.
We thought that the White Paper would deal with the crisis in the NHS. That crisis in north Staffordshire means that some of my constituents will have to wait until December 1990 for an orthopaedic out-patients appointment and there is a 30-week wait for ear, nose and throat appointments. There have been hospital closures, the Health Service uses rundown buildings and the ambulance service cannot operate within its guidelines. The area suffers from demographic changes and there is great concern about the future of community care.
It is disappointing that the White Paper addresses none of those issues. My constituents know that. Certainly the electorate in the Vale of Glamorgan know that, and I take great pleasure in welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) to the House. The GPs also know that. The GPs in north Staffordshire with whom I have spoken, including those at the Tunstall practice who called me to an urgent meeting to brief me about the debate, said that they felt disquiet about the future of the Health Service.
It is clear that in future health authorities will be brokers, handing out money for low-cost services. A letter from the north Staffordshire district sub-committee of the Staffordshire local medical committee expressed great concern about people who depend on prescriptions. The Secretary of State did not give us a categorical assurance that there will be sufficient money to cater for those people who, quite justifiably, depend on prescriptions, such as
1082
chronic asthmatics, those who suffer from cystic fibrosis, those who have severe angina and those who require dialysis. I feel strongly that, if the proposals are carried out, people who need eight or nine drugs will be paying a tax on illness, because they will have to pay more for those drugs. I noticed that the Secretary of State made no response to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
As for the size of GPs' lists, the GPs in Tunstall told me that they will each have an extra 500 people to treat. It is quite clear that the more people there are on a GP's list, the less time there will be for minor surgery, immunisation, counselling following still births and all the essential aspects of preventive medicine. GPs who treat terminally ill patients, who require a considerable amount of time, will be penalised.
I am sponsored by COHSE, the Health Service union which has submitted detailed and responsible forecasts of how the Health Service could look in future, taking into account the need to use the present management structure to evaluate the information systems, which, together with new investment, could produce the Health Service we all require.
I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so I conclude by quoting a letter from a constituent who, along with many other people, feels very strongly about the proposals. She wrote:
"I hope public apathy does not allow these proposals to be passed as I am sure that the dark days of pre National Health Service days should not be allowed to return. I do not always support all Labour party issues but I think Mrs. Thatcher is a woman completely devoid of any compassion towards those less well off members of society and the sooner she is defeated the better for the country as a whole."
The Opposition consider that there is nothing more important than the health of the people and that that should be the highest law. For that reason alone, I hope that the Government will take note of the many important points that have been raised in the debate.
9.13 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I recognise that I have only two minutes and I shall make only one brief point. The first paragraph of the final chapter of the White Paper reads:
"The proposals in the White Paper put the interests and wishes of the patient first. They offer a new, exciting and potentially rewarding challenge for all who work in the NHS. They add up to the most significant review of the NHS in its 40-year history. And they amount to a formidable programme of reform which will require energy and commitment to carry it through."
The last sentence of that paragraph strikes a particular chord, because without energy and commitment on the part of all staff, from consultant to cleaner, the patient will certainly be denied his or her best interests.
The proposals are not revolutionary, but they are certainly not a gentle touch on the tiller. They will represent a substantial change in the relationship between the patient and the GP and between the GP and the hospital service. I welcome most, if not all, of the proposed changes. As a former health authority chairman, I am all too well aware of the inertial bureaucracy of the Service over the past 15 years.
I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend one question. Why did he not make the White Paper a Green Paper, or at least a White Paper with very green edges? If Health Service staff and consumers had felt that

1083
my right hon. and learned Friend was entering into genuine consultation on those far-reaching proposals, the hostility which has built up over the past three months and which has been echoed by the Opposition, would have been avoided. People who have had an input into change are much more committed by their contribution to that change, even if it is not precisely the change that they would have designed.
Even at this late stage, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to dissipate the angst that has been created by greening up the edges of the White Paper and conceding that pilot studies in, say, two regions for a short time would strengthen the case for change and should be conceded.
My right hon. and learned Friend showed a commendable and statesmanlike willingness to compromise on the GPs' contract and achieved a result satisfactory to all of us. A demonstration of such flexibility would give credence to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State's statement to the Institute of Health Service Management that the plans contained in "Working for Patients" were not tablets of stone and that as a sensible person he was keeping his ears flapping. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will keep their ears flapping.
9.15 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: Conservative Members have scorned our assertions that the White Paper is about privatisation. The Secretary of State said that talk of privatisation is simply scaremongering. But it is evident that the White Paper is dripping with commitments to privatisation. GPs will be expected to use their budgets to buy private health care for their patients. District health authorities will be expected to use their budgets to buy health care in private hospitals. Opted-out hospitals will be expected to sell National Health Service treatment to private patients. Capital charges are being introduced to make NHS services more expensive compared with private health care, to drive more GPs and more district health authorities into the arms of private hospitals.
The Finance Bill contains a direct cash subsidy for private medicine, and, as my hon. friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) pointed out, even blood and ambulance services are to be sized up for privatisation. Even if the Secretary of State believes his own denials that the White Paper is about privatisation, we set no store by that. The White Paper says that it is about privatisation and the Prime Minister means it to be about privatisation. She made that perfectly clear when she said in the House on 31 January:
"those who can afford to pay for themselves should not take beds from others."—[Official Report, 31 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 164.]
Even if the Secretary of State has not got the Prime Minister's message, doctors, nurses and the public have.
The White Paper aims to create a two-tier Health Service. The spirit in which the Prime Minister has produced the White Paper is truly authoritarian. The Government were to propose profound changes in one of our most important institutions, but there was to be no consultation—doctors, nurses and patients were not to be consulted. Consultation was rejected because the
1084
Government believed that it would only slow things up. As the Secretary of State and his Ministers found, it was much quicker to insult people who dared to disagree.
From the outset, it was made clear that the only views to be sought were from those who could make suggestions about how the hare-brained schemes could be made to work. Counter-proposals were never allowed on the agenda and there was no Green Paper, as the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has pointed out. There are to be no pilot projects, and we have been told that those, too, would just waste time. This untried experiment is being unleashed on us with a haste that has astonished even those who credit themselves with thinking up the ideas in the first place.
The proposals are already being implemented even as we discuss the plans and long before Parliament has had time to approve them. Regions are already nominating hospitals for opting out. The London hospital has already advertised for a finance director to run it after the Secretary of State, in due course, makes his decision that it should opt out. The South East Thames regional health authority's general manager has given up his job to take up the post of running Guy's hospital, supposedly after the Secretary of State has decided to opt it out, and his salary is to be paid by a carpet millionaire, Sir Philip Harris.
Family practitioner committees are already identifying what the Government hope will be the first wave of GP budget holders. I suggest that all hon. Members obtain from their own family practitioner committees the papers drawn up to show how the proposals about GPs will work in the local area. I looked at the plans of my own family practitioner committee. They are interesting because they talk firmly about over-spending practices. The practices described as over-spending practices will be cash-limited. How are we supposed to believe that GP services will not be cash-limited if they are described by family practitioner committees as over-spending practices and when it is also mentioned that the sanction against over-spending practices will be the withholding of remuneration? If that is not a cash limit, I do not know what is. All that I have described is already happening, yet it is not until today that the Government have brought the proposals to this House for discussion.
The White Paper lays down that those who work in hospitals, still less the community that depends on those services, will have no say in opting out. The decision is to lie simply with the Secretary of State. All the talk we have heard from Conservative Members about their hospitals deciding that they will opt out is nonsense. For a start, who in the hospital has made the decision? Who has been consulted? The White Paper makes it clear anyway that the decision is to lie with the Secretary of State and with him alone.
This week, the doctors at Guy's hospital have demanded a veto over the plans for Guy's to opt out. They want to have a say in the matter before Guy's is opted out of the National Health Service. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us later whether he will respect the demands of those doctors to have a veto, or whether he will simply ride roughshod over their views.
Mr. John Redwood: In November 1987, the hon. Lady said in the House that there was nothing wrong with the NHS that a couple of hundred million pounds extra would not put right. As the Government

1085
have put in 40 times that much in the past two years, does the hon. Lady agree that the funding problem she identified is now resolved?
Ms. Harman: No, I certainly do not agree that the funding problem we have talked about over and over again has been resolved. How can the hon. Gentleman say that the funding problem has been resolved when—[Horn. MEMBERS: "You said it was."] No, we have complained constantly about the underfunding, which still causes long waiting lists. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will listen. Forty-one per cent. of children have to wait more than six months for paediatric surgery. That is a problem of underfunding as beds are closed.
Local representation is to be struck off by local representatives being taken away from district health authorities and replaced by centrally appointed managers. The White Paper is the result of a review by closed minds behind closed doors.
In his speech today, the Secretary of State made great play of the agreement that he says exists around the stated objectives of the White Paper. It is true that his extraordinary political acumen has enabled him to recognise that every one wants better health care, but that is as far as the agreement goes. Everyone else believes that the objectives that he embraces will not be achieved by the plans in the White Paper and everyone else believes that the White Paper will frustrate attempts to improve the quality of care. The Secretary of State claims that one of his objectives is to improve the quality of care, but one of the strongest threads of criticism against the White Paper is the concern that it will undermine 'the quality of care.
Health authority managers, who have no medical training and never see a patient, will negotiate where to place the contract for operations, and they will place the contract where it is cheapest. They know how to count costs—that is what they have been trained to do and the reason why the Government have recruited them—but neither they nor anyone else knows accurately how to measure quality and outcome.
The internal market of competition—which, extraordinarily enough, the Secretary of State failed to mention today, although it is the core of the White Paper—for contracts between opted-out hospitals and private hospitals would put at the very heart of the system a pressure to cut costs with no countervailing safeguard to protect standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) rightly pointed out that, put simply, patients will be sent where treatment is cheapest, rather than where treatment is best. To compete, hospitals will have to cut costs and to cut costs, they will cut corners. When they cut corners it will cost lives.
The Government state that competition in health care will improve quality, but the opposite is the case. The more intense the competition, the worse the patient fares.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Rubbish.
Ms. Hannan: The hon. Gentleman may say it is rubbish, but he should listen to some of the evidence. A study in The New England Journal of Medicine, the most authoritative medical journal, found:
"There are significant associations between higher mortality rates …and the intensity of competition in the market place."
1086
Professor Alan Maynard, who is the director of the Centre for Health Economics at York, which is a designated research establishment for the Department of Health, followed up that point by saying:
"The risk with competition …is that inferior patient outcomes may result."
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady said that she wanted some evidence. I am sorry to keep harping on about it, but the South Glamorgan health authority has contracted out all its—
Ms. Harman rose—
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady gave way. Perhaps she will be courteous enough to allow me to finish the point. I am not aware of any rules of procedure that allow anyone but you,. Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stop me. With the greatest respect, I shall finish my point. South Glamorgan health authority has contracted out all its open heart surgery to a private hospital in Southampton, which means that patients are moved to hospitals where their open heart surgery is dealt with quickly. It does not cost them a penny and the South Glamorgan health authority—
Hon. Members: Is this a speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions must be brief.
Mr. Hayes: I was trying to make a brief intervention but the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) would not—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman: That intervention was a total waste of time. I obviously have a particular affect on the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), as he made exactly the same intervention in my last speech. I hope that in my next speech he will restrain himself.
The point is that the Government will not listen to any evidence about the destructive effects of competition because it does not fit in with their dogmatic allegiance to the free market. We should be encouraging co-operation between hospitals, not competition.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to mislead the House by saying that the Secretary of State—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady is not alleging that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is deliberately misleading the House. If she is, she must withdraw.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am suggesting that the hon. Lady did not listen and therefore did not hear the Secretary of State refer to the internal market.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, it is not a point of order.
Ms. Harman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not think that is was a point of order; I could not tell what it was.
On the point about quality, perhaps we need look no further than private nursing homes. We shall then see how the quality of care suffers when there is an attempt to keep profits up. The Government have already privatised nursing homes—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Southwark?"] I shall tell hon. Members about Southwark.

1087
The point about Nye Bevan lodge and Southwark invites a comparison between the council's response in that case and the Government's response to the numerous scandals of abuse, ill-treatment and neglect in private nursing homes. Southwark council learned hard lessons and was very concerned; it acted with the Department of Health to try to ensure that it never happened again. The Government, on the other hand, have evidence before them but take no account of it.
Let me remind the Government of some of that evidence. They have privatised nursing care without the consent of the House by shutting geriatric wards and cottage hospitals and providing a bottomless pit of social security subsidies to the private nursing sector. The Government are totally unconcerned about cruelty and neglect in those nursing homes because they are businesses, and the Government look only at the health of the bank balance, never at the health of the patient.
Take, for example, the private Old Rectory nursing home in Northampton. Patients there were assaulted, intimidated, taunted, tied into beds and chairs and left unsupervised. Staff levels were inadequate and prescriptions were altered.
Take the private Old Dairy nursing home in Enfield, where eight heavily dependent patients were routinely left completely on their own with no staff to look after them. And take the private nursing home near Colchester, where a 14-year-old girl doing a holiday job had to insert catheters in elderly women.
These cases are not isolated examples; they are the tip of the iceberg. Yet the Government have done nothing about it. They have not acted on the recommendations of the registered homes tribunals. They do not give district health authorities enough resources to police the private nursing homes.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It was this Government who introduced legislation giving the health authorities the power to supervise the private homes sector and, if necessary, to refuse licences. We were concerned about allegations of low standards and gave local authorities, in the case of residential homes, and health authorities, in the case of nursing homes, legal powers that they have never had before so that they could license homes or decide not to license them. The complaint to which the hon. Lady referred should now be taken up with the authorities to which we have given these important powers.
Ms. Harman: The Government set up the registered homes tribunals but they file their decisions in the basement of the Department of Health. They never look at the recommendations made by the tribunals, which say that things are going badly wrong in the private nursing home sector. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot just shake his head, because even the private Registered Nursing Home Association has said that it is concerned about what it describes as "the cowboy element" in the industry.
The White Paper is a charter for that cowboy element to move into our hospital services. The Secretary of State has claimed that one of his objectives is to increase choice in health care. Under this White Paper, patients' choice will be restricted rather than widened.
I challenge the Minister to respond to my next point; he has not done so in the past. Where is the choice for the patient who is told that he can no longer go to his local
1088
hospital because the Secretary of State has opted it out and it has dropped the services that he needs? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, where is the choice for the chronically ill patient who cannot get the GP of his choice because the GP thinks that he cannot afford it under the practice budget cash limits? Where is the choice for the patient who wants to get a second opinion but whose GP is reluctant to authorise it because he is getting to the end of the financial year? Where is the choice for the patient who is told that he must go to the hospital picked by the DHA manager? Where is the choice for the patient who must go to the hospital where the GP placed the contract at the beginning of the year?
Certainly there are choices in the White Paper, but they are not choices for patients or doctors. The choices in the White Paper are for managers and accountants. The choices that they will make are cheap, cheaper and cheaper still.
Inequalities will occur in the Health Service at primary care level also as patients rally round GPs who have had their budgets cash-limited and make voluntary contributions into their health centres and local GP practices. As a result, inequalities in health care will increase. The Secretary of State has engaged in the bogus argument that everyone who objects to the White Paper is in favour of the status quo. That is absolute nonsense. The Health Service is buzzing with ideas for improving care and finding new ways of delivering services. There is no shortage of ideas in the Health Service, but there is a shortage of cash. There is also a shortage of preparedness on the part of the Government to listen to the ideas that are coming out of the Health Service. The Government are frightened of those ideas because they are frightened that they might have to invest in them.
It is nonsense to say that Labour has no alternative proposal. Unlike the Government, Opposition Members have consulted patients, doctors and nurses. Unlike the Government, we have emphasised the basic necessity of increasing resources. Unlike the Government, we have a programme for making a reality of community care. We want to see a localisation of services to make access easier. We want to see the integration of acute and community services so that services fit the patient, rather than the other way round. [Interruption.] It is Conservative Members' fault if the Secretary of State is complaining about the time. He cannot go forward with his proposals because the public are blocking his way, and he cannot go backward with them because the Prime Minister is blocking his way. I predict that he will need to seek treatment in the John Moore memorial hospital.
The Prime Minister predicted that she would achieve victory in the Vale of Glamorgan. I am happy to welcome my new hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), and I congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech.
The Prime Minister has done a remarkable thing with the White Paper. She has forced the nation to re-examine its values. That re-examination has reinforced those values, and this White Paper affronts them. The Prime Minister has finally gone too far. Whatever will happen in the vote tonight, the Government have lost. People realise that the real change that the Health Service needs is a change of Government.
9.38 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): I add to the welter of tributes that have been paid to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). It was a most graceful speech that was exceptionally well received by hon. Members. From that performance, the hon. Gentleman has won himself many friends in the House, and I wish him well in his career in the House.
Exactly a week ago, my right hon. and learned Friend was able to reach an agreement with the representatives of the General Medical Services Committee about the GPs' contract. That agreement reflected a willingness on the part of the negotiators to accept a performance-related contract that will make it much easier for the National Health Service—the primary care system that we depend on so much—to become much more comprehensive and to add several important stimuli to good performance, not least the move to a 60 per cent. capitation level.
It also reflects a willingness on the part of the Government to make some changes to the contract that was originally proposed. I shall not list those changes, but they pertain to important matters, such as the retention of seniority payments and a reduction in some of the target levels set for vaccinations and cervical smears. That, too, reflects a willingness on the part of the Government to listen to what was said either directly to us by doctors or by the representations that were made by hon. Members following meetings that they had had with general practitioners in their constituencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that he hoped we would keep our ears flapping. That evidence has shown that we do flap our ears and that we shall continue to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) said that he had met members of every practice in his constituency and that he had sent us representations. He did not propagandise about the proposals, but he joined many colleagues in sending us practical suggestions on how the contract should be improved. We have read, learnt and inwardly digested their points, and I hope that all those who have played a part in the process will have felt that it was worth while after the happy outcome of last week.
That is the way in which we will continue the task of implementing the White Paper. Of course, the White Paper sets a framework—which it is the duty of the Government to provide—for the future of this vital national institution. However, a great deal of the detail remains to be worked through following the lead given in the working papers. We welcome even critical contributions—provided that they are not empty attempts to do away with the debate —if they are genuine responses on the practicalities of schemes that in the end will be tested and judged by their practicality. In implementing the White Paper, we are looking for a phased implementation of those ideas. I say that especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe). Every opportunity will he taken to look at what experience teaches us about those initiatives, so that others who come along behind can be influenced and, if necessary, adjustments can be made.
It is a crucial starting point in the debate to ask what has happened to the National Health Service over the past
1090
15 or 20 years. As Aneurin Bevan said, "Why look in the crystal ball, when you can read the book?" It is important before we start to look to the future—especially some of the things that Opposition Members have said about the future—that we look at what has happened in the past. I do not want to dwell on what happened in the 1970s, but we know that there were years, such as 1977–78, when there was a fall in NHS funding. Overall, during the years of the last Labour Goverment, there was a fall in the proportion of the gross domestic product that went on the National Health Service. We know that there was a cut of 33 per cent. in capital spend on the NHS during those periods.
Every hon. Member will have a similar story to tell about a hospital in their areas, but almost every year of this decade since the Government were elected, more than £1 million has been spent on capital improvements, such as new operating theatres and a new burns unit in the Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, which is in my constituency. In the last year of the Labour Government, £35,000 was spent on capital improvements at that hospital.
One of the extraordinary things about the speeches that we have heard from members of the Labour party today is that they have not contained one word of apology or explanation for what happened during those dismal years. Never was the National Health Service less safe in a Government's hands than it was when the Opposition were in power. Following a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, we have not heard a word of explanation of what would have been the consequences for the NHS in the 1980s if the economic policies of the Opposition in the 1970s had been pursued. What we know is that, if the NHS had been funded at the same level at which they left it, we would have been spending £18·5 billion on the NHS this year, instead of £26 billion. That is the difference between a Conservative and a Labour Government.
However, when one looks at what has happened in the 1980s, one finds a sharp contrast. Expenditure has tripled in money terms and has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms. About 1·5 million more in-patients are being treated and 3·5 million more out-patients. We have tens of thousands more medical staff and they are much better paid. A nursing sister who was paid £96 per week at the top of her scale in 1979 is now paid over £300 per week under this Government. We are beginning to reach a level where we need not be ashamed of what we pay our nurses.
In primary care, we have 20 per cent. more general practitioners, 20 per cent. more dentists and 50 per cent. more support staff. It is no wonder that the size of the average patient list has decreased. It is no wonder that, for the first time in this decade, we can move into preventive medicine. It is over 70 years since the first health committee recommended that we should have preventive medicine in this country.
When one considers the capital size of the equation, one sees much more starkly what benefits the wise and prudent financial management of this decade has brought the NHS. We have a forward programme of NHS capital building of over £4 billion, and 500 projects of over £1 million each are either being built or are rolling forward. What a difference from when the Labour party was in power.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out how well the NHS has coped with the many tragedies

1091
that have taken place in the past 12 to 18 months. Sadly, however, he turned that into a point of criticism as if the facilities in those hospitals had been tried and found wanting. Far from it—he knows that the unfortunate people who were injured in the Clapham incident, the disaster in the borough for which I am a Member of Parliament, were taken to a brand new accident and emergency unit which had been opened only the week before in one of the largest new hospitals in Europe. Indeed, that hospital will soon have the largest medical school in Europe. That would not have been possible with the 33 per cent. cut in capital programmes that we had under the Labour Government. In their last year in office, they spent just over £300 million in capital spend. This year we expect to spend over £1 billion and perhaps as much as £1·2 billion.
That is not happening just because more money is coming from the Treasury. It is coming about because of better management and because what the Opposition sneer at as commercial principles have been brought to bear on the NHS. In their last year in office, under £10 million-worth of NHS property was sold; this year we expect to sell nearly £300 million-worth of redundant land. That money will not go into the Chief Secretary's back pocket, but into further new building for tomorrow's NHS.
Mr. Morgan: It is evident that if tub-thumping were the same as health care, we would indeed have been doing well under this Government. However, if what the Minister has just said is correct, can he explain why a fortnight ago Gordon Harrhy, the general manager of the health authority in South Glamorgan, when attempting to explain why he has to close the children's ward in the Prince of Wales hospital in my constituency, said, "Although the Government go around saying that more money is being put into the Health Service, I can tell you" —he was talking to the audience of Radio Wales—"as a manager of the largest health authority in Wales but one, that we have actually had less money every year."
Mr. Mellor: It is not possible to have less money every year—[Interruption.] —because in every year, both in cash terms and in real terms the money allocated to the NHS has increased.
The hon. Gentleman has touched on a point to which I am coming. It is said for those people who come to such debates—there are far too many among the Opposition —who simply say that a large cheque or an additional sum of money is what is needed. The reality, and one of the driving forces of the White Paper, is that, even with an expanding health budget, one must still be super-efficient to cope with the increasing demand being placed on the Service. That is why it is such nonsense for the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) to say, as she always says, that at any given point in time we need a certain amount more money, because even if that amount is put into the Service, the problems are just as great as they were before, for all the reasons that I am about to come to.
Back in 1976 when the British Medical Association was abusing the Labour Government even more lustily than it is abusing us, a BMA spokesman said that the NHS needed an extra £2 billion. Since that time, the NHS has received an extra £20 billion, but it still faces difficulties, because of demographic pressure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) rather charmingly
1092
said, it is due to the increased shelf life of the oldies. I think that he included himself in that memorable phrase. Demographics means that an aging population will obviously require more intensive health care.
Other reasons for the difficulties include medical advances and the greatly improved capability of the Health Service to deal with many conditions that were not treatable years ago and the increased expectations of people who want operations for conditions such as hernias and varicose veins, which used not to be treated operatively years ago. There is also a call for preventive strategies. We do not have to provide a service merely for the sick but look after those who may think that they are well, but who are not. Such people may have a problem, perhaps breast cancer or cervical cancer, of which they are unaware. However, if they are screened properly, the condition will not only be picked up, but will be cured. Those are the improvements that we are seeking.
If the NHS is to cope with the pressures of the next decade, it has no choice but to change. I shall pick up two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar in a most compelling speech. There was no answer from the Opposition to his question: why should the NHS be the only institution that does not have to change? The people who care about the NHS are those who want it not to be a mausoleum but to move with the times. It is not a monument to some past era of Socialist domination but a living, vital part of a modern community and must be treated as such.
The White Paper seeks to establish three basic principles: first, the need for more consistent quality in the NHS; secondly, that the NHS should be more responsive to its patients; thirdly, that it should offer value for money. Value for money is a concept that has been sneered at monotonously by Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) presented a clear and compelling example of why value for money matters —that of his own local hospital, Stepping Hill in Stockport, on which it is worth dwelling for a moment or two.
There are 11 hospitals in the north-western region that treat over 20,000 cases a year. The figures for 1986–87 show that Stepping Hill hospital treated 29,000 patients at an average cost of £605 per patient. In the other ten hospitals, the average cost per patient was between £630 and £1,107. However, Stepping Hill hospital offers an excellent service to my hon. Friend's constituents.
The question that must be asked when considering the problems in the NHS is whether the hospitals that are charging the taxpayer 50 per cent. more to carry out the same procedures offer a better service or merely charge more.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that Stepping Hill hospital does not have an accident department, and that therefore its costs are distorted? It would be helpful if we had the money for a first-class accident department in Stockport.
Mr. Mellor: I certainly take seriously the hon. Gentleman's comment, but he is wrong to think that the lack of an accident department influences the figures. 1 am sorry that he feels that, in the interests of defending his ideology, he has to sneer at the local hospital that looks after his constituents so well. That hospital is efficient and

1093
effective, and it also offers value for money for the NHS. That means that it can treat more patients. The NHS will never have anything but finite resources, so the less the unit cost of treating patients, the more patients can be treated. That is a fundamental point.
The problem with the Labour party was well pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who made it clear that, entertaining though the speech by the hon. Member for Livingston was, he completely wasted the opportunity to come to grips with the problems that the NHS faces and to set out what the Labour party would do about them. We are willing to defend our policies, but it would be interesting to know one day what the Opposition's policies are. I know that the hon. Member for Livingston will not tell us, but I am sure that he will not mind us basing our information on leaked documents which appeared in The Independent. The section on health has a strong flavour of the Government's White Paper—there is plenty of emphasis on quality. It seems that health authorities will be repaid
"for the work they do",
which would appear to be a description of an internal market. What is missing is any way of bringing an internal market about.
Ms. Harman rose—
Mr. Mellor: The document is full of references to preventive medicine, with no suggestions of how to bring it about. The Opposition want preventive medicine but they abuse the contract which is the only way of requiring general practitioners to practise it—
Ms. Harman: Hospitals being paid for how much work they do is a reference in our document not to the internal market but to activity-based budgeting.[Laughter.]
Mr. Mellor: That is illiteracy. One must be able to cost the activities before starting to budget for them.
The hon. Lady is on much safer ground when coming out with the old claptrap in the policy document about private practice, or saving the unions' bacon by not allowing competitive tendering, or about having health authorities that would consist of representatives of local government, health workers and voluntary agencies—so Southwark council, after the triumph of Nye Bevan lodge, would also run the local health service—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Mellor: In the time that remains, I should like to turn to some of the constructive points that have been raised. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is very concerned about self-governing hospitals.
The expressions of interest in self-governing status are a sign that, whatever hostilities may exist towards the White Paper in some circles, people at the grass roots are recognising the opportunities that the White Paper offers. After all, many of our great hospitals were organised as self-governing hospitals before 1974. Self-governance represents the freedom of action that special health authorities already have.
The Secretary of State will determine, after representations, whether hospitals should be self-governing; he will
1094
examine the credibility of the plans put to him. We hope that they will succeed. There will be a phased implementation. Some hospitals will volunteer to come in, others will not initially, although no doubt they will when the scheme becomes a success. I guess that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is particularly concerned to know whether, if a self-governing hospital does not work out, it can withdraw and return to its previous status within the NHS. There is no question of any hospital being outside the NHS—so suggestions to the contrary are spurious.
There will be no cash limits on what general practitioners may prescribe for patients—they can prescribe whatever they want—but they will have to justify their prescribing practices to show whether they are over-prescribing or prescribing over-expensive brands of drugs instead of generic alternatives. What business would ignore £2 billion of costs and allow those who spend the money to be wholly oblivious of value for money?
In the end, the ideas in the White Paper are far too serious to be treated with the derision that the Opposition direct at them. To describe what the White Paper sets out to do I can do no better than quote a document which says, referring to the White Paper:
"The programme seeks to preserve the basic principles on which the NHS was founded and to tackle its weaknesses through a series of incremental and imaginative reforms. These reforms centre on the introduction of incentives to doctors and hospitals to provide services that are more responsive to patients. In tandem, competition between providers will be used to stimulate greater efficiency in the use of resources."
Those flashing insights come from Marxism Today. What better commendation to shatter the Opposition? I urge my colleagues to support the White Paper in the Division Lobby.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 253.

Division No. 196]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Cartwright, John

Allen, Graham

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Anderson, Donald

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Clay, Bob

Armstrong, Hilary

Clelland, David

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ashton, Joe

Cohen, Harry

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Corbett, Robin

Barron, Kevin

Cousins, Jim

Battle, John

Cryer, Bob

Beckett, Margaret

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Beith, A. J.

Darling, Alistair

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

Bermingham, Gerald

Dixon, Don

Bidwell, Sydney

Dobson, Frank

Blair, Tony

Doran, Frank

Blunkett, David

Duffy, A. E. P.

Boateng, Paul

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bradley, Keith

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fatchett, Derek

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Fearn, Ronald

Buckley, George J.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Caborn, Richard

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Flannery, Martin

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Flynn, Paul

Canavan, Dennis

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

1095

Foster, Derek

Morley, Elliott

Foulkes, George

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Fraser, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Fyfe, Maria

Mowlam, Marjorie

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Mullin, Chris

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Murphy, Paul

Gordon, Mildred

Nellist, Dave

Gould, Bryan

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Graham, Thomas

O'Brien, William

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

O'Neill, Martin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Grocott, Bruce

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Harman, Ms Harriet

Pendry, Tom

Henderson, Doug

Pike, Peter L.

Hinchliffe, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Prescott, John

Holland, Stuart

Primarolo, Dawn

Home Robertson, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hood, Jimmy

Radice, Giles

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Randall, Stuart

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Redmond, Martin

Hoyle, Doug

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Richardson, Jo

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Robertson, George

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Rogers, Allan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rooker, Jeff

Illsley, Eric

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ingram, Adam

Rowlands, Ted

Janner, Greville

Ruddock, Joan

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Sedgemore, Brian

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Short, Clare

Kennedy, Charles

Sillars, Jim

Kilfedder, James

Skinner, Dennis

Lamond, James

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Leighton, Ron

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Lewis, Terry

Snape, Peter

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Soley, Clive

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Loyden, Eddie

Steel, Rt Hon David

McAllion, John

Steinberg, Gerry

McAvoy, Thomas

Stott, Roger

McFall, John

Strang, Gavin

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Straw, Jack

McKelvey, William

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McNamara, Kevin

Turner, Dennis

Madden, Max

Vaz, Keith

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wall, Pat

Marek, Dr John

Wallace, James

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Walley, Joan

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Martlew, Eric

Wareing, Robert N.

Maxton, John

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Meacher, Michael

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Meale, Alan

Winnick, David

Michael, Alun

Worthington, Tony

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wray, Jimmy

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Morgan, Rhodri

Mrs. Llin Golding.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Aitken,Jonathan

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Alexander, Richard

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Amess, David

Boswell, Tim

Amos, Alan

Bottomley, Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Bowis, John

Ashby, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Baldry, Tony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brazier, Julian

Batiste, Spencer

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Bendall, Vivian

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

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Browne, John (Winchester)

1096

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Buck, Sir Antony

Howard, Michael

Burns, Simon

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

Burt, Alistair

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Butler, Chris

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Butterfill, John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hunter, Andrew

Carrington, Matthew

Irvine, Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Irving, Charles

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Jack, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Janman, Tim

Chope, Christopher

Jessel, Toby

Churchill, Mr

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Key, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knapman, Roger

Cope, Rt Hon John

Knox, David

Couchman, James

Lawrence, Ivan

Cran, James

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Curry, David

Lightbown, David

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

Lilley, Peter

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Devlin, Tim

McCrindle, Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Dover, Den

Maclean, David

Dunn, Bob

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Durant, Tony

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Dykes, Hugh

Madel, David

Emery, Sir Peter

Major, Rt Hon John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Malins, Humfrey

Evennett, David

Mans, Keith

Fallon, Michael

Maples, John

Favell, Tony

Marland, Paul

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Marlow, Tony

Fishburn, John Dudley

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Forman, Nigel

Mates, Michael

Forth, Eric

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Fox, Sir Marcus

Mellor, David

Franks, Cecil

Miller, Sir Hal

Freeman, Roger

Mills, Iain

French, Douglas

Miscampbell, Norman

Gardiner, George

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mitchell, Sir David

Gill, Christopher

Moate, Roger

Glyn, Dr Alan

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Morrison, Sir Charles

Goodlad, Alastair

Moss, Malcolm

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Gow, Ian

Neale, Gerrard

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Needham, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Nelson, Anthony

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Neubert, Michael

Gregory, Conal

Nicholls, Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Grist, Ian

Norris, Steve

Ground, Patrick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Grylls, Michael

Page, Richard

Hague, William

Paice, James

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hanley, Jeremy

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hannam, John

Pawsey, James

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

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Harris, David

Portillo, Michael

Haselhurst, Alan

Powell, William (Corby)

Hawkins, Christopher

Price, Sir David

Hayes, Jerry

Raffan, Keith

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Heddle, John

Rathbone, Tim

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Redwood, John

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hind, Kenneth

Riddick, Graham

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

1097

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Townsend, Cyril D. (B 'heath)

Rost, Peter

Tracey, Richard

Rowe, Andrew

Tredinnick, David

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Trippier, David

Ryder, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

Viggers, Peter

Shelton, Sir William

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shersby, Michael

Walden, George

Sims, Roger

Waller, Gary

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Ward, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Watts, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wells, Bowen

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wheeler, John

Steen, Anthony

Whitney, Ray

Stern, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Stevens, Lewis

Wiggin, Jerry

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wilkinson, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wilshire, David

Sumberg, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Summerson, Hugo

Wolfson, Mark

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Temple-Morris, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

and Mr. Tom Sackville.

Thurnham, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 179.

Division No. 197]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Aitken, Jonathan

Carrington, Matthew

Alexander, Richard

Carttiss, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Chope, Christopher

Amess, David

Churchill, Mr

Amos, Alan

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

Arbuthnot, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Ashby, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Baldry, Tony

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Batiste, Spencer

Couchman, James

Bendall, Vivian

Cran, James

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Curry, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Davis, David (Boothlerry)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Devlin, Tim

Body, Sir Richard

Dorrell, Stephen

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dover, Den

Boswell, Tim

Dunn, Bob

Bottomley, Peter

Durant, Tony

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dykes, Hugh

Bowis, John

Emery, Sir Peter

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Evennett, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fallon, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Favell, Tony

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

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

Fishburn, John Dudley

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Forman, Nigel

Buck, Sir Antony

Forth, Eric

Burns, Simon

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Burt, Alistair

Fox, Sir Marcus

Butler, Chris

Franks, Cecil

Butterfill, John

Freeman, Roger

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

French, Douglas

1098

Gardiner, George

Miscampbell, Norman

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gill, Christopher

Mitchell, Sir David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Moate, Roger

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Goodlad, Alastair

Morrison, Sir Charles

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Moss, Malcolm

Gow, Ian

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Neale, Gerrard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Needham, Richard

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Nelson, Anthony

Gregory, Conal

Neubert, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Grist, Ian

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Ground, Patrick

Norris, Steve

Grylls, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hague, William

Page, Richard

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Paice, James

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Hanley, Jeremy

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hannam, John

Pawsey, James

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

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Harris, David

Portillo, Michael

Haselhurst, Alan

Powell, William (Corby)

Hawkins, Christopher

Price, Sir David

Hayes, Jerry

Raffan, Keith

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Rathbone, Tim

Heddle, John

Redwood, John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Riddick, Graham

Hind, Kenneth

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hordern, Sir Peter

Rost, Peter

Howard, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

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

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Ryder, Richard

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hunter, Andrew

Shelton, Sir William

Irvine, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Irving, Charles

Shersby, Michael

Jack, Michael

Sims, Roger

Janman, Tim

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Jessel, Toby

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Steen, Anthony

Key, Robert

Stern, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Stevens, Lewis

Knapman, Roger

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Knox, David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Lawrence, Ivan

Sumberg, David

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Summerson, Hugo

Lightbown, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lilley, Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McCrindle, Robert

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Maclean, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Madel, David

Thurnham, Peter

Major, Rt Hon John

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Malins, Humfrey

Tracey, Richard

Mans, Keith

Tredinnick, David

Maples, John

Trippier, David

Marland, Paul

Trotter, Neville

Marlow, Tony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Viggers, Peter

Mates, Michael

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Walden, George

Mellor, David

Waller, Gary

Miller, Sir Hal

Ward, John

Mills, Iain

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

1099

Watts, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wells, Bowen

Wood, Timothy

Wheeler, John

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Whitney, Ray

Yeo, Tim

Widdecombe, Ann

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wiggin, Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilshire, David

Mr. Tom Sackville and

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Allen, Graham

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

Anderson, Donald

Dixon, Don

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dobson, Frank

Armstrong, Hilary

Doran, Frank

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Duffy, A. E. P.

Ashton, Joe

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fatchett, Derek

Barron, Kevin

Fearn, Ronald

Battle, John

Fisher, Mark

Beckett, Margaret

Flannery, Martin

Beith, A. J.

Flynn, Paul

Bell, Stuart

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Derek

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

Foulkes, George

Bermingham, Gerald

Fraser, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Fyfe, Maria

Blair, Tony

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Blunkett, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Boateng, Paul

Gordon, Mildred

Boyes, Roland

Gould, Bryan

Bradley, Keith

Graham, Thomas

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Buckley, George J.

Grocott, Bruce

Caborn, Richard

Harman, Ms Harriet

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Henderson, Doug

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hinchliffe, David

Canavan, Dennis

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Holland, Stuart

Cartwright, John

Home Robertson, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hood, Jimmy

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clay, Bob

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Clelland, David

Hoyle, Doug

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Corbett, Robin

Illsley, Eric

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ingram, Adam

Cousins, Jim

Janner, Greville

Cryer, Bob

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Darling, Alistair

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

1100

Kennedy, Charles

Primarolo, Dawn

Kilfedder, James

Quin, Ms Joyce

Lamond, James

Radice, Giles

Leadbitter, Ted

Randall, Stuart

Leighton, Ron

Redmond, Martin

Lewis, Terry

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Richardson, Jo

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Robertson, George

Loyden, Eddie

Rogers, Allan

McAllion, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McAvoy, Thomas

Rowlands, Ted

McFall, John

Ruddock, Joan

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Sedgemore, Brian

McKelvey, William

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McNamara, Kevin

Short, Clare

Madden, Max

Sillars, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Skinner, Dennis

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

Martlew, Eric

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Maxton, John

Snape, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Soley, Clive

Meale, Alan

Spearing, Nigel

Michael, Alun

Steel, Rt Hon David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Steinberg, Gerry

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Stott, Roger

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Strang, Gavin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Straw, Jack

Morgan, Rhodri

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morley, Elliott

Turner, Dennis

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Wall, Pat

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wallace, James

Mowlam, Marjorie

Walley, Joan

Mullin, Chris

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Murphy, Paul

Wareing, Robert N.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

O'Brien, William

Winnick, David

O'Neill, Martin

Worthington, Tony

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wray, Jimmy

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Pendry, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Pike, Peter L.

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the programme of reform of the National Health Service set out in the White Paper, Working for Patients (Cm. 555), and the reaffirmation of the basic principles of the National Health Service which will continue to be available to all, regardless of income and financed mainly out of taxation; and believes that the proposals in the White Paper will raise the standards of all of the health service to the high standard of the best and will lead to an extension of patient choice, a more responsive health service, better value for money and an even better standard of health care for the decade to come.

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

  ROAD TRAFFIC
  That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents.)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  PESTICIDES RESIDUES
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4092/1/89 relating to pesticide residues and of the Government's intention to negotiate a satisfactory system to set Community levels that will both strengthen the protection of consumer health and facilitate intra-Community trade.

  BATTERIES AND ACCUMULATORS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10470/88 relating to batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substances; and endorses the Government's support of the proposal's aim of reducing pollution from these materials while ensuring that methods of achieving this do not create barriers to trade within the Community.—[Mr. Dorreill.]
  Question agreed to.

Coal Mining (Subsidence)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
10.25 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: For the past three months in this place I have been either standing or sitting looking at the same Minister who is sitting opposite me tonight. I think that he knows something about the problem that I have brought to the House on behalf of my constituents. The Minister himself assures me that he knows something about pit mining. In fact, I understand that 10 or 11 years ago he made a visit to Easington—and went underground, I believe. He found out something about the mining industry.
Like some of us who have worked in the pit for many years—35 years in my case—the Minister probably knows that when the coal is taken out the land falls all the way from the top, and that if there are properties on the top they will be damaged. That is the problem that I want to discuss with the Minister tonight. Many of those properties—hundreds upon hundreds in my constituency alone, never mind the other mining areas—have suffered severe damage.
What has been happening? The National Coal Board, which now calls itself British Coal, has been telling many people in my constituency and others that they are to receive nothing for compensation or repairs. That is a shocking state of affairs. But the Minister sits there and allows it to go on and on, and when we raise it with him he does nothing about it.
What did the Government do? They brought in Ian MacGregor as chairman of the National Coal Board. And what was he told? He was told that the industry must break even and then go into profit. So he started to have a look at the books, and what did he find? He found substantial subsidence problems, meaning that a fair amount of money had to be found for compensation and repairs. What did he find in Nottinghamshire? He found that people there were allowed to claim for compensation or repairs 12 years after mining had ceased underneath any property.
Mr. Don Dixon: The Minister is sitting there doodling.
Mr. Haynes: But I hope that he is listening. He used not to listen in Committee. We got nothing from him on the Electricity Bill, but I hope that we will get something tonight, because we are in desperate need. Let me tell the Minister that when we kick his lot out next time my Government will do something for these people.
MacGregor found that that 12-year period was six years in statute, so he shortened it to six years to save money because of the pressure from the Government for the industry to break even and then make a profit. When he shortened it to six years, he left out people who had a genuine claim for damage to their properties.
The Government encourage people to own their own properties, but people get nothing when their properties are damaged by the mining industry. The Minister is not prepared to tell British Coal what it should do for people with that problem living in my constituency and other constituencies.
The present general secretary of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in Nottinghamshire has been

1103
saying that the cost of compensation and repairs is closing pits. He can afford to say that because he has had his property repaired and it now looks beautiful. He can come off it. He has had his share, but he is not bothered about anyone else. I am speaking on behalf of my constituents, so I am looking forward to hearing something from the Minister tonight. He knows about the Waddilove report. When that report was published, the Secretary of State sat on it for a year and did not bring it to the House, for the simple reason that it said that complainants had a genuine case and were not receiving fair treatment. The Government then issued a White Paper and promised to produce a Bill. We are still waiting for that Bill. We are waiting to see what the Government propose to do about the problem.
Ashfield and Mansfield district councils realised that mining subsidence had caused serious problems in the beautiful county of Nottinghamshire, and, in the same way as the Government have sent out leaflets about the poll tax, put a leaflet through every door in Ashfield and Mansfield to find out the exact extent of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is in his place and hopes to take part in the debate. In Mansfield, 12,000 people responded to the leaflet from the district councils to say that they had problems with mining subsidence and that British Coal was doing nothing about it.
In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) 2,000 properties had been damaged by mining subsidence. In Chesterfield, a little further down the road in Derbyshire, a further 2,000 properties had been damaged. The numbers are increasing and we want something to be done about the serious problem that those people face.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) is not here. His lather used to be a Minister at the Department of Transport and 3,000 properties in his constituency were damaged by mining subsidence. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) usually sits on the Conservative Back Benches sniping at the Derbyshire county council, yet 2,700 properties in his constituency have been damaged by mining subsidence. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has 1,100 such properties in his constituency. It is surprising that none of those Conservative Members have mentioned the subject in the House.
My colleagues and I have been constantly badgering the Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy, when he is in the country, so we are really looking for some action. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) has stayed to listen to the debate. He does not often remain here into the early hours of the morning as you and I do, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Dixon), the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the Opposition Chief Whip, are often here. The Doorkeepers and Hansard are always here. They are a good staff and they look after us. Having made that point, I turn to my constituency of Ashfield.
There are 8,250 properties affected in my constituency and we are constantly told that there is no hope of getting anything done. We are told that we are out of time. If British Coal offers any compensation, the money is spent on the property, but by the time the money is spent, only half the work has been done. The compensation is
1104
nowhere enough. It is cut here, cut there and cut everywhere and that is a result of the Government's policy towards coal mining.
The Government must live up to their responsibilities. They are responsible for the coal mining industry, which is a public industry. There is plenty of it in my constituency and other mining areas. We have this massive problem to deal with and there is no doubt that it is important. I get letters and representations at my surgeries and I am sick to death of people coming to see me and my having to tell them that the Minister is not prepared to do anything about it. I hope that he will help us tonight.
You often come to Nottinghamshire, Mr. Speaker, and you have told me about the wonderful visits you have made. Supposing that when you retire—and I hope that that is a long way off—you decide to move away from the metropolis to that beautiful county up there and buy a property. You would have to be very careful when you looked over the property to be sure that it was not affected by mining subsidence. You could be taken for a ride unless you knew that. I hope that in your retirement, Mr. Speaker, you do come that way so that we see each other regularly as we do here.
The problem is serious. I hope that we will get something done about it and I beg the Minister to come over to my constituents. They do not all vote for me, because 18,000 voted Conservative at the last election. The Minister must consider that seriously. When constituents come to me and tell me whether they voted Labour or Conservative, I have to tell them that it makes no difference. Once a Member of Parliament is elected, if a constituent has a problem, he does his utmost to deal with it, which is what I am doing tonight. People of all political colours in my constituency have this problem. I am looking for some help from the Minister tonight.
10.37 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on his continued sterling efforts on behalf of his constituents; I know that he serves them well in this Chamber.
I want to add a couple of points. On the latest surveys, in the north Nottinghamshire area, the problem is considerably worse than my hon. Friend has described. In the Mansfield and Ashfield area alone, there are at least 25,000 properties damaged through coal mining subsidence. If one considers the other areas covered by the survey, which was carried out by Trent polytechnic in Nottingham, one can see that there are at least 35,000 damaged properties.
We want some positive action and direction from the Minister. The chief executives from a consortium of local authorities are hoping to come to London in late June to present to the Minister the register of damaged properties found in the survey and I know that the Minister has said that he would be prepared to meet them. In November, the same group is holding a seminar in the north Nottinghamshire area, at a venue yet to be decided. All the authorities will be represented, with the relevant Members of Parliament and, we hope, British Coal, to try to map out some solution to this enormous problem.
There are 25,000 damaged homes in two small district council areas and in my area, of 18,000 returns to a questionnaire put through doors, over 14,000 showed damaged properties. Schools and hospitals have had to

1105
close in my constituency and there are thousands of damaged homes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield pointed out, not all the people affected voted Labour at the last general election. A substantial proportion of the electorate in my constituency voted Conservative. With a majority of 56, I hold one of the smallest majorities in the House. More than 19,000 people voted Conservative in my constituency and many of them live in damaged properties.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will answer some of my questions.
10.40 pm
Mr. Harry BarnesMy constituency does not have the same mining subsidence problems as those described by my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). There have been a number of serious problems in the past, however, in the Hartington area in Staveley. Massive problems have arisen and people have felt that they are being bounced back and forth between agents and the board and have been unable to solve their compensation problems.
We need legislation to deal with problems that arise in future. The Staveley area, for example, is likely to have massive subsidence problems. When will the Government introduce legislation based on the Waddilove report, or reflecting the two Bills introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield? Even if primary legislation is not forthcoming, some measures could be introduced. For instance, if you, Mr. Speaker, decided to move to Nottinghamshire and buy a property, would plans of advanced working be available to his surveyors and others? We need local arbitration for disputes, and planning permission should be required for new areas. Moreover, people ought to be able to use their own contractors rather than always having to act through the agents. It seems to me that those aims could be achieved under existing legislation, perhaps by the introduction of statutory instruments.
10.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) got one thing wrong in his fluent speech. It was not 11 but 23 years ago, in 1966, that I had the honour of fighting Emmanuel Shinwell in the constituency of Easington. That was the first occasion on which I had direct knowledge of the undoubtedly distressing problem of subsidence.
The hon. Gentleman got another, much more important, thing wrong when he completely misinformed the House about the assiduous efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on behalf of their constituents. I know about that, because I am on the receiving end of their complaints.
Mr. Haynes: But they are not here.
Mr. Spicer: Nevertheless, my hon. Friends are assiduous in their efforts. It is the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate and he has quite properly brought
1106
the matter before the House but it is quite wrong of him to cast aspersions on my hon. Friends, who fight hard for their constituents on this matter.
Let me say a word to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) before I address myself to the speech of the hon. Member for Ashfield. I shall seriously consider meeting the delegation to which he referred, particularly if it is accompanied by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He also asked me about the November meeting. I look forward to receiving the formal invitation and, while I cannot commit myself fully so far in advance, I shall certainly attend if I can.
The hon. Member for Ashfield has quite properly raised the question of coal mining subsidence. I understand his concern and have every sympathy with those who have experienced damage to their homes from subsidence.
Mr. Haynes: What does that mean?
Mr. Spicer: I shall come to what it means in a moment, but I think that it is worth starting with an expression of sympathy. That is totally fair.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Ashfield will deny that subsidence is an inevitable consequence of modern deep mining techniques. The very real problems associated with it will therefore remain as long as there is a coal industry, which—contrary to what Opposition Members sometimes say—I predict will be for a very long time indeed. The question which the hon. Member for Ashfield properly addressed is how to ensure that those affected by subsidence get a fair deal. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the issue was addressed in some detail by the Waddilove committee. The committee's report recognised that a balance has to be struck between the interests of the people living in a coal mining area and the needs of an economic coal industry to which his hon. Friends often refer.
Although Waddilove concluded that the system for compensation and repair had its shortcomings, it did not call for radical revision or overhaul. However, it identified a number of areas where improvements could be made, and the process of implementation has already begun. As I stated in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) on 12 January this year, British Coal has already implemented over half the Waddilove committee's 65 recommendations.
A number of important changes are therefore already in place. For example, British Coal has improved its public notification procedures and now publishes in local newspapers mining locations over the previous and next 12 months. It is committed to a good standard of repair in all cases of subsidence, even though the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 only requires it to make the property "reasonably fit" for use. Claimants are also able to use their own contractors for the repair of subsidence damage.
The Waddilove report recommended that British Coal should provide the Secretary of State for Energy with an annual report on the administration of the subsidence compensation and repair system in the previous year. The first such report was placed in the House of Commons Library towards the end of last year. It shows that both the number of new claims and the total numbers of claims outstanding are on the way down. In 1983–84 there were

1107
52,000 claims outstanding; in 1986–87 the figure was 36,000, and the report shows that by last year it had fallen to 31,000.
I fully concede that that is still more than one would wish to see, but British Coal is making progress and the downward trend is clear. In part this may have been achieved by a general shift of mining away from built-up areas. It is also due to British Coal taking greater account of subsidence damage in the mine planning process and putting additional resources into the administration of claims. It is inevitable, however, that a system which deals with around 12,000 new claims a year will produce some cases where people are dissatisfied. I am always concerned, as the hon. Gentleman is, to hear of these.
Nor must the costs of subsidence damage be forgotten. We have to see the matter in perspective. Last year alone, compensation and repairs arising from subsidence damage cost British Coal £49 million; that is what it paid out. British Coal now includes subsidence in the costing of all proposed underground workings. In extreme cases, pits can be closed if the subsidence costs associated with extracting the coal are unacceptably high.
Despite the improvements, the present system has its shortcomings and we accept that more remains to be done. In our response to Waddilove, we said that we would consider legislation in a number of areas. Last April, we issued a consultation document setting out our proposals. These will result in significant improvements to the present system.
For example, we propose increasing the time limits for making a claim. This will mean that a claimant will be able to submit a claim either six years from the occurrence of the damage or three years from when the damage first becomes apparent, subject to an absolute limit of 15 years. An important point is that, during that period, the onus is on British Coal to prove that damage was not caused by subsidence. That would ensure that claimants will not lose their right to make a claim merely because the damage has taken some time to become apparent.
The Government share the Waddilove report's view —and the views expressed by the hon. Member for Ashfield—that the public interest is best met by a system for dealing with subsidence damage which puts the emphasis on repairs rather than on compensation. We therefore propose introducing for the first time a provision whereby the primary duty of British Coal will be to repair damage. We also propose that, in future, property and land damaged by subsidence should be restored to is pre-damaged state as far as reasonably practicable.
We further intend to extend British Coal's liability for certain expenses and damage. For example, British Coal's code of practice will be brought into statute. That will mean that compensation for damage to chattels, house or farm loss, depreciation of crops, tilt and other structural distortion will all now have a firm statutory basis for the first time. We will also extend British Coal's liability by putting certain incidental expenses incurred by claimants
1108
on a statutory footing. That could include such matters as cost of removal and storage of furniture, cleaning costs, transport costs and loss of earnings.
Residual loss of property value is likely to occur only in a small minority of cases. Our proposed new standard of repair should reduce the number still further. British Coal will continue to compensate where there remains an indentifiable material and physical change in the condition of a property following subsidence damage and repair—for example, tilt and other structural distortion—and where it can be demonstrated that the change has materially reduced the value of the property. Those provisions are presently included in the code of practice which we have proposed should be incorporated into statute. However, given the variety of factors that can affect the values of property, it would be difficult to identify and to assess properly permanent loss in value.
Waddilove concluded that the Lands Tribunal was he most appropriate body to consider appeals on mining subsidence damage, and the Government agree with that conclusion. In responding to all claims, British Coal informs claimants of the possibility of an appeal to the Lands Tribunal or independent adjudication. British Coal will make every effort to reach an amicable agreement but, if disputes arise, independent adjudication offers a potentially cheaper and simpler solution to straightforward disputes than references to the Lands Tribunal.
Mr. Meale: I understand the situation, because I have read the literature and I have heard the hon. Gentleman's statements previously. However, has the hon. Gentleman made any sort of bid to the Treasury or the Cabinet, for the next financial year, so that we can get on with some of the proposed legislation?
Mr. Spicer: I shall have something to say about legislation in a moment.
British Coal will recommend references to the Lands Tribunal or independent adjudication in certain cases—for example, in disputes over valuation of property or the choice of a method of repair. However, in cases requiring significant legal input or involving more than one issue, direct reference to the Lands Tribunal is likely to be more appropriate.
We have received over 50 responses to the proposals included in the consultation paper. There have, of course, been a number of criticisms and further suggestions but, broadly speaking, our proposals have been well received.
We have carefully considered the points now raised and our proposals are now virtually finalised. In direct answer to the hon. Member for Mansfield, I can tell him that we will legislate on them when parliamentary time allows us to do so. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Ashfield, who properly raised the issue before the House, will feel confident that the matter is being addressed with the utmost seriousness by the Government, with legislation firmly in mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  War Loan
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be(a) the number of surviving holders of three per cent. war loan who purchased the stock when it was issued and (b) the total nominal value of the stock held by them.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information is not readily available in the form requested.

  Crombie Rules
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the Crombie set of rules on the Civil Service.

  Mr. Brooke
  There is no Crombie set of rules on the Civil Service. However, I am writing to the hon. Member with details of the compensation terms, known as the Crombie code, which applied widely in the public sector from 1947 for those who became redundant as a result of nationalisation or statutory reorganisations. As the House was told on 3 July 1980(Official Report, column 1823), the need for the Crombie code has long since ceased to exist.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Open University
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on what research is currently conducted by the open university at its central Milton Keynes campus and its regions, sponsored from the central annual grant to the university.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for the open university to decide how much of its recurrent grant should be spent on research. In 1988–89 over £8 million was spent from recurrent grant; this is in addition to funding received from the research councils, DES research grants and other sources. Areas of research cover science and technology, social sciences, arts and humanities and involve both specific research projects and support for academic activity. The open university provides information on its research to the OU visiting committee which advises Ministers on all aspects of the university's work.

  Teachers
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made on his proposals for the reform of the non-standard routes to qualified teacher status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is today issuing draft regulations and a draft explanatory circular. Subject 478
  to the outcome of consultation on these, he plans to lay regulations before the House with a view to having the new arrangements in place by September.

  The revised regulations replace the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1982 and are concerned, among other things, with new arrangements for the award of qualified teacher status (QTS), including the licensed teacher scheme; the specialist qualifications needed for teaching hearing or visually impaired pupils; the probationary service of qualified teachers; and the implementation of the European Community directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, as it applies to teachers.

  The draft regulations and circular have benefited from responses to the consultation document on the reform of the routes to QTS which was issued last year.

  The majority of those responding to that document supported the principle of the reform. My right hon. Friend is confident that the proposed new arrangements will provide a better framework within which to recruit and train the teachers in our schools in the 1990s.

  Copies of the draft regulations and circular have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

ENERGY

  Safeguards Agreement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representation his Department had at the latest large scale reprocessing plant safeguards meeting held recently at Sellafield with representatives from Japan, the United States of America, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the safeguards directorates of Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency; and what papers have so far been presented to the LASCAR meeting by United Kingdom representatives.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  One member of the Safeguards Office attended the meeting held between 27 February—3 March at Sellafield to consider large-scale commercial reprocessing plant safeguards (LASCAR). The information exchanged at LASCAR meetings is confidential to the parties involved.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what actions have been taken to improve nuclear safety nationally and internationally by Her Majesty's Government since the Chernobyl accident on 26 April 1986.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom has maintained a high level of safety over 30 years of civil nuclear power production. The Government are committed to continuing this and have made available the resources to ensure it.

  On plans for dealing with a possible nuclear accident in the United Kingdom, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnyd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 12 December 1988 at column 391.

  Internationally, the United Kingdom has encouraged the exchange of information and ideas on nuclear safety, in particular between operators and between regulators. The International Atomic Energy Agency is the prime

  479
  forum for such exchange, but there have also been bilateral exchanges; Her Majesty's chief inspector of nuclear installations last month visited Moscow for meetings with his Russian counterpart.

  There have been IAEA and EC initiatives on actions to be followed in the event of nuclear accidents. Two IAEA conventions—on the early notification of nuclear accidents and on mutual assistance in the case of a nuclear accident—were concluded in 1986. Similar arrangements for the notification of accidents have been agreed within the EC and the United Kingdom has bilateral agreements with a number of countries. Member states of the EC have agreed other measures to be implemented in the event of an accident, such as those on the contamination of foodstuffs.

  As further encouragement for the international exchange of safety awareness and information, the World Association of Nuclear Operators has been formed, and will meet later this month in Moscow under the chairmanship of Lord Marshall of Goring.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what departmental representation including papers for presentation, will be made at the eleventh annual symposium on safeguards and nuclear material management in Luxembourg on 30 May to 1 June 1989.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  One member of my Department will be attending the symposium.

  Pacific Sandpiper
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, 23 March, column 763, on the cargo carried by the PNTL ship Pacific Sandpiper, why section 2(i) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 was not applicable; and from which country had the consignment of irradiated fuel elements originated.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details of individual consignments are confidential. Section 2(i) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 was not applicable as the nuclear material in this consignment was neither enriched nor reprocessed in the United Kingdom.

  Piper Alpha
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to monitor heavy metal and other toxic substances from Piper Alpha.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave on 8 December 1988 to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), and to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 11 January 1989, and to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) on 3 May 1989.

  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, in co-operation with the operators, Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia) Ltd, has been monitoring debris and other samples from the vicinity of the site of Piper Alpha for polychlorinated biphenyls and radioactivity. A report on this work will be published shortly.

  In addition, conditions attached to the abandonment programme for Piper Alpha approved by my right hon.
  480
  Friend the Secretary of State for Energy include requirements for surveys of the toppled remains and surrounding sea-bed to establish the position of debris and to monitor for leakage of oil or gas. They also require samples of sediment, sea-water and fish to be obtained and examined for the presence of PCBs and radioactivity. The conditions provide for repetition of these surveys and sampling at such times as the Secretary of State may subsequently direct. An assessment of the surveys carried out under the abandonment programme will be published in due course.

  Occidental have also arranged to have portions of the samples referred to above examined for the presence of heavy metals originating from past drilling discharges. This work is being carried out to check predictions, made on the basis of sampling around other platforms, that the levels of heavy metals present are not hazardous to marine life. These results will also be made available to Her Majesty's Government.

WALES

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the chairmen and members of all the public bodies to which he appoints in Wales, together with their salaries and expenses.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Pollution (Irish Sea)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received this year about the pollution levels in the Irish sea; and what new steps he is taking to respond to this problem.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Friday 28 April at column 253.

  Valleys Initiative
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether in commissioning the Community Projects Foundation to undertake community development projects as part of the valleys initiative the opportunity was given for suitable agencies based in Wales to compete for the contract.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have not awarded a contract to the Community Projects Foundation. Welsh Office support for the foundation's activities in the valleys is being provided under the urban programme following the submission of applications by local authorities in the normal way. It is open to all voluntary bodies to seek urban programme assistance for appropriate schemes and I see no need for any separate bidding process in relation to community development. The hon. Gentleman may wish to note that the foundation was active in Wales prior to the launch of the valleys programme.

  Chemical Laboratories, Aberystwyth
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on the basis of how many job losses the changes currently
  481
  being considered for the regional analytical chemistry laboratories at Aberystwyth are founded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently 16 permanent staff in post in the ADAS analytical chemistry laboratory at Trawsgoed, whose closure in 1990–91 was announced on 21 March 1989. The number of post losses consequent on closure of this laboratory will depend on a range of factors, including the future level of demand for ADAS laboratory services elsewhere and the outcome of the examination being given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to the possibility of alternative uses for this facility.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC (Right of Settlement)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement setting out the overseas territories of EEC countries whose inhabitants have the right of settlement in the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  EC nationals have the right to reside in the other member states of the Community in accordance with the Treaties. It is for each Member State to define who are its own nationals for Community purposes. The provisions of the EC treaty relating to the free movement of persons apply to European territories for whose external relations a member state is responsible, such as Gibraltar. Citizens of the following overseas territories are also defined as nationals by the member states concerned:

  United Kingdom

  —Falkland Islands

  France

  —St. Pierre et Miquelon, Mayotte and the overseas Departments and Territories

  Netherlands

  —Aruba

  —Netherlands Antilles

  Portugal

  —Macau

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding recent reports that a boatload of 130 Vietnamese refugees were killed in mid-April by Thai pirates.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which administers the anti-piracy programme in Thailand, and the Thai authorities, regularly provide the international community with information on the number and nature of piracy attacks. Other than reports in the press, however, we have no details of this particular alleged attack.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken to persuade the Government of Thailand to bring to justice the pirates responsible for the murder in April of 130 Vietnamese refugees.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We co-operate closely with the Royal Thai Government through its anti-piracy programme, which is administered by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and to which the United Kingdom contributes.

  Iran
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he is having with other Governments on the latest Iranian threat to citizens of western countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my remarks in the House on 10 May at column 850.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any meeting with representatives of 20–20 Vision concerning their programme alleging that nuclear materials in the European Community under safeguards, have been diverted to a black market in Sudan.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The private secretary to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary wrote to Ms. Claudia Milne of 20–20 Vision on 3 February 1988, inviting her to contact the appropriate official with a view to arranging a meeting. As far as we are aware, Ms. Milne has never taken up the invitation.

  United Nations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to make monthly reports to Parliament, when in session, on developments and United Kingdom votes at the United Nations in New York.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A very large number of United Nations bodies meet in New York at various times throughout the year. These include the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies. For the Government to submit regular reports on developments and positions adopted by the United Kingdom in all these bodies would take disproportionate time and resources. The United Nations itself publishes full and publicly available accounts of the work of its bodies. On major political issues, it is of course already our policy to keep the House fully informed of all developments, including those at the United Nations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the annual contribution made by the United Kingdom to the central funds of the United Nations, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our contribution to the United Nations regular budget for the ten financial years beginning 1979–80 has been as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  10·39

  1980–81

  10·32

  1981–82

  14·02

  1982–83

  15·71

  1983–84

  18·50

  1984–85

  23·34

  1985–86

  24·63

  1986–87

  23·62

  1987–88

  21·49

  1988–89

  19·36

  The sharp fluctuations in these sterling payments reflect changes in the pound/dollar exchange rate.
  483
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rent has been received over the past 10 years from United Nations agencies based in London.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The International Maritime Organisation is the only United Nations agency based in the United Kingdom. Prior to 1982, the IMO paid rent to three separate private landlords. On 29 October 1982, when it moved into its present accommodation, the IMO began to pay rent. The rent paid (in equal quarterly instalments) since then is as follows:

  October

  £

  1982–83

  500,000

  1983–84

  500,000

  1984–85

  550,000

  1985–86

  550,000

  1986–87

  600,000

  1987–88

  600,000

  1988–89

  1325,000

  1 Two instalments.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Nations agencies have their headquarters in the United Kingdom; where they are based; and how long they have been established in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The only United Nations specialised agency to have its headquarters in the United Kingdom is the International Maritime Organisation, which has been based in London since its establishment in 1959.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis United Nations agencies located in London are charged rent; and what information he has on comparable levels of rent charged by France, the United States of America, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and Kenya for United Nations agencies based in those countries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1977, we and the International Maritime Organisation agreed that the rent for the organisation's headquarters building in London would be 12 per cent. of the capital cost of the building, but that we would reimburse the organisation a sum equivalent to 80 per cent. of that amount. Following transitional rent arrangements set out in my earlier reply of today's date, this agreement comes into force in 1990. From then the annual rent payable by IMO, net of the 80 per cent. reimbursement by Her Majesty's Government, will be £1,195,751 per annum.

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the likely timetable to set up an amendment conference for the partial nuclear test ban treaty of 1963, following the deposition recently of the requisite number of signatory states calling for such a conference; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the prospective conversion of the treaty into a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have had initial discussions with the other depositary Governments to consider preparations for an amendment conference. No timetable has yet 484
  been established. We cannot support the proposed amendment: as long as we rely on a nuclear deterrent, we will need to conduct underground nuclear tests to ensure that our weapons remain effective and up-to-date. But we will of course carry out fully our obligations as a depositary Government.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the United Kingdom has had recently over the current status of the 1963 partial test ban treaty with its depository states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have had initial discussions with both the other depositary Governments in order to begin preparations for convening a conference to consider proposals for an amendment to the treaty. We hope that the depositary Governments will soon meet trilaterally to resolve how this should be taken forward.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last held a meeting with non-governmental organisations on arms control and disarmament issues; what non-governmental organisations were present; which subjects were covered; and if financial support was offered to the non-governmental organisations to help defray expenses in attending the meeting.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I held a meeting with non-governmental organisations interested in arms control and disarmament issues on 24 April. The following topics were covered at the meeting: SNF, nuclear non-proliferation, modernisation, the partial test ban treaty, conventional arms control, chemical weapons, international arms transfers, and East-West relations.

  The following organisations took part: the Council for Education in World Citizenship, Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, the European Atlantic Movement, the National Peace Council, the Oxford Research Group, Peace Through NATO, Quaker Peace and Service, Scientists Against Nuclear Arms, the United Nations Association, Verification Technology Information Centre, the Medical Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, World Disarmament Campaign, International Peace Bureau, European Proliferation Information Centre, British Atlantic Committee, British Council of Churches, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Centre for International Peace Building Studies, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Coalition for Peace Through Security, Committee for International Justice and Peace, Council for Arms Control, Council on Christian approaches to Defence and Disarmament.

  No financial support was offered to representatives attending the meeting.

  Soviet Union (Weapons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each category of weapon of which there is deemed a Soviet surplus, giving his definition of how any particular quantity of weapons is so judged; and if he will set out his source of information on Soviet weapon capacity in so far as national security permits
  485
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the NATO booklet: "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts" which was published on 25 November last year and which was then placed in the Library of the House.

  Iraq (Chemical Protection Suits)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom has supplied Iraq with chemical protection suits.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

TRANSPORT

  InterCity Trains (Overcrowding)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about overcrowding on InterCity trains in the western region(a) during 1987, (b) during 1988 and (c) to date during 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Loadings on InterCity trains are a matter for BR management. Although I regularly receive representations on InterCity rail services, the Department does not keep statistics of them.

  Addingham Bypass
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects construction of the A65 Addingham bypass to commence: and what is the anticipated construction period.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Construction of the bypass is due to start in late June and should be completed by the end of 1990.

  DVLC (Data Sales)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what data on motor vehicles the driver and vehicle licensing centre currently sells to outside bodies; and what it receives as a result of these transactions.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Apart from the information the DVLC is required to provide under regulation 15 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971 either at no charge or at the prescribed fee of 0.50, certain other non-personal statistical information is supplied at charges set in accordance with standard Government accounting guidelines, in these instances normally set to recover costs.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to seek any necessary changes in the law to enable the driver and vehicle licensing centre to collect any extra data on motor vehicles which could then be sold to interested parties.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Not at present: there are no plans to collect any extra data, nor to change the law to enable this to he done.

  DVLC (Ventures)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new arrangements will be made to allow the driver and vehicle licensing centre to undertake profitable ventures.
  486
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  DVLC already provides certain designated services at charges set in accordance with standard Government accounting guidelines issued to Government Departments. There are no planned changes.

  Taxi and Private Hire Car (Legislation)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has concluded his review of taxi and private hire car legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Last year the Department of Transport completed an internal review of taxi and private hire vehicle legislation for England and Wales. My predecessor invited comments from the taxi and PHV trades, licensing authorities and consumer bodies on problems and possible solutions. Specific areas for discussion included the distinction between taxis and hire cars, vehicle design, knowledge examinations, quantity control and fares. I am most grateful for all the responses sent to the Department; we have studied all of them very carefully.

  The Transport Act 1985 introduced changes outside London designed to increase business opportunities and to limit the restrictions on entry into the taxi trade. I am disappointed that some district councils still appear to be rationing the issue of taxi licences, which distorts competition and interferes with the operation of a free market. The Act clearly states the exceptional circum stances in which quantity control may be considered, and licensing authorities should look very carefully at all evidence on supply and demand, not least the price at which existing licences change hands, before restricting the issue of licences. I believe that more time should be allowed for the new opportunities introduced by the 1985 Act to develop, and I have concluded that it is too early to propose further legislation. I would also remind applicants for licences that the 1985 Act already makes provision for appeal to the courts against unreasonable decisions by a licensing authority, and I am not convinced that the full scope of action in the courts has yet been explored.

  In the case of London, it has become clear that the high standards of service and propriety offered by taxis are highly valued by respondents and the public. London passengers enjoy a quality of service based on purpose-built vehicles developed to enhance driver and passenger comfort. Their roadworthiness and cleanliness are ensured by standards set by the Public Carriage Office, and drivers must pass through rigorous driver testing. I therefore do not propose to legislate to change the present arrangements concerning the black cab or the knowledge of London examination. Neither do I intend to alter the present distinction between the taxi and hire car trades.

  Since 1980, the fares chargeable by London taxis have been adjusted by reference to an index of cost changes in the previous year. This index reflects the movement of earnings and the range of costs involved in cab ownership and operation, including replacement parts, garaging and servicing, fuel, insurance, depreciation etc. In line with the movement in that index last year, from 9 June 1989 the maximum fares chargeable by London taxis will increase by an average of 11·1 per cent. This rise takes into account, among other things, the increase in quality of new taxis coming into service and higher costs associated with the requirement that new taxis be accessible to passengers in wheelchairs. I have today made an order increasing London taxi fares with effect from Friday 9 June 1989.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the nuclear deterrent.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of letters from individuals and organisations.

  Economy
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the performance of the economy.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the performance of the economy.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of such representations. Thanks to the policies we have pursued for the last 10 years, and will continue to pursue, the economy is performing exceptionally well.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the reply of 18 April,Official Report, column 183, given
  488
  by the Lord President on her behalf, whether she will make it her policy to meet any Brazilian request for the supply of four large cargo and two personnel carrying helicopters to assist in the rain forest protection programme.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development gave him on 10 April, at column 344. The further assistance which we are currently discussing with the Brazilian Government with respect to the protection of the rainforests is likely to be in the area of technical co-operation rather than capital aid for equipment like helicopters.

  UK 2000
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the achievements of UK 2000; and what assessment she has made of the contribution to its work made by Mr. Richard Branson.

  The Prime Minister
  Since its establishment in July 1986 UK 2000 has met all the targets set for it each year by Government. In 1988–89 UK 2000 supported over 700 environmental projects involving well over 80,000 volunteer days and 6,000 trainees. Total Government grant was exceeded by sponsorship from the private sector and about 350 new long-term jobs were created.

  Mr. Richard Branson's active commitment to UK 2000 has greatly assisted the initiative. His expertise remains available because of his continuing involvement as president.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the proposals of the Commission on monetary union; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council announced at Hanover last June that it would discuss the question of economic and monetary union at its meeting in Madrid on 26–27 June 1989, on the basis of the report that it commissioned from a committee chaired by Monsieur Delors.

  Environmental Pollution (Mountain Ash)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on environmental pollution at Mountain Ash.

  The Prime Minister
  I am fully aware of local feeling about pollution from the Phurnacite plant, Aberaman.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in her recent discussions with President Gorbachev, she raised the right of self-determination of the Baltic states; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I did not raise this specific issue with President Gorbachev. But the Soviet authorities are well aware that we have never recognised de jure the forcible incorporation of the former Baltic states into the Soviet. We are encouraged by recent signs that the Baltic peoples are increasingly able to express their views about their own future. We hope that this process will continue.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last specifically raised the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with a visiting head of state or Government or during her visits abroad.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raises the NPT and related issues whenever a suitable opportunity arises. The subject of the treaty has not however been included on the agenda for any talks that I have had recently.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her meeting with the Prime Minister of Italy on 28 April 1989 in London, she raised the issues of(a) the first preparatory committee for the non-proliferation treaty review conference in New York on 1 to 5 May, and (b) the possibilities for new proposals at the 1990 non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  European Language
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy towards the promotion by the European Community of an officially approved single language throughout Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  I know of no such proposal. The strength of Europe lies in the diversity of its cultural and historical traditions.

  Engagements
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a Banquet given by President Babangida.

  Official Historian
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will consider appointing an official historian for the Prime Minister's Office.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Children (World Conference)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will support a world conference for children to be organised by the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund as proposed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are currently considering whether to support this proposed conference on the basis of tentative proposals prepared by UNICEF at the end of the executive board meeting in April.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  18-year-olds (Help and Support)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide help and support for 18-year-olds who are leaving care.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Eighteen-year-olds leaving care can qualify for income support and housing benefit, and for community charge rebates in Scotland, in the normal way. In addition, from July we propose to disregard totally any payments to young people who have been in care made by
  491
  local authorities under section 27 and 29 of the Child Care Act 1980 (or sections 24 and 26 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968).

  Temple Row House, Birmingham
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security since what date his Department has rented Temple row house, Soho road, Birmingham, for use as a local office; what is the current rental; and to whom it is payable.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department has rented Temple Row house, Soho road, Birmingham, for use as a local office since 2 March 1972. The current rental is £17,607·17 per annum, payable to Standard Securities plc, 5 Commercial street, Birmingham B1 1RS.

  Community Charge
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sum is included in income support to assist with the minimum 20 per cent. community charge payment for those who will receive the maximum 80 per cent. community charge rebate; what arrangements will be made to increase this sum in line with increases in community charge; for how many people he estimates this

  Real changes in pensioner incomes by quintile (Percentage)

  1979 to 1980

  1980 to 1981

  1981 to 1982

  1982 to 1983

  1983 to 1984

  1984 to 1985

  1985 to 1986

  1979 to 1986

  (a) Net income Quintile

  Lowest Q1

  4

  4

  2

  6

  2

  -1

  1

  20

  Q2

  2

  6

  3

  6

  1

  0

  2

  23

  Q3

  1

  6

  2

  7

  -1

  1

  3

  21

  Q4

  2

  3

  2

  9

  -2

  1

  5

  20

  Highest Q5

  2

  5

  -6

  16

  -2

  4

  7

  27

  All

  2

  5

  -1

  11

  -1

  2

  5

  23

  (b) Equivalised net income

  Lowest Q1

  1

  6

  1

  6

  1

  -2

  2

  17

  Q2

  1

  6

  1

  6

  1

  -1

  3

  20

  Q3

  1

  5

  2

  7

  0

  0

  3

  20

  Q4

  0

  6

  1

  8

  0

  1

  4

  21

  Highest Q5

  2

  6

  -6

  17

  -1

  1

  9

  30

  All

  1

  6

  -1

  10

  0

  0

  5

  23

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey. Comparison of one year with another may be affected by sampling error.

  Note: Equivalised figures allow for the different circumstances of pensioners, e.g. householders/non householders, single/married.

  EC (Meetings)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the European Community meetings on matters concerning his Department held in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Pursuant to my reply of 8 May, the Labour and Social Affairs Council met on two occasions in each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1988. There were also a number of informal meetings of Employment Ministers and of Ministers responsible for women's issues, at which some social security items were discussed. In addition, there were numerous meetings of officials but information on the number of those meetings could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for 1978, 1979 and 1988 for each 492
  sum will be more than the minimum 20 per cent. they have to pay; and for how many people this sum will be less than the minimum 20 per cent. they have to pay.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The amounts which have been included in income support levels from April to help meet the minimum 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge are £1·15 a week for single people aged 18 to 24, £1·30 a week for single people aged 25 or over, and £2·30 a week for couples. This was a once-and-for-all adjustment and future increases in the overall benefit levels will be made in the normal way.

  It is not possible to provide estimates of the number of cases where the amounts included in income support will be higher or lower than the actual community charge levels in advance of these levels being set.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the overall increase in pensioner incomes in real terms by quintile group for each year from 1979–80 to 1985–86.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The table shows the requested information for pensioner tax units using (a) net income and (b) equivalised net income.

  social security office and each social security region, the number of (a) claimants and (b) dependents on (i) supplementary benefit or income support and (ii) family income support or family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply of 26 April]: The available information has been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Community Care
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there exists in Scotland bridging finance and transfer funds similar to that available to local and health authorities in England and Wales to tide them over the period when community facilities for the handicapped are being developed but institutions cannot be closed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Within their allocations, health boards may make lump sum or continuing payments to a
  493
  local authority or voluntary agency towards the cost of projects which make it possible for people such as those with a mental handicap to return to the community.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding is available from Government sources for the rehabilitation of mentally and physically handicapped people in Scotland who have been moved out of institutions into the community under the "care in the community" policy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of providing community care facilities for mentally and physically handicapped people discharged from hospital is met primarily by health boards and local authority social work departments from their general allocations from central Government. These allocations have been substantially increased in real terms since 1979. In addition, a number of voluntary organisations providing community care facilities receive grant either directly from central Government or from regional councils or health boards.

  Under the urban programme, the Government provide 75 per cent. grant for a number of projects which benefit mentally or physically handicapped people in eligible deprived urban areas who may be returning to the community. Scottish Homes will devote a set amount of its capital allocation from central Government specifically to housing for the disabled including mentally and physically handicapped people. A range of specific weekly social security benefits is available to the long-term sick and disabled. Such people are also eligible as a priority group to apply for community care grants under the social fund and also to the independent living fund. These grants are intended primarily to help those leaving institutional care to set up home and remain in the community.

  Reprocessing Plant, Dounreay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his decision on the report submitted to him on the European demonstration reprocessing plant at Dounreay.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is still considering the report of the public local inquiry into the proposed development and he is not yet in a position to predict a date for the announcement of his decision.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to introduce measures to increase opportunities for home ownership in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I intend to ask Scottish Homes to introduce by October 1989 a rents to mortgages scheme for the tenants of their existing houses. It will also be open to any new town tenants who may elect to transfer to Scottish Homes under tenants' choice arrangements. This scheme will run for a trial period of three years.

  The new scheme will complement the existing statutory right to buy scheme. It will not compete with it, and is aimed at that specific group of tenants who would like to own their own home but who cannot afford to do so even with the discounts available under right to buy. It is not
  494
  our intention, however, to draw into owner-occupation those who cannot afford it and the scheme will not be available for those tenants dependent on housing benefit.

  Tenants who participate will buy their homes by means of a normal repayable mortgage calculated by reference to their present rental outgoings increased to reflect the added benefits stemming from owner occupation, but also adjusted to reflect their added financial responsibility for the future upkeep of their homes. As with right to buy, tenants will benefit from an immediate discount on the purchase price of their property. This will be calculated on the same basis as right to buy discounts, but at a level 15 percentage points less. The remaining finance required will be covered by a deferred loan from Scottish Homes on which there will be no repayments until it is redeemed, for example, on subsequent sale of the House by the owner.

  The outstanding loan to Scottish Homes, will be abated each year by an additional discount, up to the maximum right-to-buy discount level minus 15 percentage points. However the final repayment due to Scottish Homes will be based on the level of the outstanding loan amount and on the market value of the house at the date of that repayment: incentives will be introduced to ensure that the house is properly maintained.

  I shall be consulting Scottish Homes immediately about the detailed arrangements.

  Overprescribing
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many investigations of general practitioners for overprescribing have taken place in Scotland by the health board in the last(a) five years (b) 10 years and (c) 15 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: This information is not available. General practitioners' prescribing is constantly being monitored by health hoards and area medical committees.

  Federation of the Highlands and Islands Fishermen
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he or one of his Ministers last met representatives of the Federation of the Highlands and Islands Fishermen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 May 1989]: Ministers have not met representatives of the Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is, however, in regular contact with the federation and its constituent associations on matters of mutual concern; and they are consulted on all aspects of fisheries management as appropriate.

HEALTH

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year since 1979, and for each district health authority, the numbers of National Health Service patients treated in private hospitals under contractual arrangements; and if he will list the costs of treatment to each district health authority in(a) actual amounts and (b) deflated by the health service pay and prices index.
  495
  Mr. Mellor
  The number of patients receiving consultant treatment under contractual arrangements, and health authority expenditure on contracts with private sector health providers, for the years 1982 to 1986 (latest available) are given in two tables which have been placed in the Library. Comparable data for 1979 to 1981 are not available.

  The data provided in these two tables are not directly comparable, for the reasons given in the notes on the tables.

  Halton DHA
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statment on trends in deaths and discharges per bed in urology in the Halton district health authority area.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is insufficient information to determine the trend. In 1986, when urology treatment first became available in Halton, 35 in-patient cases were treated. In 1987–88 there were 553 episodes of in-patient urology treatment and 432 day cases.

  Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that the Thwaites report on the operation of the radiotherapy department of the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital is implemented by the health authority without further delay.

  Mr. Mellor
  The health authority is fully committed to implementing the recommendations of the Thwaites report following the radiation incident at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. Some measures necessarily take longer to achieve than others, but all will be implemented.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year since 1979(a) each hospital closed completely and (b) each hospital closed partially, and if he will break that list down by each district health authority, SHA and regional health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have placed in the Library tables of hospitals that we are aware have been approved for partial or total closure following consultation under the provisions of the Community Health Council Regulations.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give detail of each capital project costing more than £1 million(a) actually under construction and (b) at the proposal or planning stage; if he will give the estimated date of completion for each project; and if he will break this list down by each regional health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information held centrally on health building schemes, each costing over £1 million, in England shows that there are at present 503 schemes at various stages of planning, design and construction. I have arranged for a list of the schemes with, where available, their expected dates of completion, to be placed in the Library. It is too early to forecast a date of completion for schemes at the programme stage prior to submission for approval in principle.
  496
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, for each regional health authority, details of proposed capital developments costing more than £1 million which have been cancelled for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that comprehensive information is not available centrally on the adjustments made by health authorities to their capital programmes over this period.

  Consultants
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional permanent consultant posts he estimates will be established within the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is estimated that 4,843 new consultant posts will be established in England and Wales between 1987 and 1998. This figure, which represents an increase of 33 per cent. in the number of consultants, includes the 100 new posts announced in "Working for Patients".

  Community Care
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with interested groups concerning the Griffiths report on community care.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have discussed community care at the regular meetings we hold, with the local authority associations and with chairmen of regional health authorities, to consider items of current interest in health and social services. We remain of the view that further discussions with interested parties will be most useful when our present deliberations have been completed and our proposals for the future organisation of community care are made public.

  Domestic Animals (Diseases)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his calculations or estimates of the incidence of diseases contracted as a result of contact with domestic animals in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Data on which to base the estimates requested are not available centrally.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his calculations or estimates of the number of cases of diseases caused as a result of contact with dog faeces in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The only disease contractable from dog faeces on which we have data is toxocariasis. We have no direct information on the source of infection in individual cases. The rise in cases in recent years is at least in part due to the development of new tests and to increased screening and testing of patients with symptoms suggestive of the disease.

  Toxocara (unspecified)

  Laboratory Reports to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre England, Wales and Ireland 1978–1987

  Year

  Total

  1978

  10

  1979

  2

  1980

  2

  497

  Year

  Total

  1981

  2

  1982

  12

  1983

  23

  1984

  37

  1985

  45

  1986

  60

  1987

  84

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his calculations or estimates of the number of cases of toxoplasmosis in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The data requested are as follows:—

  Laboratory Reports to CDSC England, Wales and Ireland

  Year

  Number

  1978

  621

  1979

  576

  1980

  790

  1981

  865

  1982

  680

  1983

  875

  1984

  828

  1985

  883

  1986

  798

  1987

  868

  11988

  796

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Annual tables.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress being made to agree a code of practice to enable patients to have access to their own medical records.

  Mr. Freeman
  The medical profession has provisionally accepted a draft code of practice, a copy of which is in the Library. The Department is now preparing to consult over a three-month period other interested parties such as dentists, nurses, midwives, health visitors, patient interest groups and NHS management. As soon after that consultation as is practicable, the Department will issue the code under cover of a circular.

  Kidneys (Sale)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the report of the Department of Health inquiry into the kidney for sale at Wellington Humana hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  It would not be appropriate to do so. Reports were prepared by the relevant health authorities and passed to me in strict confidence.

  Midwives
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will be taking in response to the Social Services Select Committee's recommendations on midwives' regrading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 10 May 1989.

  Test Census
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results of the recent test census will be published.

  Mr. Freeman
  The main aims of the test were to make sure that procedures for delivering and collecting forms would be effective in the 1991 census and to assess the readiness of the public to accept and respond to the proposed question on ethnic group.

  A report of the public's response to the proposed question on ethnic group will be published when the results of the test and a small follow-up survey in June 1989, have been assessed. This is expected to be towards the end of the year when the draft Census Order is laid before Parliament. The main findings on the census procedures will be published when the test has been evaluated. This evaluation will include an analysis of the proportion of households in each test area who returned a completed form.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rabbit Meat
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of any DDT residue found in rabbit meat imported into the United Kingdom from the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Ryder
  Monitoring by the working party on pesticide residues (WPPR) has revealed residues of DDT and other organochlorine pesticides in rabbit meat imported from the People's Republic of China. These findings were first published in the WPPR's second report in 1986. The results of subsequent monitoring were published in the WPPR's third report on 13 March this year. Although the levels found pose no health concern, imports are being closely monitored and statutory maximum residue levels introduced last year are being enforced.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent by his Department on advertisements on commercial television in each of the last five years, listed by each television company.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Information on television advertisements in the form requested is commercially confidential.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the price in pence per pound of sugar, butter, and beef and the price per ton of wheat in the United Kingdom; what are the comparable figures for these items in the world market for food; and if he has comparable information for five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information on first hand/wholesale prices in the United Kingdom is shown in the table. There is no single, representative measure of "world" prices for these commodities. Price quotations available vary according 1:o differences in quality, presentation and point of shipment/destination.
  499

  First hand/wholesale prices in the United Kingdom, in nominal and real1 terms

  1979 (annual average)

  1984 (annual average)

  1989 (late April/early May)

  Sugar2(refined, bulk granulated) price per pound

  Nominal

  13·0

  18·9

  22·3

  Real terms

  26·0

  24·0

  22·3

  Butter (English, London) price per pound

  Nominal

  75·9

  101·1

  119·3

  Real terms

  150·0

  127·0

  119·3

  Beef (Scottish sides, London) price per pound

  Nominal

  61·7

  80·8

  105·0

  Real terms

  122·0

  102·0

  105·0

  Wheat (ex farm, bread making) £/tonne

  Nominal

  3107·0

  3145·0

  126·0

  Real terms

  220·0

  183·0

  126·0

  1 Adjusted to 1989 prices using the Retail Price Index (all items).

  2 List price: in practice many sales will be subject to discounts.

  3 May.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is made generally available on the price of foodstuffs(a) within the EEC and (b) on the free world market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  For the European Community, Eurostat disseminates a range of information, including prices received by producers for certain agricultural commodities, volume and value of imports and exports and consumer price indices for food. Some price data are also available in the specialised trade press and the publications of trade organisations. Price quotations for some products available for "world" trade are published in the specialist press and elsewhere: but these relate generally to particular qualities and presentation at specified locations and are not necessarily comparable with home-produced supplies available on the domestic market: they exclude products traded under special agreements. A significant reduction in agricultural support levels worldwide—a major aim of the Uruguay GATT round—would cause many "world" prices to rise.

  Channel Cod Quota
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the review of the Channel cod quota is to be undertaken and completed; what action he intends taking to ensure the continued viability of the south-west fishery during the interim period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We will raise the Channel cod total allowable catch (TAC) at the next meeting of the advisory committee for fisheries management (ACFM) this month. The present TAC is the same as the revised one for 1988 and it is 70 per cent. greater than 1983. Overall, and taking account of the valuable swap of Dutch quotas we secured last December, 1989 fishing opportunities in south west are greater in cod equivalent terms than in 1988. As well as pressing for an early review of Channel cod, we will continue to explore the possibility for further swaps which will improve our fishing opportunities.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the cost of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy slaughter programme is met by the European Community; what the total cost has been to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The total cost of the BSE slaughter and disposal programme, excluding Ministry staff and other resources, up to 31 March 1989 was just over £1·6 million. None of these costs are being met from European Community funds.

  Food Irradiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the draft EC directive on food irradiation.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the explanatory memorandum 10377/88 on this draft directive which has been lodged in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of vegetables imported from Holland in 1988 were subjected to irradiation.

  Mr. Ryder
  None.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about possibilities of monitoring foodstuffs for irradiation.

  Mr. Ryder
  Dosimetric techniques for monitoring the irradiation of food are well established.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of(a) registrations and (b) applications for the set-aside scheme were validated by field inspections in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is being collected. I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Aerial Photography
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proportion of the United Kingdom arable area was subject in 1988 to aerial photography of sufficient quality to allow identification of the cropping pattern; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has plans for aerial photography of arable land in the United Kingdom in 1989; and what he estimates the cost will be.

  Mr. Ryder
  Excluding satellite imagery, approximately 1 million hectares of land, mainly in Great Britain, was covered by ADAS aerial photography in 1988. Some 20 per cent. of this area was arable land. This photography was of sufficient quality to allow identification of cropping patterns. Present plans provide for a similar area to be photographed in 1989, both for statutory and advisory purposes. Total budgeted running costs for the ADAS aerial photography unit in 1989–90 are estimated at £250,000.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research projects undertaken for his Department by the Natural Environment Research Council during the past five years.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: The following research projects have been undertaken for my Department by the Natural Environment Research Council during the five years ending 1988–89. Some of the projects were completed in that period and others are continuing.

  Aquatic environment and fisheries

  Factors affecting the population dynamics of sea trout

  The physiology of stress response in freshwater fish

  Effects of flow regimes in salmonid recruitment

  Nutritional requirements and feed behaviour of fish

  The role of nultritional deficiency in disease in farm fish

  Continuous plankton recorder

  Undulating oceanographic recorder deployment off the northeast coast

  Plankton production at seasonal thermocline

  Irish Sea productivity study

  Integration of chemical, physical and biological modelling along the Western European shelf edge

  Organic waste disposal in the marine environment

  Coastal water processes in the Irish Sea and west Scotland

  Organic degradation in the marine environment

  Mercury transformations in the marine environment

  Relationship between lipids in phytoplankton zoo plankton and herring larvae

  Hydrography of the North West approaches

  Bait attraction and longlining

  The ecology of young stages of salmonid fish and the implications for practical river management

  Phytoplankton in relation to mariculture

  Environmental stress and physiology of growth in trout

  Environmental radioactivity: Impact of freshwater ecosystems: Evaluation of Opercular Bone Material

  Fish biology (study of deep sea species)

  Salmonid/coarse fish interaction in chalk streams

  Biology of saprolegnia

  Sea Mammal Research

  Whale research (research on population dynamics to support United Kingdom representatives to IWC)

  Seal research (research on population numbers and dynamics, diet and the impact on commercial fisheries)

  River and Flood Protection

  Physical aspects of flooding

  Catchment response to rainfall

  Flood statistics

  Wetland hydrology

  Environment impact of flood protection measures

  Distributed catchment models

  Real time forecasting of river flows

  National archive for flood hydrology

  Catchment response modelling for design flood estimation

  Catchment urbanisation

  Effects of agricultural drainage on catchment hydrology

  Catchment response and the flood frequency curve

  Statistical flood estimation procedures

  Hydrological behaviour of flat agricultural catchments

  Environmental impact of flood protection measures on the water regime of wildlife habitats

  River erosion

  Risk based criteria for economic analysis of flood protection works

  Marine Flood Protection

  Numerical models of the seas around Britain

  Prediction of sea levels

  Wave action and extreme waves

  Maintenance and monitoring of the East Coast model

  Development of West Coast model

  Development of a combined wave/tide/surge model

  Statistical prediction of extreme levels

  502

  Improvement of sea level prediction for flood protection

  Joint probability of waves and sea levels

  Wave set-up

  High wave studies

  Wave-current interaction

  Wave measurement in support of such coast flood protection studies

  Routine wave measurements

  Review of potential of satellite remote sensing for marine flood protection

  Archiving of Class A tide gauge data

  Wave measurement for South Coast studies

  Detailed processes of sand transport by tidal waves etc.

  Movement of material on the sea bed under the combined action of waves and tides

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds were allocated from his Department for directly commissioned research relevant to mental handicap for each of the past five years; and whether he intends those funds to be increased over the next five to 10 years.

  Mr. Needham
  No research relevant to mentally handicapped people has been directly commissioned by the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services over the past five years.

  The Department is soon to commission a major research project to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the policy in Northern Ireland to promote and develop community care for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people selected for discharge from long-stay hospitals. The project will monitor the progress and quality of life of individual patients and will run for at least three years.

  Food Safety
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State far Northern Ireland if he will state the number of food poisoning cases in each area board in the last five years far which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  1984

  43

  50

  37

  15

  1985

  62

  31

  60

  5

  1986

  97

  107

  48

  21

  1987

  193

  145

  69

  16

  1988

  95

  104

  57

  46

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Departments in Northern Ireland are responsible for consumer food safety.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Agriculture.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to up-date the law on food safety in Northern Ireland; when his Department last reviewed existing legal provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Food Acts of the United Kingdom (which include law on food safety) were reviewed in 1984
  503
  by officials of the United Kingdom Health and Agriculture Departments. Following that review Ministers agreed that consultations should be carried out on the future of those Acts, and those consultations are now largely complete. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced in the House on 16 March, new legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time permits. In accordance with normal practice in the field of transferred legislation, comparable provision will be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what responsibilities health and social services boards have in the area of food safety.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: Health and Social Services boards are responsible for investigating food poisoning cases reported by doctors under the Public Health Act (NI) 1967 as amended. In addition, under the Food and Drugs Act (NI) 1958, a chief administrative medical officer of a health and social services board may, if he suspects that any food is likely to cause food poisoning, seize that food and have it tested. If investigations confirm that the food is unfit for human consumption it may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to reform the law in Northern Ireland as it applies to food and hygiene; which Northern Ireland departments are responsible for food safety; and how many staff from each Department have been involved in this area in the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 May 1989.] The Food Acts of the United Kingdom were reviewed in 1984 by officials of United Kingdom Health and Agriculture Departments. Following that review Ministers agreed that consultations should be carried out on the future of those Acts, and those consultations are now largely complete. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries

  Cost of education in Northern Ireland prisons 1985–1989

  £000

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Belfast

  96·2

  118·3

  118·7

  130·3

  Maze (Cellular)

  172·8

  205·0

  276·8

  356·6

  Maze (Compound)

  108·2

  94·9

  46·7

  Maghaberry (Male)

  0·1

  0·1

  5·5

  40·1

  Maghaberry (Female)

  —

  32·9

  37·2

  47·0

  Armagh

  37·0

  1·6

  —

  —

  Magilligan

  59·6

  87·3

  93·5

  98·7

  Young Offenders Centre, Hydebank

  111·4

  106·7

  115·3

  129·0

  Total

  585·3

  646·8

  693·7

  801·6

  Library books available to inmates (approx)

  40,000

  41,000

  41,000

  35,000

  Notes:

  1. The increased costs for the year 1988–89 can be attributed to the national increase in teachers' salary scales. This normally accounts for 90 per cent. of the total expenditure on prison education.

  2. The range of subjects taught runs from adult basic education through to open university level, and prisoners are prepared for the various public examinations—eg GCSE; A levels; Royal Society of Arts; City and Guilds of London Institute. Statistics available for the 1987–88 academic year show that upwards of 1,000 inmates or just under 50 per cent. of the total prison population were involved in some form of education. Of this, 28 per cent. were enrolled in basic education, 55 per cent. were enrolled in examination classes and the remaining
  504
  and Food announced in the House on 16 March, new legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time permits. In accordance with normal practice in the field of transferred legislation, comparable provision will be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974.

  The Departments of Health and Social Services and Agriculture have responsibilities for food safety.

  Figures on the numbers of staff from each Department involved in food safety over the past three years are not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dwellings (Valuation)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 595, if he will indicate the cost of extracting from the computer on which it is held the information sought by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East about the net valuation of dwellings in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The cost of providing the information requested is more than twice the present limit for answers to parliamentary questions.

  Prisons (Education)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show what sums were expended on education in each prison in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and indicate the major items of expenditure in each case; and if he will also indicate the number of library books available in each prison in each such year or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The figures requested are readily available for the past four years and are shown in table form.
  505
  17 per cent. were enrolled in social/leisure classes. In total 519 were presented for recognised examinations and 477 were successful.

  3. Seventy nine inmates are presently involved in the open university undergraduate programme. Last year 69 took examinations and 65 were successful including 10 obtaining distinctions. Within this group five completed their degrees, two with honours.

  4. On a sample day 78 per cent. of the population had a total of 4,800 books on loan. The inter-library province-wide loan scheme, of which prison libraries are a part, makes a valuable contribution to the quality of the library service and last year 1,077 special requests were processed. The prison libraries carry a total book stock of around 35,000, all supplied by the local education and library boards, whose professional expertise and practical support is gratefully acknowledged.

  5. The reduction in the total number of books available between 1987–88 and 1988–89 results in the amalgamation of the compound prisoners and their libraries into the cellular regime.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when was the most recent case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy confirmed in Northern Ireland; and what assessment he has made of whether it indicates any spread of the disease.

  Mr. Viggers
  The 13th case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Northern Ireland was confirmed on 3 April 1989.

  BSE is not thought to spread from animal to animal. The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland has implemented the recommendations of the Southwood committee. These recommendations are intended to prevent further infection of bovines but it must be borne in mind that they cannot prevent cases arising in animals incubating the disease from earlier exposure to the infective agent. As the disease takes a number of years to manifest itself clinically it will be some time before the ultimate success of the measures taken can be assessed.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many families were entitled to family credit and how many were receiving it in 1988–89.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of families entitled to and receiving family credit on 31 March 1989 was 14,500. A reliable estimate of the number who might be eligible for family credit in Northern Ireland is not available.

  Capital Projects (Health Boards)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give, for each health board, details of proposed capital developments costing more than £1 million which have been cancelled for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  No such schemes have been cancelled since 1979.

  Electricity (Privatisation)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proposed timetable for the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Viggers
  No timetable has been set for privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. Government are currently examining the available options and will bring forward their detailed proposals in due course.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account his Department takes of the parity clause in relation to the statement of fees and allowances in the Social Services Agreement Act 1949 and the Finance 506
  Act 1971; and what arrangements are accordingly made to budget for general practitioner trainers' remuneration and general practitioner trainees' allowances.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: The amounts payable to general practitioner trainers and trainees under the statement of fees and allowances are the same in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Financial provision for general practitioner trainers' remuneration and general practitioner trainees' allowance is made under the family practitioner services section of the Department's Health and Personal Social Services vote 1.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what consideration has been given to amending current arrangements in Northern Ireland to allow designated general practitioner trainers to recruit suitably qualified general practitioner trainees on the same terms as in Great Britain; and what would be the revenue and manpower consequences of such a change;

  (2) whether there is any constraint which prohibits the Department of Health and Social Security in Northern Ireland from allowing general practitioner trainers to recruit trainees on the same basis as in Britain.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: It is not proposed to introduce arrangements in Northern Ireland to allow designated general practitioner trainers to recruit their own trainees on the same basis as in Great Britain. The present arrangements are designed to limit the annual number of trainees to our manpower requirements and to select trainees in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1976 and the guide to effective practice issued by the Department of Economic Development. Copies of each of these documents have been placed in the Library.

  However, I can inform the hon. Member that the Department has established a working group of all interested parties to review the arrangements for
  vocational training for general practice in Northern Ireland.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has yet received approval from the EEC of the proposed management buy-out in co-operation with Mr. Olsen of Messrs. Harland and Wolff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: Formal EC approval has not yet been sought for the sale of Harland and Wolff plc to the management buy-out team, backed by Mr. Olsen. Officials of the Department of Economic Development have had discussions with EC officials and a formal notification seeking EC approval will be made in due course.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to offer performance
  507
  guarantees on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in respect of any of the three tankers to be built at Messrs. Harland and Wolff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 4 May 1989]: As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced on 22 March, to enable the new Harland and Wolff to raise performance guarantees necessary for the financing of its operations in the early years, the Olsen companies have agreed to make a recourse commitment for use by the new company to support pre-delivery financing. The Government will match this.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of all those who were considered for appointment as chairmen of the Fair Employment Commission; if he will make a statement about the methods used to appoint to this post; and what advertisements were placed in the press.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: It is not usual to advertise for applicants for appointments to the boards of statutory bodies nor to publicise the names of those who have been under consideration for any public office. The chairman designate of the Fair Employment Commission was selected on the basis of individual merit.

  Food Poisoning
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of cases of food poisoning notified to each health and social services board in Northern Ireland in the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  1986

  97

  107

  48

  21

  1987

  193

  145

  69

  16

  1988

  95

  104

  57

  46

  Environmental Health Officers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many environmental health officers are currently employed by each district council in Northern Ireland; and what was the figure for 1984.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: In Northern Ireland environmental health officers, outside Belfast, are employed within regional groups of councils. Some officers are retained at group headquarters and provide specialist services to each constituent council. Each council also has its own complement of environmental health officers. The numbers employed are as follows:

  1984

  1989

  Belfast

  56

  59

  Eastern group:

  HQ

  8

  9

  Ards

  5

  5

  Castlereagh

  4

  4

  Down

  5

  5

  Lisburn

  7

  7

  North Down

  6

  6

  508

  1984

  1989

  Northern group:

  HQ

  11

  12

  Antrim

  3

  4

  Ballymena

  5

  6

  Ballymoney

  2

  3

  Carrickfergus

  2

  3

  Coleraine

  5

  7

  Cookstown

  2

  3

  Larne

  3

  3

  Magherafelt

  2

  3

  Moyle

  1

  1

  Newtownabbey

  5

  5

  Southern group:

  HQ

  10

  9

  Armagh

  4

  4

  Banbridge

  2

  3

  Craigavon

  6

  7

  Dungannon

  5

  6

  Newry and Mourne

  5

  6

  Western group:

  HQ

  9

  9

  Derry

  7

  8

  Fermanagh

  4

  5

  Limavady

  2

  3

  Omagh

  3

  4

  Strabane

  2

  3

  Total

  191

  212

  Maternity Payments
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of children born in Northern Ireland during 1988 were eligible for maternity payments through the social fund; and what was the average payment made.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 May 1989]: Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, during 1988, 8,129 maternity payments were made. The normal flat-rate payment is £85 per child.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  North East Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the former employees of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. who have found full-time employment since the closure of the shipyard.

  Mr. Newton
  I do not think that it would be appropriate to list individuals in this way, even if it were immediately practicable. However, I understand that no part-time jobs are included in the figure given recently by Sunderland Enterprise and Training Ltd. for the number of former NESL employees who have found alternative jobs.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimates have been made of the effects of the completion of the internal market in 1992 on(a) job losses in manufacturing industry and (b) of the adverse effects in peripheral regions of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  509
  Mr. Maude
  The single market will provide great opportunities and challenges to firms in all parts of the United Kingdom. The impact on individual sectors and regions will depend on how successfully individual firms respond.

  British Overseas Trade Board
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the post of chief executive to the British Overseas Trade board was advertised; and what are the current pay and conditions of the appointment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The post of chief executive to the British Overseas Trade board was not advertised because it forms part of the duties of a grade 2 civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry. The current pay and conditions of appointment are those applying generally to civil servants of that grade.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any members of the British Overseas Trade board listed on page 3 of the 1987–88 annual report have benefited from the British Overseas Trade board services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Comprehensive information about the use of official export services by individual companies is not readily available. However, companies with representatives who are also members of the British Overseas Trade board, are entitled to use the available services on the same conditions as other United Kingdom businesses.

  Mr. Peter Luff
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current salary and duties of Mr. Peter Luff.

  Mr. Forth
  I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 27 January 1989 at column 766.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the import penetration of every item of manufactured goods under the standard industrial classification for 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The latest available data for import penetration is for 1987 and may be found in Business Monitor MQ 12. The 1988 information is expected to appear shortly, following a restructuring of the calculation systems to make them compatible with the intergrated classification for overseas trade (the combined nomenclature) introduced at the beginning of 1988.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the balance of trade in manufactured goods under the standard industrial classification for 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on the basis of the standard industrial classification for 1988 is not currently available. Restructuring of the system which provides these estimates to accommodate the new classification for overseas trade has not yet been completed.

  In 1988 the balance of trade in manufactured goods on the basis of the standard international trade classification was in deficit by £14·4 billion.

  Defence Exports (Visible Exports)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply of 9 December,Official Report, column 346, how the calculations for the percentage of total visible exports supported by defence exports were made.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Since the answer to the hon. Gentleman's previous question on 9 December 1988 at column 346 was given my attention has been drawn to the fact that the percentages were based on figures which did not fully represent United Kingdom defence equipment exports.

  The correct figures—based on headings in the Overseas Trade Statistics which cover defence equipment expressed as a percentage of total United Kingdom exports are 1·1 per cent. in 1986, 1·5 per cent. in 1987 and 1·0 per cent. in 1988.

  Japanese Trade
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the principal manufactured products from Japan imported into the United Kingdom with the corresponding import duties applicable to those products in Japan;

  (2) if he will set out the balance of trade with Japan in the last full year and the anticipated figures for the current year;

  (3) if he will set out the principal products exported to Japan from the United Kingdom with their rates of import duties and the rates of duty for those same products applicable on imports to the United Kingdom from Japan.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The crude balance of trade with Japan for 1988—the last full year for which figures are available —was in deficit by £4,766 million. Projections of trade balances for individual countries are not available.

  Principal products in our trade with Japan have been identified as those nine-digit United Kingdom commodity code numbers which had the greatest value of trade recorded against them in 1988. United Kingdom duty rates are specified for each of these nine-digit headings; Japanese duty rates are allocated according to the headings of the harmonised system which comprise the first six digits of the United Kingdom commodity code.

  The tables show the top ten products listed in order of the value of trade in 1988 for United Kingdom imports of manufactures from Japan and United Kingdom exports to Japan respectively together with the requested duty rates. The products listed account for 27 per cent. of our imports of manufactures from Japan and 22 per cent. of our total exports to Japan.

  More comprehensive tables showing the top 100 commodity codes in numerical order (in each case accounting for about two thirds of the overall trade) have been placed in the Library. The tables include the relevant Japanese duty rates. The descriptions of the code numbers and United Kingdom duty rates can be found in the "Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library. However, for some of the commodity codes, the descriptions are too specific to identify product groups that can be easily recognised.

  If my hon. Friend requires more information about the figures, perhaps he would write to me.
  511

  United Kingdom exports to Japan—Top 10 products in 1988

  Import duty rates

  CCN description and code

  Japan

  United Kingdom

  970110001 Paintings in oil or water colours

  Free

  Free

  220830913 Blended whisky other than bourbon warehoused 3 years or more, certified, in containers holding 2 litres or less

  15·7 per cent.

  0·4 ecu/per cent, vol./hl +3 ecu/hi

  711019100 Bars, rods, wire and sections; plates; sheets and strips of a thickness excluding any backing exceeding 015 mm of platinium

  Free

  0·9 per cent.

  870324103 New assembled motor vehicles of a cylinder capacity exceeding 3,000 cc other than station wagons/estate cars

  Free

  10 per cent.

  854380909 Electrical machines and apparatus having individual functions nes.

  Free

  Free

  300490199 Medicaments nes put up in forms or in packings of a kind sold by retail

  5·3 per cent.

  9·6 per cent.

  992099008 Postal packages not classified according to kind

  n.a.

  n.a.

  294190000 Antibiotics nes

  3·4 per cent.

  5·3 per cent.

  970600000 Antiques of an age exceeding 100 years

  Free

  Free

  220830991 Wholly malt whicky other than bourbon warehoused 3 years or more, certified in containers holding more than 2 litres

  15·7 per cent.

  0·4 ecu/per cent, vol./hl

  Source:

  (i) Integrated tariff of the United Kingdom.

  (ii) Customs tariff schedule of Japan, National tariff published annually by Japan tariff association.

  United Kingdom imports of Manufactures from Japan—Top 10 products in 1988

  CCN description and code

  Japanese import duty rates

  870323103 New assembled motor vehicles of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1,500 cc but not exceeding 3,000 cc other than station wagons/estate cars

  Free

  847330000 Parts and accessories of automatic data processing machines

  Free

  870322103 New assembled motor vehicles of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1,000 cc but not exceeding 1,500 cc other than station wagons/estate cars

  Free

  870321101 New assembled motor vehicles of a cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,000 cc

  Free

  852290999 Parts and accessories of sound recorders or reproducers or television image and sound recorders or reproducers nes

  3·4 per cent.

  851782001 Facsimile transmission machines

  Free

  847192901 Printers for automatic data processing machines (ADP)

  Free

  847193500 Disc storage units for ADP machines

  Free

  900990100 Parts and accessories of electrostatic photocopying apparatus or other photocopying apparatus incorporating an optical system.

  Free

  870323101 New assembled station wagons/estate cars of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1,500 cc but not exceeding 3,000 cc

  Free

  Source:

  (i) Intergrated tariff of the United Kingdom.

  (ii) Customs tariff schedule of Japan, National tariff published annually by the Japan tariff association.

  Single Market
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is being done to liberalise United Kingdom export controls in preparation for the single European market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Her Majesty's Government expect to see a considerable reduction in controls on exports to our European Community partners and others before 1992. A step in this direction has been taken with the introduction of an open general export Licence which frees British exporters from the need to apply for individual licences for a wide range of industrial goods for export to our partners in the European Community, the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia.

  I am placing a copy of the open general export licence (European Community and COCOM destinations) in the Library.

  Estate Agents Act
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the operation of the Estate Agents Act.

  Mr. Forth
  I am concluding a review of estate agency. The review has considered the operation of the Estate 512
  Agents Act 1979 and in this context I have received advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Soviet Union (Joint Enterprises)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many joint ventures have been entered into by British companies with(a) Soviet state enterprises and (b) Soviet co-operatives to date; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 10 May 1989. Of those, 33 signed UK/USSR joint ventures of which we are aware, 29 are with Soviet state organisations while the remaining four are with Soviet co-operatives. My Department is unable to list them, however, as much of the information has been provided to us on the basis of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many joint ventures have been entered into with the Soviet Union by EC companies to date; and if he is able to list the number for each member state.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The most comprehensive and most recent survey of joint ventures entered into in the Soviet Union by EC companies held by my Department is aPlanEcon Report1 dated 24 March which gives details of

  513
  103 joint ventures which had been registered with the Soviet Ministry of Finance on or before 15 February 1989. For ease of comparison, the number with each member state is as follows:

  EC Member State

  Number

  West Germany

  36

  Italy

  20

  United Kingdom

  12

  France

  10

  Luxembourg

  3

  Spain

  3

  Belgium

  2

  Denmark

  2

  Netherlands

  2

  Greece

  1

  Ireland

  1

  Portugal

  0

  92

  Joint Ventures having partners from more than one EC Member State

  4

  Joint Venture having partners from an EC Member State and a third country

  7

  103

  1 The PlanEcon report is a weekly United States publication, which analyses major macroeconomic and trade developments in the economies of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.

  The number of joint ventures has since risen, though no more recent comparison is available. As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 10 May 1989, my Department is, for example, aware of 33 joint ventures signed to date between United Kingdom companies and the Soviet Union, not all of which have been registered with the Soviet authorities.

  Telephone Calls
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide equivalent figures on telephone calls to those given by the then hon. Member for Wembley, South on 23 January 1968,Official Report, column 331, for the latest available date.

  Mr. Atkins
  The latest year for which such information is publicly available is 1983. In that year some 21·5 billion effective telephone calls were made, of which 82·6 per cent. were local calls; 16·7 per cent. inland trunk calls; 0·43 per cent. were continental calls and 0·26 per cent. were other overseas calls.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job-seeking Records
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the status of the detailed job-seeking records asking claimants to fill in what they have done from Monday to Friday which some unemployed people are asked to complete by claimant advisers; and what is the position of those claimants who refuse or who are otherwise unable to complete them.

  Mr. Lee
  Benefit claimants are not required to complete a formal record showing their detailed daily activities in order to maintain their claim.

  Training
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training continues to grow faster than any other previous adult training programme. By 28 April, there were over 184,000 people in training. They clearly recognise the benefits the programme has to offer and the opportunity it provides to help them get a job.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what reviews he is making of maternity leave for employees; and if he will take steps to harmonise United Kingdom practice with that of other European countries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to amend the maternity rights contained in the employment protection legislation.

  British Coal
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice he has given British Coal in regard to the implementation of the new mine safety regulation and codes of practice; and if he proposes to offer any guidance to ensure that British Coal properly implements the proposed arrangements and that there is no attempt to unilaterally amend them in practice.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has not given any advice to British Coal on this matter. Regulations and codes of practice approved under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act have the force of law.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide information on the number of female part-timers in April 1988 with an average working week of(a) one hour, (b) two hours, (c) three hours, (d) four hours, (e) five hours, (f) six hours, (g) seven hours and (h) the total below eight hours; and how many have been working (i) over eight hours but below 16 hours, and (ii) 16 hours and above.

  Mr. Lee
  Preliminary estimates from the spring 1988 labour force survey are as follows:

  Women aged 16 and over in part-time1 employment in Great Britain

  Basic usual weekly hours worked2

  Number working (thousands)

  1

  19

  2

  57

  3

  65

  4

  113

  5

  97

  6

  176

  7

  87

  Less than 8 hours

  3627

  8 hours but less than 16 hours

  1,545

  16 hours to 30 hours

  2,821

  1 Basic usual weekly hours of 30 or less per week.

  2 Excludes mealbreaks and overtime.

  3 Includes a few people whose basic usual weekly hours were a half hour or less. Half hours are rounded to the nearest even hour.

  515
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide information showing the number of male part-time workers in Great Britain in April 1988 and the proportion of those workers whose earnings fell below(a) £3·80 per hour, (b) £2·85 per hour, (c) £2·80 per hour and (d) £5·70 per hour.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There were an estimated 914,000 part-time male employees in employment in March 1988. The estimated percentage of part-time male employees earning below the specified amounts in the new earnings survey sample in April 1988 was:

  Hourly earnings less than

  Percentage

  £

  2·80

  55

  3·00

  63

  3·80

  79

  5·50

  87

  6·00

  88

  Figures of the proportion earning below £2·85 and £5·70 per hour are not available; the nearest available figures have been given.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have become self-employed in the last year in the east midlands; what trend can be discerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures on people starting or finishing self employment. Between December 1987 and December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the estimated number of self-employed in the east midlands region increased by 10,000 to stand at 205,000. This is an increase of 82,000 or 67 per cent. since 1979, and follows the national trend of substantial growth in self employment during the 1980s.

  Home Workers
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many home workers are covered by each wages council, and the total number of home workers covered; and if he will publish in the Official Report the statistics on compliance with wages council rates in 1988 for home workers in a similar format as the answer of 1 March, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), Official Report, columns 201–06.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information on home workers in wages council trades is as follows. No count is made of the numbers covered by the councils but estimates suggest that the total lies between 20,000 and 30,000.

  Results of wages inspectorate checks of home workers pay by trade—1988

  Wages council

  Home workers whose pay was checked

  Home workers found underpaid

  Percentage of home workers checked found underpaid

  Clothing manufacture

  331

  6

  1·8

  Button manufacturing

  13

  0

  0

  Hat, cap and millinery

  105

  0

  0

  Linen and cotton handkerchief

  9

  0

  0

  516

  Wages council

  Home workers whose pay was checked

  Home workers found underpaid

  Percentage of home workers checked found underpaid

  Made-up textiles

  20

  0

  0

  Ostrich and fancy feather

  2

  0

  0

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  4

  0

  0

  Retail non-food

  7

  0

  0

  Rope twine and net

  22

  0

  0

  Toy manufacturing

  66

  0

  0

  Total

  579

  6

  1·04

  Results of wages inspectorate checks of home workers pay by division—1988

  Division

  Home workers whose pay was checked

  Home workers found underpaid

  Percentage of home workers checked found underpaid

  London

  79

  5

  6·3

  South East

  49

  0

  0

  Eastern

  283

  0

  0

  South West

  59

  0

  0

  Midlands

  67

  0

  0

  North West

  14

  1

  7·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28

  0

  0

  Northern

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  579

  6

  1·04

ENVIRONMENT

  Public Utilities
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now plans to bring in new legislation on public utilities and street work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Proposals for the reform of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 have been drawn up with the benefit of advice from the street works advisory committee, following extensive consultation. A paper has been sent to interested parties inviting comments on the details of our proposals. A copy of that paper is in the Library. Legislation will be brought forward as soon as there is a suitable opportunity.

  Rates (Don Valley)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for(a) Brodsworth parish council and (b) Clayton with Frickley parish council in the parliamentary constituency of Don Valley (i) his estimates of the income raised for a 1p rate on the non-domestic properties in 1989–90 and (ii) his estimates of the total amount of business rate income available in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much nuclear waste is being produced annually in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what is the total amount of nuclear waste so far accumulated in the United Kingdom at (a) high level, (b) intermediate level and (c) low level; and what quantity in each category is currently awaiting disposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The figures are contained in the 1987 United Kingdom Radio-active Waste Inventory, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Rates (Wirral)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends taking any action against the Wirral non-metropolitan borough for its 23 per cent. rate rise in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Because of the introduction of the community charge in April 1990, we do not intend to take action against any authority which budgets excessively in 1989–90. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to take early action to reduce the budget of any authority which he considers excessive next year.

  Second Homes (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many second homes there are in each metropolitan district authority in the county of South Yorkshire; in each case what percentage of the total housing stock this represents; and if he will show in his answer, the figures for five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Trippier
  The most recent information is available from the census 1981 county report for South Yorkshire. Table 18 shows for each district numbers of unoccupied second residence household spaces, together with all household spaces. A copy of the publication is available in the Library.

  Water
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report, the volumes of water at present being abstracted in the Greater London area and the Inner London area and the number of licensed boreholes in each area.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not held centrally. Thames water authority is responsible for licensing water abstractions.

  Local Plan (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to hold an inquiry into the south-east Bradford local plan following the decision by the council to change to industrial use 21 acres at Low Moor.

  Mr. Chope
  The primary responsibility for the south-east Bradford local plan and its content lies with 518
  Bradford city council. The local plan has already been the subject of a public local inquiry. There is no cause for the involvement of the Secretary of State.

  West End Development (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have been held between representatives of his Department and Bradford council regarding the west end development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Officers of Bradford city council have been present at preliminary discussions which my officials have had with the prospective developer. Any application for city grant, which has been discussed, would be made direct to the Department by the developer. Planning permission must be obtained before any such application is accepted.

  Drinking Water
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the information in his Department concerning time-limited derogations and delays which have been granted on the noncompliance of potable waters in England with the EC directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption, 80/77/EEC.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on 7 February 1989 at columns 591–97.

  Sewage Discharges
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a list. for each water authority, of those sewage works in respect of which applications have been made for revised sewage discharge consents.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed a list for English water authorities in the Library of the House.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will study the system implemented in the Federal Republic of Germany for the environmentally safe recovery of the chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators in order to assess its applicability for the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials of the Department of the Environment are shortly to visit the Federal Republic in order to make a technical evaluation of the experimental plant in question and to determine the possible use of the system in the United Kingdom.

  Community Charge
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will show in the Official Report the numbers, grades and cost of his Department's staff dealing with public and media inquiries about the community charge and with publicity campaigns on the community charge; and whether these costs were included in the costs of his campaign announced on 8 May.

  Mr. Ridley
  No members of my Department deal exclusively with public and media inquiries, or with
  519
  information campaigns, about the community charge. As is usual, the figures included in my letter to the hon. Member dated 8 May were for production and distribution costs and did not cover the time of departmental staff.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual cost of the community charge publicity unit being run from PO Box 622, Bristol BS99 1TR; and what are the numbers and grades of staff employed there.

  Mr. Ridley
  The PO Box No. to which the hon. Member refers is that of a private company contracted by the Central Office of Information, on behalf of the Department, solely to fulfil requests for departmental publications on the community charge. The estimated cost of this service is some £300,000, but the final cost will depend on the number of requests received.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report his letter of 8 May to the hon. Member for Copeland setting out his plans to publicise the community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am arranging for copies of my letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Use Classes Order
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the inclusion in structure plans and local plans of policies designated to curtail the freedoms provided by the use classes order.

  Mr. Howard
  Structure plans and local plans may reasonably seek to encourage particular types of development, but they should not include development control policies whose effect would be to impose general restrictions on the freedoms provided by the use classes order and by the general development order where those orders provide for changes of use without the need for specific planning permission. As was recognised in Circular 13/87, it may very exceptionally be appropriate for a local planning authority in determining a particular planning application to impose a condition restricting the use to which land or buildings may subsequently be put; but plans should not embody general policies for such restrictions.

  Development plan policies must be relevant and up to date if they are to carry weight in the consideration of planning applications and appeals. Local planning authorities should, therefore, where necessary bring forward early alterations to policies in plans which are in conflict with the basis of the use classes order. Where already submitted alterations or replacement plans have been drawn up on the basis of the former provisions, the Secretary of State will want to consider the need for modifications to bring them into conformity with the order. Planning authorities should where necessary be prepared to put forward revised proposals for consideration at the examination in public.

  Water (Connection Charges)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to include powers in the Water Bill to allow charges to be made recovering the cost of providing extra capacity to meet demands from newly connected properties.
  520
  Mr. Howard
  I have considered evidence provided to me about the operation of the existing arrangements. I have concluded that a right to charge at the time new connections are made to water mains and public sewers will provide a clearer, fairer and more certain basis for ensuring infrastructure is provided. The necessary amendments to the Water Bill are therefore being tabled. Conditions of appointment of the water and sewerage companies will place a ceiling on the level of charge that can be made, related to the investment costs of the companies

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of installing treatment plant to reduce pollution of the water supply to the European Economic Community standard; and whether the water companies after privatisation will be allowed to add a margin of profit on the capital employed in the installation in addition to the cost of borrowing the sum required for that purpose.

  Mr. Howard
  Water undertakers have submitted programmes of work, together with projections of the cost (including the cost of installing new treatment plants) of complying with the EC drinking water directive. My right hon. Friend is reviewing the programmes, which require discussion with individual water undertakers. Until he has examined them all it is not possible to indicate their costs. However, the programme together with their costs, will be included in prospectuses to be published later in the year.

  Clause 7 of the Water Bill requires the Secretary of State, or the Director General of Water Services, to ensure that water and sewerage undertakers are able (in particular by securing reasonable returns on their capital) to finance the proper carrying out of their functions.

DEFENCE

  Odstock Hospital, Salisbury
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has funded any staff or research at any time since 1979 at Odstock hospital in Salisbury.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD funds a considerable amount of extramural research, but it is not our practice to go into details of individual contracts. It is for the institutes themselves to confirm their involvement.

  Holding Berths
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of a holding berth; whether holding berths have permanent safety precautions against radiological hazards; and if he will publish in the Official Report a full list of all the locations of holding berths in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamliton
  A holding berth is a berth available for use over the shortest practical period by a nuclear-powered warship in circumstances when an unplanned event either temporarily precludes the use of a Z or X berth to which it is on passage, or temporarily prevents the warship continuing with its intended movement when leaving a port or berth. A holding berth is for contingency use only and may not be used by
  521
  planned intent. Holding berths are all covered by public or special safety schemes, but, because they are by nature off shore, much of the detail that applies to Z and X berths is not appropriate. When a nuclear-powered warship is temporarily occupying a holding berth, a tug must be in attendance, other shipping must be required to pass or anchor away from the warship, and an emergency radiation monitoring team must be maintained on call in operational readiness. There are holding berths off shore from Barry, Cardiff, Devonport, Liverpool and Rosyth.

  "British Defence Policy"
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost(a) to design, research and compile and (b) to print the pamphlet, "British Defence Policy"; how many copies have been printed; what is the cost of distribution; and if he will list the organisations provided with copies and the number provided to each.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost of designing, researching and compiling "British Defence Policy 1989–90" was £29,187 (including VAT); printing is estimated to cost £78,434 (including VAT); and the estimated cost of distribution is £5,100. A total of 130,000 copies are being printed, of which 5,000 have been distributed to date, free of charge, to MPs, peers, journalists, foreign defence attaches and advisers, officials and members of the armed forces and NATO headquarters. We have also sent them to non-government organisations which have requested them, such as Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Associations, Peace through NATO, the British Atlantic Committee, Families for Defence, the Royal United Services Institution, and the Royal Institute for International Affairs. Additional copies will be sent on request.

  "Sanity"
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his departmental library has on order the monthly magazine Sanity produced for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for Vickers Submarine Engineering Ltd. of the Canadian Government decision to withdraw from purchasing Trafalgar class nuclear power submarines.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Canadian Government had not awarded any contracts prior to their decision not to proceed with a nuclear-powered submarine programme. Had the programme gone ahead and the United Kingdom been selected as country of origin for the design of the submarine, United Kingdom industry, including Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., would have expected to obtain a significant proportion of the business.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report all surveys of whatever size carried out by his Department amongst past and present submarine service personnel or their offspring to determine whether there has been any abnormal
  522
  statistical evidence of medical disorders arising from exposure of Royal Navy nuclear submarine personnel to radiation; if he will publish the dates and the population census for such surveys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Medical records of all naval personnel are analysed annually and any health trends are identified. There have been no special surveys carried out by the Department to determine whether there is any evidence of medical disorders arising from exposure of Royal Navy nuclear submarine personnel to radiation. A report on morbidity in submariners between 1969 and 1974 was produced in 1975: this was not specifically concerned with the effects of radiation. Also, as I said in reply to the hon. Member on 2 May at columns 61–62, a study into mortality and morbidity among submariners is currently in progress. This, too, is not specifically concerned with radiation, although it examines radiation along with all other factors which could affect the health of submariners.

  In general, personnel serving in Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines receive lower radiation doses than members of the public, since they are shielded from much cosmic and terrestrial radiation. Those submarine personnel designated as radiation workers are included in the national register of such workers, unless they explicitly ask to be excluded.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size and composition of the housing stock owned and rented by his Department in the Plymouth area and the number currently(a) unoccupied and (b) for sale; and if he will provide the corresponding figures for Torpoint, including the addresses of those that are to be sold.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence currently owns 2,914 houses and 637 flats in the Plymouth area. We have no rented properties there. As at 31 March 1989, the most recent date for which comprehensive figures are available, 1,190 properties were vacant and 501 of these were in the process of disposal. At Torpoint we own 102 houses and 64 flats; 52 were vacant on 31 March 1989 and nine of those were in the process of disposal. Many of the vacant properties are undergoing modernisation or major maintenance, some are already allocated to service families who will be moving in shortly and others are being prepared for disposal. I shall write to my hon. Friend about the properties to be sold at Torpoint.

  Submarines (Medical Records)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now agree to release medical records to past submariners when these are asked for.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the policy of the Department to release medical records. Two exceptions to this are the release of copies of relevant clinical notes to a qualified medical practioner for the purposes of continued treatment, and the release of copies of relevant notes to a medically qualified adviser for use in legal proceedings. They are not released to the person to whom they refer. This accords with the policy of the NHS for the handling of civilian records. Radiation dose records are, however, kept for those submariners designated as radiation
  523
  workers, and are maintained separately from the medical records. These dose records are released to the individual concerned on request, and are forwarded to him as a matter of course when he leaves the service, in accordance with the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985.

  DIDO Reactor, Harwell
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safety experiments have been conducted, using the DIDO reactor at Harwell by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: UKAEA Harwell undertakes work for the Royal Navy on a commercial basis. Tests of materials performance relevant to the design and safety of the naval reactor systems have been conducted in the DIDO reactor.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Officers (Accommodation)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prison officers now reside in prison accommodation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  About 20 per cent.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on recent developments in dealing with juvenile offenders.

  Mr. John Patten
  Recorded juvenile crime is falling. More juveniles are being cautioned rather than prosecuted and more being dealt with under an increasing range of demanding and constructive community-based measures. Custody remains available to deal with the most serious juvenile offenders. The Government are considering how to improve the arrangements for the remand of alleged juvenile offenders.

  Football Grounds (Safety)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairmen of London football clubs to discuss football ground safety in London.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the chairmen of London football clubs he has met officially in the last six months.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have had no such meetings. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport meets the chairmen of league football clubs, including London clubs, from time to time, as well as representatives from the Football League and the Football Association.

  Police Initial Recruitment Test
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations regarding the current police initial recruitment test.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received representations from the Commission for Racial Equality about the 524
  validity and possible culture bias of the test, which the Commission suggests should be more closely related to the needs of the job. Although there is no evidence that the test works to the detriment of applicants from the ethnic minorities, the Police advisory board is considering the case for a new test.

  Violence
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to tackle increasing violence in non-metropolitan areas.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have strengthened the police; tightened the law on under-age drinking and increased the penalties available to the courts; reminded the police and courts of their powers to deal with outbreaks of disorder; encouraged the swift hearing of cases of this kind; and made it an offence to carry a knife in a public place without good reasons. My right hon. Friend has also approved pilot projects in seven areas to test the effectiveness of byelaws making it an offence to drink alcohol in designated public places. The ministerial group on alcohol misuse will take action to follow up certain recommendations contained in a recently published Home Office research study on drinking and disorder.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce drink-related violence in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have strengthened the law on sales of alcohol to under-age drinkers and increased the penalties available to the courts. We have reminded the police and courts of their powers for dealing with outbreaks of disorder and infringements of the licensing laws, and asked them to arrange for swift prosecutions and court hearings after outbreaks of hooliganism and violence. In February the Government issued a circular giving advice about local action to tackle all forms of alcohol misuse. Initiatives at national level are being taken forward by the ministerial group on alcohol misuse. Meetings with representatives of the drinks and fast food industries are planned to discuss recommendations contained in a newly published Home Office research study on drinking and disorder.

  Young People (Arrests)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made of young people in the London area for each of the last six months for which figures are available, under section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is not available.

  Metropolitan Police (Freemasonry)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has raised with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the influence of freemasonry in the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend discussed the matter at length with the Commissioner. There is no evidence that freemasonry has influenced Metropolitan police officers either in the execution of their duties or in the internal management of the force.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to help encourage recruitment into the police force in the light of the growing shortage of young people coming on to the employment market.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A working party has been set up by the Police advisory board to examine the recruitment problems arising from the reduction in numbers of school leavers and to make recommendations for future recruiting strategy. I hope that the working party's recommendations will be ready for consideration at the board's next meeting in the autumn.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the responsibilities of the Charity Commission.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals to implement the Woodfield report which recommended a number of changes in the responsibilities.

  Shops (Theft)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to reduce theft from shops.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking against theft from shops.

  Mr. John Patten
  The prevention of theft from shops is primarily a matter for the retailers themselves. We support the retailers in a range of ways; through the advice on preventive measures contained in the 1986 report of the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention working group on shop theft, our crime prevention handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" and crime prevention unit research papers, and in meetings with retailers and their representative organisations. It is encouraging that the number of offences of theft from shops fell by 12 per cent. in 1988 and that the number of offences has fallen by almost a quarter since 1985.

  Police Efficiency
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in implementing the recommendations of the Audit Commission on police efficiency.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following its special study on the police, the Audit Commission has produced detailed audit guidance for district auditors, for use in the value for money audits which they are conducting in all provincial police forces. The police forces are co-operating fully with the district audit service in these inquiries. Chief officers of police and the police authorities are primarily responsible for implementing promptly the improvements in efficiency and effectiveness which are identified. This is valuable work which has the full support of the Home Office and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  Hillsborough Disaster
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the estimated costs of the Hillsborough police inquiry and the means of funding the West Midlands police responsible for that inquiry.

  Mr Douglas Hogg
  It is not clear at this stage what the total additional costs of the Hillsborough police inquiry will be. With regard to the means of funding the West Midlands police I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) on 28 April at column 702.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the West Midlands police authority will be fully reimbursed for the costs of the West Midlands police inquiry in support of the judicial review into the Hillsborough stadium tragedy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) on 28 April at column 702.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost to public funds of the police inquiry into the Hillsborough football disaster; and if the costs will be met by his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not clear at this stage what the total additional costs of the police inquiry into the Hillsborough football disaster will be. With regard to the means of reimbursing the West Midlands police I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) on 28 April at column 702.

  Parking (London)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures he plans to provide for the enforcement of parking and waiting restrictions on through routes into London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The enforcement of parking and waiting restrictions has been reviewed by a working party under Home Office chairmanship. The working party has recently submitted its report, which we will consider carefully.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to increase the efficiency of the prison service.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Fresh start continues to improve the efficiency of the prison service. The service is on course to achieve the initial implementation efficiencies by the end of 1989–90. Under the framework agreement, half of the hours lost in the progressive reduction in prison officers' working week to 39 hours on 1 April 1992 are being made up by efficiency improvements. A management services group supports prison service managers in achieving best value for money and a programme of efficiency reviews is undertaken. Additional initiatives, including examination of the scope for civilianisation, are also being pursued.
  527
  My right hon. Friend announced on 3 February at column 420, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), a review of the organisation of the service above the level of individual establishments which is charged with identifying by the end of July the scope for further improvements in effectiveness and value for money.

  Police Forces
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to increase co-operation between police forces without altering the current structure.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to improve the organisation and structure of the police forces in the north-west region of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has recently made clear that we shall maintain the present structure of the police service, with responsibility shared under the 1964 Police Act between the chief constable, the police authority and the Home Secretary, while seeking to intensify co-operation within it.

  There is provision in the 1964 Act for collaboration and aid between forces. Regional crime squads deal with serious criminal offences, including drugs, crossing force or regional boundaries. My right hon. Friend also has powers to provide common services. Examples include the national drugs intelligence unit, the Police staff college and district training centres, the crime prevention centre, and the police national computer.

  Gulf (Secretary of State's Visit)
  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Gulf.

  Mr. Hurd
  I visited Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia between 27 March and 3 April and had a number of useful meetings with senior members of the Governments of those countries. I discussed the scope for intensifying the level of co-operation with this country in a number of fields, including terrorism, drugs, organised crime and police training. In Saudi Arabia, I signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government to facilitate closer co-operation on these issues.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning identity cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In addition to the advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend has received this year some 130 letters on the subject of a national identity card from hon. Members and from the general public.

  Cocaine (Prisons)
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to strengthen international co-operation against the trafficking and use of cocaine in prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department plays a full part in international co-operation against cocaine trafficking in general and there is not considered to be a need for separate international steps relating specifically to its misuse or trafficking within prisons.

  Ports (Policing)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the cost of policing ports in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None so far this year to my right hon. Friend, but there are continuing discussions on the policing of ports between the Home Office and the forces and police authorities concerned.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the planned total for Government spending on the prison service in 1989–90; and what was the figure in 1978–79.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The planned total for Government expenditure on the prison service (England and Wales) in 1989–90 is £1,140,100,000. Expenditure in 1978–79 was £285,300,000.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of neighbourhood watch schemes now operating in the Bury area; and what was the figure five years ago.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of March 1989 there were 336 neighbourhood watch schemes in the Bury metropolitan district division of the Greater Manhester police force area. Five years ago there were none.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking the abolition of the television licence fee for pensioners.

  Mr. Renton
  Since 1 January 1989, four hon. Members and one member of the public have written seeking free TV licences for pensioners.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the proportions of total notified drug addicts aged under 21 in 1988; and what was the figure in 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on drug addicts to the Home Office in 1987 and 1988 is given in "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom,
  529
  1988" (Home Office Statistical Bulletin issue 13/89), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Table 8b shows that the proportion of addicts aged under 21 was 14 per cent. in 1987 and 12 per cent. in 1988.

  Parking
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reached any conclusions in respect of the report on parking enforcement powers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No conclusions have yet been reached.

  Police Co-operation (Europe)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure greater co-operation between the United Kingdom police and the police Forces of European Economic Community partners.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve co-operation against crime amongst the member countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Deparment what steps he is taking to improve co-operation against crime amongst the member countries of the European Community.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the reply that I gave to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 2 February 1989 at column 384.

  Young People (Alternatives to Custody)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he is currently supporting to develop alternatives to custody for young people.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office action plan on tackling offending encourages probation services to develop local action plans for dealing with more young adult offenders in the community. Intensive probation programmes mainly for young adult offenders at risk of custody are under discussion in 10 probation areas. Grants totalling about £1x00B7;5 million over three years have been made available to encourage voluntary sector participation in work with 17 to 20-year-old offenders in the community.

  Passports
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of working days currently taken by the London passport office to process an application for the issue or renewal of a passport; and what the figure was a year ago.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

  Female Prisoners (Children)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women currently detained in Her Majesty's prisons have had children removed into care as a result of their imprisonment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will bring forward proposals to further increase the establishment of the West Midlands police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The West Midlands police authority has applied for an increase of 350 police posts in the force establishment in 1990–91. This will be considered, together with applications from other authorities, with advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The aim is to announce increases towards the end of 1989.

  My right hon. Friend has recently approved, as a permanent establishment increase, 14 police posts previously held supernumerary to establishment for duties at Birmingham airport. The costs are met by the airport authorities.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to strengthen international co-operation against trade in illegal drugs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office continues to play an active role in the work of the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Community as it concerns drugs. In London next week my right hon. Friend and I will be chairing a meeting of Ministers of the Council of Europe's drug co-operation group (the Pompidou group) to consider some of the most urgent drugs problems facing European countries. We shall concentrate particularly on countering the threat posed by cocaine and "crack", confiscation of proceeds derived from illicit trafficking and the problem of AIDS and drug misuse. We hope that the meeting will give renewed political impetus to the valuable work being undertaken by the group and its 19 member states.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to take any action aimed at reducing domestic violence following the publication of his research study.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier to a question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held in police cells at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 10 May 135 prisoners were held in police cells in England and Wales.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning regulation of the private security industry.

  Mr. John Patten
  In addition to correspondence on the subject from hon. Members, we have received representations from and on behalf of the International Professional Security Association, the Institute of Professional Investigators, the Electrical Contractors Association, "Ex Police in Industry and Commerce", the Retail Consortium, the British Retailers Association, the Multiple Shoe Retailers Association and the Drapers Chamber of Trade. We shall also be considering the views of the working group which has been set up to look at the self-regulation of the industry.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the public and private housing estates which are being patrolled by private security companies.

  Mr. John Patten
  No central record is kept of housing estates which are patrolled by private security companies.

  Immigration Detention Centre
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider the decision to relocate the immigration detention centre to Gosport.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The proposal is still under consideration. A decision will be announced shortly.

  Parental Responsibility
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that local authorities who stand in loco parentis are obliged to pay court fines imposed upon children in their care.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to introduce such a requirement at present.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the right to silence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question of 13 April at column 709.

  Police Establishments (Warwickshire)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to visit Warwickshire to discuss police establishments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Hon. Friends whose constituencies lie within the Warwickshire constabulary force area discussed the establishment of the force with my right hon. Friend on 6 March.

  Prison Baby Units
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children, and of what age, are currently in each of the baby units in prisons.
  532
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 28 April 1989, 24 babies were in the prison mother and baby units at Askham Grange, Holloway and Styal. The ages of the babies were:

  Number of babies

  Aged under one month

  3

  Aged 1–2 months

  4

  Aged 2–3 months

  2

  Aged 3–4 months

  4

  Aged 4–5 months

  1

  Aged 6–7 months

  3

  Aged 7–8 months

  2

  Aged 9–10 months

  4

  Aged 17–18 months

  1

  Anti-lifter Campaigns (Young Offenders)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for directing young offenders into anti-litter campaigns.

  Mr. John Patten
  Community service schemes for convicted offenders must provide some work placements whose purpose is to improve the appearance and amenities of a neighbourhood. Home Office Circular 18/1989 about national standards for community service orders gives as examples for this work: cleaning off graffiti in public places; clearing litter from paths, pedestrian precincts and bus shelters; clearing waste ground; erecting litter bins. Community service orders are available for offenders aged 16 and over.

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent the spread of HIV infection in prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 13 April 1989 at column 710.

  Business Initiative
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ethnic minority business initiative projects currently receive Home Office funding; where they are located; what is the extent of that funding; and whether it represents an increase over 1988 funding levels.

  Mr John Patten
  The Home Office ethnic minority business initiative funds 10 projects. They are located in Birmingham, Bristol, Brent, Brixton, Deptford, Ealing, Finsbury Park, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. Funding for the 1988–89 financial year totalled £196,252, which represented a 48 per cent. increase on funding for the 1987–8 financial year.

  Private Police Forces
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the use of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 in connection with the setting up of private police forces.
  533
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received representations from four right hon. and hon. Members (one on behalf of one of his constituents), one noble lord and the chairman of the Police Federation for England and Wales.

  Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to representations on the Broadcasting White Paper dated 20 April from the Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce.

  Mr. Renton
  This letter was acknowledged on 4 May and will be taken into account along with over 3,000 other responses to the broadcasting White Paper. We want to look carefully in the round at all the representations we have received.

  Scene of Crime Officers
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the recommendation for the appointment within each police force of 75 scene of crime officers per 100,000 notifiable offences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is for chief officers to decide, in the light of the particular circumstances of their forces, how many scene of crime officers to employ. In making this decision, they will no doubt take fully into account the recommendations of the Audit Commission that each force should employ 75 scene of crime officers per 100,000 notifiable offences.

  Fingerprinting
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to improve the quality control exercised by police forces in collecting fingerprints.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question on 13 April 1989 at column 708.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations have been made concerning the police fingerprint service by the advisory group established by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers in February 1988; and when he expects to receive the comments of the Association of Chief Police Officers on these recommendations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The group has so far made recommendations on the introduction of best practice for the collection and maintenance of fingerprint records, guidelines for searching regional and national fingerprint collections and revised training for fingerprint officers to improve the quality of fingerprint marks obtained.

  We expect to receive the comments of the Association of Chief Police Officers on these recommendations in the autumn.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in evaluating an automatic fingerprint recognition system for use by the police fingerprint service.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have recently completed an evaluation of the effectiveness of commercially available 534
  automatic fingerprint recognition systems and are considering the case for providing such a system on a national basis.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to ensure that, within police forces, force general orders reflect the powers granted by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to obtain fingerprints.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No specific steps are considered necessary. The police are bound by the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the codes of practice made under the Act, and it is up to individual chief officers to ensure that their force orders accurately reflect these provisions.

  Morphine Derivatives
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to relax controls on the import of morphine derivatives to provide greater competition in the United Kingdom market.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in its report on the supply of opium derivatives in the United Kingdom, recommended that, in order to increase competition in the United Kingdom market, 1 should work towards a relaxation of the restrictions which I now maintain on the importation of these products. The restrictions, which are supported by the International Narcotics Control Board, are designed to help limit the volume of international trade in these products, thereby minimising the risks of diversion to the illicit market. Similar restrictions are maintained by a number of other countries, including several of our European Community partners. In the light of the MMC report, I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how increased competition may be provided in this field consistent with the need for strict control of supply.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with the review of the stop-and-search provisions of the PACE codes of practice; when he expects to be able to make known to Parliament any proposals for change; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We undertook to keep the operation of the codes under review when they were debated in 1985. Last year we initiated a consultative exercise on all the codes and we are currently considering the many responses received. The responses on the stop and search provisions raise some difficult issues which will need careful thought. We hope to be able to circulate revised draft codes for public consultation later this year and then to lay these before both Houses, in accordance with the provisions of section 67 of PACE.

  Prisons (Car Travel)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current car mileage allowance paid to(a) prison departmental staff, (b) police officers, (c) prison local review committee members, (d) prison visitors and (e) members of boards of visitors whilst travelling on official business in their own cars.
  535
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The relevant current car mileage allowances are as follows:

  Police Officers

  Vehicle Categories

  Type of Use

  451–999cc

  1000–1199cc

  1200–1450cc

  1451–1750cc

  Essential Users

  Lump sum per annum

  £480

  £549

  £660

  £741

  First 11000 miles per annum, per mile

  18·8p

  21·5p

  24·6p

  27·3p

  After 11000 miles per annum, per mile

  8·6p

  9·8p

  10·6p

  11·6p

  Vehicle Categories

  Type of Use

  451–999cc

  1000–1199cc

  1200–1450cc

  1451–1750cc

  Casual Users

  (miles per annum) per mile

  1–1500

  35·3p

  40·3p

  47·2p

  52·8p

  1501–5500

  24·6p

  28·1p

  32·6p

  36·3p

  5501–11000

  18·8p

  21·5p

  24·6p

  27·3p

  Thereafter

  8·6p

  9·8p

  10·6p

  11·6p

  Members of Boards of Visitors

  Vehicle Categories

  up to 999cc

  1000–1199cc

  over 1199cc

  18·6p

  20·2p

  22·4p

  Pensioners (TV Licences)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much it would cost, under the new rates, to provide a colour television licence free of charge to all pensioner households.

  Mr. Renton
  The cost under the new rates of providing a colour television licence free of charge to all pensioner households would be about £400 million a year in terms of licence revenue forgone.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to receive the report concerning the alleged war crimes committed by those who have since become British citizens; and if he intends to make a statement in the House when he has considered the report.

  Mr. Hurd
  I now understand that the inquiry expects to submit its report to me in June. I shall consider the question of a statement to the House when I have had an opportunity to study the report.

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those Football League grounds in England and Wales that were given a ground safety certificate only after the erection of perimeter fencing around standing enclosures or terracing.

  Mr John Patten
  This information is not held centrally. Local authorities are under a duty to issue safety
  536

  Prison Departmental Staff, LRC Independent Members and Prison Visitors.

  1–10000 miles p a

  Thereafter

  Journeys limited to public transport rate

  34·4p

  20·3p

  16·4p

  34·4p

  20·3p

  16·4p

  34·4p

  20·3p

  16·4p

  certificates in respect of grounds designated by the Secretary of State under the Safety of Sports Act 1975. The terms and conditions of a safety certificate are what the local authority, after consultation with the police and either the fire authority or building authority, consider necessary or expedient to secure reasonable safety at the particular ground. These may include a requirement as to pitch perimeter fencing.

  Electoral Law
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions his Department undertakes to ensure that returning officers and their staff are aware of the full provision of electoral law.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office issues periodic guidance on electoral law to returning officers and acting returning officers in England and Wales. A comprehensive memorandum of guidance for acting returning officers is also sent to each ARO when a parliamentary general election or by-election is imminent, and attention is drawn to any recent changes.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the reviews in the current work load of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Parliamentary Boundary Commission is at present reviewing the constituencies of Buckingham and Milton Keynes.

  Game
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what animal species in the United Kingdom are classed as game.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the Night Poaching Act 1828, hares, pheasants, partridges, grouse (including
  537
  capercaillie and ptarmigan in Scotland), heath or moor game (i.e. red grouse), black game (i.e. black grouse) and bustards are counted as game. The Poaching Prevention Act 1862 includes, in addition, rabbits, snipe and woodcock and the eggs of pheasants, partridges, black and moor game. Other legislation affords close season protection to deer, other birds including ducks and geese, and certain fishes.

  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes any changes to prison service procedures for the prevention of inmate suicides.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have today issued a new circular instruction (CI 20/1989) to prison governors, which restates and reinforces my Department's suicide prevention strategy. The new instruction re-emphasises the importance we attach to staff support for suicidal inmates, and the main procedural change it makes is to reduce unnecessary documentation when inmates are first received in custody, so that the time saved can be used for fuller assessment of suicide risk at this crucial stage. The establishment of a suicide prevention management group at all establishments will also be mandatory. A copy of the new circular instruction is being placed in the Library.

  Crime
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking against crime in Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our strategy for crime reduction applies to all parts of England and Wales. Police manpower in Essex is being increased this year, and we are supporting it and the other south-east forces in the "Secured by Design" project, which will be launched next month. The project will encourage the construction industry to incorporate security measures as standard in new homes. Recorded crime in Essex fell by 4 per cent. in 1988.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking against crime in Northamptonshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have a crime reduction strategy which applies to all parts of England and Wales. Recorded crime fell by 5 per cent. in 1988 in Northamptonshire, and the police strength will be further augmented this year, bringing the total authorised establishment to 1,121.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking against crime in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our strategy for crime reduction applies to all parts of England and Wales. Police manpower and resources have been substantially increased, Crime Concern was launched with Government support in May 1988 to stimulate, support and develop local crime prevention activity and the largest ever national crime prevention publicity campaign was launched last year.
  538
  Total crime in the Metropolitan police district and City of London fell by 2·5 per cent. in 1988. My right hon. Friend approved a further 300 police posts for the Metropolitan police from 1 April bringing the authorised establishement up to 28,415. The City of London's establishment remains at 798. The Government encourage the growth and development of neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels. There are now 9,493 watch schemes covering approximately 952,500 households throughout London, together with 30 panels and six junior panels. Three very active crime prevention associations operate in the City. Both forces are involved in the Home Office-supported "Secured by Design" project which aims to encourage house builders, planners and developers to incorporate security measures as standard in new homes; the scheme will be launched on 7 June. Lewisham and Tower Hamlets are two of the areas in our safer cities programme.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the action he has taken to combat the increase in rural crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Many of our policies on crime prevention are applicable to rural areas. We have increased police manpower to an unprecedented extent in the provinces since 1979. We have reminded the police and courts of the powers available to deal with outbreaks of disorder and issued guidance to the courts about arranging speedy court hearings after sudden outbreaks of disorder. We have encouraged the creation of local farm watch and rural watch schemes to increase community co-operation in preventing crime.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to tackle violent crime in urban areas.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have strengthened the police and made it an offence to carry a knife in a public place without good reason. We have raised the maximum penalty for some of the most serious offences of violence to life imprisonment, and we have introduced a new right of appeal for the prosecution against an over-lenient sentence. We have established the safer cities programme to help reduce crime and fear of crime in inner-city areas; 12 projects are under way.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the current trend of crime figures in Leicestershire.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on 13 April at column 713.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss ways of combating the increased incidence of violent crime within the context of a general decline in crime.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The problem of violent crime is a matter which is frequently discussed at my right hon. Friend's regular meetings with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. My right hon. Friend looked al the subject in considerable detail when he met the Commissioner at the beginning of this year to discuss the 1989 strategy statement for the Metropolitan police.
  539
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps his Department is taking against crime in Cambridgeshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our strategy for crime reduction applies to all parts of England and Wales. Police manpower and resources have been substantially increased, "Crime Concern" was launched with Government support in May 1988 to stimulate, support and develop local crime prevention activity and the largest ever national crime prevention publicity campaign was launched last year.

  Total recorded crime in Cambridgeshire fell by 1 per cent. in 1988. My right hon. Friend approved a further 18 police posts for the force from 1 April bringing the authorised establishment up to 1,198. The Home Office encourages the growth and development of neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels. There are now 275 watch schemes covering approximately 8,250 households throughout Cambridgeshire together with four panels and three junior panels.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase resources available to local authorities for crime prevention activities.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office's safer cities programme is making new resources available to local authorities as well as to other statutory bodies, voluntary groups and business and commerce. Operating through a network of local crime prevention projects, the programme has Home Office funds for staff, running costs and grant aid. This year's total budget is £4·2 million and includes grant support for each area of some £ ·25 million a year, for which local authorities as well as other bodies may apply. The hon. Member will know that resources for crime prevention are also available through several Department of the Environment programmes.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking against crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new steps his Department is taking to combat crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are continuing to strengthen the police, to ensure that the courts have adequate maximum penalties at their disposal, to increase the number of available prison places, and to encourage interest in crime prevention through our handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime", through encouragement of neighbourhood watch schemes and through such initiatives as the safer cities programme.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the ministerial group on crime prevention.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the ministerial group on crime prevention.

  Mr. John Patten
  The ministerial group meets under my chairmanship about every two months in order to 540
  supervise the Government's general crime prevention strategy. The Departments represented on the group are: Education and Science, Employment, Energy, Environment, Health, Social Security, Trade and Industry, Transport, Treasury, together with the Home Office, Northern Ireland Office and the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

  This year our main effort will be directed to examining the costs of crime and what we know about the cost effectiveness of crime prevention measures.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the latest crime figures for Basildon and the preceding four years.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 14 April at column 414.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking against crime in Hampshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our strategy for crime reduction applies to all parts of England and Wales. Police manpower and resources have been substantially increased, "Crime Concern" was launched with Government support in May 1988 to stimulate, support and develop local crime prevention activity and the largest ever national crime prevention publicity campaign was launched last year.

  Total recorded crime fell in Humberside by 6 per cent. in 1988. My right hon. Friend approved a further 20 police posts for the force from 1 April bringing the authorised establishment up to 3,148. The Government encourage the growth and development of neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels. There are 580 watch schemes covering approximately 25,000 households throughout Hampshire together with three panels. The Hampshire constabulary is one of 10 south-east forces involved, with the Home Office support, in an ambitious scheme "Secured by Design" which aims to encourage house builders, planners and developers to incorporate security measures as standard in new homes; the scheme will be launched on 7 June. Rushmoor borough council is one of seven local authorities taking part in a trial byelaw scheme designed to prevent the consumption of alcohol in certain designated public places. The scheme will be closely monitored by local authorities and the Home Office.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet local authority representatives to discuss crime prevention.

  Mr. John Patten
  There is regular consultation between Home Office officials and local authority representatives on a wide range of issues including crime prevention. This will continue.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to help prevent crime in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. John Patten
  Crime reduction forms part of a strategy which applies to all of England and Wales. There was an 8 per cent. reduction in recorded crime in Greater Manchester during 1988, and further police manpower increases have been agreed. Bolton was one of those participating in the Home Office "Five Towns" initiative
  541
  designed to show that crime and the fear of crime could be reduced through the co-ordinated action of a variety of local agencies and members of the community. The Bolton project continues with the support of the Metropolitan
  542
  borough council and a three-year urban programme grant from the Department of the Environment. Rochdale and Salford are to participate in the safer cities programme.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Official Secrets Act,
Avon Light Rail Transit Act.

British Telecom: Charges
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the average change in the cost of telephone charges since British Telecom was privatised in 1984.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, in the case of directly dialled inland services, which are the ones most commonly used, the cost of those services controlled under BT's licence has fallen by 16 per cent. in real terms since BT was privatised in November 1984, or by nearly 4 per cent. a year on average.
There is no simple measure of the average change in the cost of all of the charges by BT, although one clear indication of a more cost-effective service is that residential customers have seen a fall in overall prices of 10 per cent. in real terms since privatisation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very encouraging reply. Perhaps I may refer to a new development and ask my noble friend whether he will take the same deregulatory lines in the development of phones on the move. What safeguards can he promise to ensure that, given that there is overcrowding with the present system of mobile telephones, which have benefited most of us, there will not be the same overcrowding with the new system?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, cellular telephones, which were the first system licensed in about 1984, have proved to be immensely popular. My department's original estimate was that by 1990 there would be 100,000 users, whereas the figure already exceeds 550,000 and is still climbing. In those circumstances there has from time to time been a certain amount of overcrowding, but recently, with the co-operation of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, we were able to make 400 more ETACS lines available within the M.25. I hope that within a matter of weeks the overcrowding will be greatly eased.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Secretary of State bring his influence to bear, in so far as he has influence over the chairman of British Telecom, to ensure that the metering of telephone calls is accurate and that bills to customers reflect the calls which customers have made?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have considerable influence with the chairman of British Telecom since when I receive my bills I realise I am a very good customer. I shall use my influence to do that. I am told by BT that by the end of next year half of its customers will have itemised billing, and I suspect that that is the best way to ensure that doubts about charges are satisfied.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what other measures, apart from price, have been improved; for example, coin boxes?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not so long ago—perhaps some 15 or 18 months—that coin boxes were a matter of great public concern. Since that time the improvement of coin boxes has been dramatic. Latest figures show that over 96 per cent. of call boxes are working at any one time, and over that selfsame period the number has increased from 77,000 to 83,000; that is since privatisation. I believe that BT is to be congratulated on the service it provides at present as regards call boxes.

Lebanon Conflict
3.10 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider calling a conference of international organisations including the United Nations, the European Community and the League of Arab States, to seek and enforce a solution to the conflict in the Lebanon.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): No, my Lords. The Arab league is still active in seeking a negotiated ceasefire and settlement in Lebanon. We support its efforts, and would not wish to start further negotiations which might undermine them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the last time we discussed this matter, he said in this House that the Government were considering raising it as an emergency issue at the Security Council of the United Nations? Can he say whether any progress has been made apropos that proposal?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not believe that I said that in quite the way which the noble Lord suggests. As regards the United Nations, he will be aware that the Security Council's views were expressed in the president's statement of 31st March. That statement expressed how gravely concerned it was about the present situation. It called for an immediate ceasefire and supported the efforts being worked for towards a peaceful solution. As I said on the last occasion, we are constantly in touch with the Secretary General.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister reinforce what he said on the last occasion that this matter was discussed in the House in relation to the Government's support of the Arab league, particularly in the light of the threats made by Mr. Walid Jumblatt yesterday when he threatened that Arab league observers would be sent back in coffins?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we still consider that the Arab league's efforts offer the best chance of success in the present circumstances. It should be allowed a free hand before the international community considers alternative approaches such as the one advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. I can certainly say that we deplore threats to the Arab league observers reportedly issued by the Druze leader, Mr. Jumblatt.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, can my noble friend tell your Lordships how a conference such as the one suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, or indeed any other conference, could enforce a solution to the Lebanese conflict?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I very much take on board my noble friend's worries. I believe that there are two reasons why it would not be practicable for the United Nations to sort it out in quite the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. First, despite justified international concern—and it is justified—and the presence of foreign forces, it remains an internal problem. Secondly, the United Nations Charter says that regional grouping should be used first to deal with this kind of problem. I should have thought that the Arab league was the right answer for this particular issue.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Secretary General of the United Nations recently appealed for humanitarian aid for the people of the Lebanon who have suffered so greatly in recent years. Can the Minister say what is the response of Her Majesty's Government to that appeal? Secondly, we understand that the British ambassador in the Lebanon, whose work we all greatly admire, met the Christian leader, General Aoun, a few days ago. Can the noble Lord say what the object of that discussion was and whether it might lead to some new initiatives?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about the work of the ambassador and his staff. They are doing an excellent job in what the whole House will appreciate are very difficult circumstances indeed. However, I regret that I am unable to tell the noble Lord what took place at that meeting but I shall certainly find out and let him know. On humanitarian aid, our contribution to the Lebanon amounts to nearly £1 million a year and that is mostly through the United Nations organisations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. I believe that represents the most effective way of getting aid to the Lebanon and we will continue to pursue it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most countries feel that the endeavours of the
750
British Government are by far the best? However, I hope the Government will at all times seek international co-operation on any action taken. The last thing that the world wants are clever moves without any international conference being held, as happened in Vietnam. Will the noble Lord be prepared to examine the other serious issue in this Lebanon crisis? Many Lebanese people have had to flee their country and live elsewhere, many in this country. They have left relatives behind. Should not that be referred to the United Nations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support for the measures we are taking in our general encouragement to bring about a proper internal solution to the problem. As regards Lebanese living elsewhere, that is an important point but their best interests also will be served by the solution which the noble Lord hopes will eventually emerge.

Business
3.16 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Electricity Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill will be taken.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the spring bank holiday recess on Thursday 25th May and return on Monday 5th June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 25th May.

Protection of Privacy (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Protection of Privacy (No. 2) Bill. Perhaps by way of explanation I should say that noble Lords will be well aware that Mr. Renton announced in another place on 21st April that the Government have decided that there should be a review of the general issue of privacy and related matters and that the review is to be conducted outside government. In the light of that, and given the fact that an identical Bill to mine has been withdrawn in the House of Commons, I feel it would be churlish, time wasting and counter-productive to proceed with my Bill in this House. I trust therefore that your Lordships will give leave for the Bill to be withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Business of the House: Debate, 24th May
3.18 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

751
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Underhill set down for 24th May shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Brunei (Appeals) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Antarctic Minerals Bill [H.L.]
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Director General of Electricity Supply]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("appoint") insert ("a person with experience in the electricity supply industry as").
The noble Lord said: Before turning my attention to the particulars of the amendment, it might be appropriate if I make one or two general remarks about our proceedings in Committee. The Opposition intend to conduct themselves in a constructive manner by trying to improve the Bill as we go along. The Opposition will not try to delay proceedings beyond the measure required by our
752
duty to scrutinise the Bill properly suggesting amendments where we feel they are appropriate. That is the spirit in which we set out on this Committee stage. I hope that the Government will respond in kind by recognising that our amendments are seriously meant and are to be seriously debated. We on the Opposition Benches would regard it as the Government's job and not ours to keep house at any particular time during the passage of their Bill.
I turn to Amendment No. 1. Clause 1 deals with the appointment of the director. The director has formidable tasks: these are set out quite clearly in the Bill. He has to supervise an extremely complex industry. The electricity supply industry is much more complex than British Telecom and, in our view, much more complex than British Gas. He has not only to supervise the whole industry but also two parts of the industry operating under completely different regimes. There is the England and Wales section (if I can refer to it as such) and the Scottish section. Therefore he has a formidable task.
The director has to look after the licensing arrangements and make sure that they are properly observed. As we shall find out when we reach that part of the Bill he also has to appoint the consumers' committees, receive the representations that they make and generally look after them. As many Members of the Committee have pointed out, electricity is quite different to other industries in that the product cannot be stored. Gas can be stored and also Mars bars; but electricity cannot. This means that the director has to have the ability to react very quickly to events as they unfold. It seems to us that the person to be charged with this function has to have some experience of the electricity supply industry. It is almost inconceivable that anyone can be appointed director general who is not expert in one form or another; namely, either in the generation of electricity or in the operations of the grid, high voltage transmission or low level transmission and distribution at the area board level.
The director has to monitor the whole nuclear question; therefore he has to know how that operates. I believe the noble Baroness will agree with me when I say that I am sure that both of us have been through the experience of trying to learn about this industry. I am sure she will agree that it is extremely complicated and that a great deal of technical expertise is required to know what the problems are, let alone what the solutions might be. I hope very much that the amendment I am moving will find some welcome from the Government because I believe it is sensible.
I conclude my introduction to the amendment by commenting on what I believe to be a rumour. I hope that it is only a rumour and that the noble Baroness will be able to squash it. The rumour is that an appointment to the post of director general has almost been made but there is a problem because the Treasury will not agree to the remuneration which he or she (I do not know which it is) wants. It would be odd if an appointment were made while the Committee is discussing this clause at this time. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will be able to assure me that what I have said is not the case. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: At first sight the amendment looks as though it might have something to commend it. But one must bear in mind that one of the things it will do is to limit the field of choice of talented people required to fulfil the duties specified in the Bill. When we consider Clause 2, he has to establish consumers' committees. Presumably, one of his talents will have to be that of a watchdog on behalf of consumers. That does not necessarily mean that you have to have someone who is a technical expert in the production of electricity. I agree that there are other duties he will have to perform. Under Clause 3(1) he and the Secretary of State will have,
"to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are satisfied".
That will mean being met if necessary by the building of new power stations in a particular area. In addition they will have,
"to secure that licence holders are able to finance the carrying on of the activities".
That looks as though the man concerned will have to have some talent for financial matters and not necessarily the technical skills for the production of electricity. In addition they have,
"subject to subsection (2)... to promote competition in the generation and supply of electricity".
It is within the knowledge of all Members of the Committee that from time to time we call on eminent people to perform duties in a section of private or public interest in which they have never performed before because their general ability and experience in other fields makes them likely to be competent to perform. I hope I am not being too historical when I say that in the days when transport was nationalised, the party opposite appointed a retired major-general as chairman of British Road Services. As a staff captain he may occasionally have had to move vehicles about——
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: No.
Lord Renton: Yes he did, and I remember him well. He was a splendid man and very charming. As well as the job could be done, he did it.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Not only do I remember him; at the time I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. He was far more than a staff captain; he was the Quartermaster General for a very considerable period and knew a very great deal about transport. That was the reason for his appointment.
Lord Renton: Having been a naval officer and not an army officer, as some of us were, the noble Lord may not have realised that as director general of ordnance he was mainly responsible for ensuring that the army had sufficient arms and ammunition. That was his main purpose. As nearly every army officer had something to do with transport, no doubt he knew something about it. He was to organise the whole of the road services of the country without having had specialised experience in doing so.
I mention that as an example. One could give various others, some of them popular and others less
754
popular. But do not let us have too narrow a view of this matter. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say. If she is going to accept the amendment despite what I say, then I shall have stuck my neck out very hard, but it will not be the first time that I have done so.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: There are two points arising from this amendment and both were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The first—the one with which he finished his introduction—seems to be of paramount parliamentary importance. It would surely be a mockery of the parliamentary process if the Government did not listen to the debates in Committee, at Report stage and on Third Reading regarding the requirements of Parliament in respect of the person who is to be appointed to this key role.
I would add to what my noble friend said that the expertise within the electricity industry is vital not just because of its technicalities but also because we are in the midst of a whole series of arguments and discussions about the electricity industry and its impact on society as a whole. On this issue I hope that,
"experience in the electricity supply industry",
is taken to mean a profound knowledge of all aspects of energy production and energy conservation and of the place of energy within our society not just today but over the next 20 to 30 years.
The amendment refers to,
"a person with experience in the electricity supply industry".
I hope that the views which were expressed at Second Reading and those that will be expressed in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading will be taken into account not only in relation to the technicalities of the electricity industry but also in the whole social debate, on which the noble Baroness and I have not exactly crossed swords but exchanged views at Question Time and in debate. I hope that such a person will have a broad enough mind to encompass the debate about nuclear power, energy conservation, the greenhouse effect and the necessity for the reduction of carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels. Those are the issues that should be taken into consideration when such a person is appointed.
Therefore no even preliminary conception of who should be appointed should be reached before Parliament has finished its full discussion of the whole effect of the Bill. The Government should take into account the views expressed in this Chamber and in another place when they are deciding who should be this supremo figure and what qualities he or she should have.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not believe that the amendment is necessary for two reasons. First, while I do not entirely exclude the possibility of governments behaving from time to time in a foolish way, I cannot think that any Minister would be so idiotic as to offer this extraordinarily difficult and formidable task to anybody who was not well versed in the affairs of the industry. Secondly, I do not believe that anyone would have the gall to accept

755
such a formidable task unless he were well versed in and well informed about the affairs of the industry.
The task of anybody supervising so complicated and sophisticated an industry would at any time be immense. It will be far greater at a time when the industry is exposed to drastic change with no one quite certain where it will end up.
I should like to make one further point about the amendment. I am considerably surprised and a little dismayed that the Government did not succeed at a very much earlier stage in finding a suitable candidate for this post. There must be a great deal of preparatory work going on now with the outcome of which this unknown character will be deeply involved. I cannot help feeling that it will be a matter of general regret—and perhaps for him as well—that he was not involved at an earlier stage when he could perhaps have had a helpful influence on its formation.
At an earlier stage I asked the Government about the appointment. I was then told that it would be wrong to make such an appointment before the Bill had received the approval of Parliament. I cannot believe that Parliament would not have been very understanding of the position of the Government had they made an appointment earlier on, the reasons for doing so being as cogent as they are. I am not crossing swords with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on this point but I very much hope that before our proceedings in this Committee are concluded the Government will be able to come forward with a name and a definite appointment.
The rumours that a person has been selected but that as yet a salary has not been agreed are disturbing. The person required will need to possess a knowledge of the industry, be well versed in the law of contract, be competent to steer himself and others through a cobweb of regulations, and have a certain familiarity with the extraordinary ways of government. Those will be essential requirements as regards the person who will take this huge responsibility. If the Government can lay their hands on a person of the necessary genius I hope that they will not lose the opportunity simply because they would not stump up the money.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Ezra perhaps I may say a few words in support of the amendment. Since I have had the privilege of being a Member of this Chamber I have noticed a great change in the attitude of noble Lords towards scientific and technical matters and the administration of industry. This has arisen because of the success of committees such as the Science and Technology Committee, of which I had the privilege to be a founder member, and the EC Committees, especially in regard to research and development activities. It has become clear to me that noble Lords have made a great effort to break down the cultural blockage that exists in many areas towards the ideas of scientists, technologists and those experienced in industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, gave us a short history lesson. I think that he admitted he was a little old-fashioned as regards developments. Being
756
the distinguished lawyer that he is he indicated at the beginning of his speech that he was inclined to support the amendment. I hope that by now, having heard the remarks of the noble Lord opposite who intervened, he has changed his mind. It seems to me that it is very opportune that the amendment has come before this Committee and it should therefore have the complete support of all its Members.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. I opened my speech by saying that at first sight the amendment had something to commend it. I then used the word "but" and that was a prelude to my arguing that it should not be accepted.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: If I may say so, I am very familiar with the techniques of very distinguished lawyers like the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He has been kind enough to correct me, but I think that he is wrong to use the word "correct". He is now trying to explain to Members of the Committee that he has some sympathy with the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to say very briefly that I do not think that this amendment is necessary, although I do not know whether my noble friend will accept it. However, I am always against including in legislation any provision which is likely to restrict the Government's choice of the most suitable, best and available person for a position. Indeed, one cannot always foresee who the candidates may be. I should be most surprised if the person eventually appointed does not have experience of the electricity industry.
I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. At this very early stage in Committee he said that we cannot store electricity. Of course in general he is right; but I should like to draw attention to the pump storage schemes in the hydro-electric areas of generation of electricity. In effect, in that generation, we have been able to store electricity by pumping up to lochs on hillsides during off-peak periods. It has then been useful to have extra electricity available at peak periods.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am of course aware of the pump storage facilities; indeed, coming from Wales who could not be aware of such a system. However, that relates to an infinitesimal amount of electricity compared with the general amount which is transmitted through the grid every day.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I had intended to say that. They are only a small part of the generation but, nonetheless, that is an important element for the very reason which the noble Lord gave when he said that it is not otherwise possible to store electricity.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said he believed that the Government would be sensible and would appoint a person of the right quality, who had the right qualifications, to this post. I must say that he has a touching faith in the Government which I do not necessarily share. One of the things which we fear is that the Government will appoint the person who will accept the lowest possible salary. That is what worries some of us.

757
The fact is that this is a complex industry. It is an industry of many parts. It will need someone who has some qualification and who knows something about the operation of the industry so that he will be able to regulate it as it should be regulated. My noble friend Lord Hatch mentioned some of the aspects of importance which will face the person who will regulate the electricity supply industry. For example, the person will need to know if he is to protect the interests of consumers not only as regards security of supply but also as regards price. He will want to know what the planning margin should be. He will be required to know exactly how much excess plant capacity should be available.
When I was a member of the Select Committee on energy there were members of that committee with experience of the industry and we were able to tackle the CEGB and the South of Scotland Electricty Board about this planning margin. We discovered that it was excessive in England and very excessive in Scotland. Indeed, in Scotland there was a planning margin of well over 100 per cent.; in England it was over 33 per cent. Those aspects had an impact not only on price but also on the future building programme of the electricity supply industry. Moreover, because the planning margins were set too high, people both in England and in Scotland were paying too much for their electricity and too much of our engineering capacity was being used to build power stations which we did not need.
The position requires someone with considerable expertise in order to understand such problems. It will also need someone who understands that the electricity supply industry, because of its very nature, will supply electricity rather than go in for conservation. It will be necessary for the regulator to be able to argue the case that it will be far better for public money—or private money—to be spent on conserving energy rather than on building new power stations. It will need to be someone with some expertise in the industry who will know about such matters and who will therefore ask the relevant questions.
The amendment seems to me to be such a simple amendment; but it is a relevant one. It would create a great deal of confidence in the Government if the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, would say that she understands the points which have been made and that she will accept the amendment. I hope that at the very least she will treat the matter very seriously and say that she will consider it further.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I think that there is a great necessity for the amendment. At present we are discussing another most important Bill in this place. We are taking over another industry from which one should never make a profit. The person who will run that industry has been a Member of another place. Indeed, I believe that the appointment has already been announced before the Bill has passed through Parliament. That seems to me to be a slightly strange way of operating democracy. The assumption is that the Bill will
758
become an Act of Parliament and therefore one should get the whole operation ready before the legislation has passed through Parliament. It smacks slightly of a dictatorship.
It may be that the person appointed to the post of director general in respect of the water industry is very worthy—although I have not checked his curriculum vitae. However, as I understand it, he was a Member of Parliament with a rather diverse background and I do not think that he has any profound knowledge of the great industry which he will be handling.
The analogy of the chairman of British Rail has been used. I am sure that many Members of this place have been chairmen of quite important operations—unpaid as a rule, and honorary—but there has always been a paid officer, the director, who has specialised knowledge of the particular things being handled. I have had the privilege of occupying both offices, although I hasten to say not in an industry the size of the water industry or indeed of the electricity industry, but there is a distinct difference between the two. The paid officer, the director, has to have very specialised knowledge, while the chairman is there as the holder of an office, so to speak, in a situation rather like that which exists in a watchdog operation.
I should like to put in a plea here and say that it is most important that we should have precisely what is requested in the amendment. If Members of the Committee want history, I was a member of the Fulham local authority council many years ago when we took over a private electricity board. We had the cheapest electricity in the whole of Great Britain and the business was very efficiently run. We had a chairman but the man who ran it was what they then called the chief engineer, a man well versed in the understanding of the industry he was running. It was very successful. That was when the next door borough, Wimbledon, had private electricity which was three times as expensive and definitely more inefficient. I know that we have moved on a little from there but the principle remains the same. I plead with the Government to take the amendment to their heart.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps as a start I should say that I have noted what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has said on the conduct of our proceedings. I am pleased to have his assurances. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for moving the amendment, since it gives me a chance to explain how we see the role of the director and what sort of person is needed to fill this important post.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that I have listened with interest and care to the suggestions made. I appreciate the concern expressed that the director general should be knowledgeable about the electricity supply industry or at the very least be a technical man or a scientist. I am glad too that the noble Lord explained what he meant by "experience", since to some extent we all have experience of electricity supply as consumers. I can assure the noble Lord that the appointee will be bound to have at least that experience.

759
Furthermore, under Clause 45 of the Bill the director will have a duty to keep under review activities,
"connected with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity",
and to collect information about those activities so that he can discharge his functions under Part I of the Bill effectively. That will of course enable him or her to broaden and develop his or her experience.
I believe that if we attempt to set out in the Bill specific requirements which the director should or should not have, we shall effectively be constraining the Secretary of State's choice. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton in that and also in saying that that would not be right. In appointing the director, the Secretary of State wants—indeed we all want—the best possible person for the job. So, like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I see no advantage in restricting his choice in advance.
It may be that the person appointed will have direct technical experience of the electricity supply industry. Alternatively he may not. But what he or she will have and will have to have—again as my noble friend Lord Peyton said—will be the best possible combination of qualities required to carry out the job of director effectively. These are the qualities which the Secretary of State is looking for in making his appointment. I may add that, had the appointments to Ofgas and Oftel been similarly restricted, the two appointees who are now in post and who have proved to be extremely successful would have been ineligible.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that no appointment is being made at this moment so far as I am aware. We hope, however, that it will be done soon and we have been constantly urged to make it soon because of the size, complexity and importance of the job. My noble friend Lord Peyton and others have reiterated that need. I therefore cannot accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that we should delay until the Bill's passage through the House has been completed.
At this time the appointment will of course be a shadow appointment, which is normal in these cases and necessary, for the reasons clearly outlined. So I cannot accept the amendment and I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for her response, which I am bound to say I do not find very satisfactory. My amendment does not seek to impose a constraint on the Secretary of State other than that the gentleman or lady who is to be director should have experience in the electricity supply industry. In my view the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was quite right to point out that it would be absurd if the Government appointed to the post anybody who did not possess such experience. But I infer from the response of the noble Baroness that he or she may not have such experience, the Government are envisaging such an appointment as a possibility.
760
My amendment does not rule out people who have experience in other fields. I should not like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to think that I am concentrating entirely and uniquely on people who had only this experience and no other. The director might be a Fellow of All Souls as well: he could be a Senior Wrangler, but he must have experience in the electricity supply industry. That is the point I make. It is a necessary condition rather than sufficient—I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, the amendment is very restrictive because, if noble Lords look at the bottom of page 2 of the Bill, they will see that the director or Secretary of State shall have responsibility,
"to promote competition in the generation and supply of electricity".
Suppose somebody had a lot of experience in generation and had been with the CEGB but not with an area board. The amendment would not cover that point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I think that the noble Lord has taken a very narrow point, if I may say so. Again, the director can have experience in all kinds of areas of the electricity supply industry. We are talking about the electricity supply industry in the Bill and it is to that that my amendment is addressed.
It is not enough to say, as the noble Baroness said, that the director will be able to develop experience through the operation of Clause 45 and his duties under Clause 45. It is not enough, in our view, to say that the Government wish to choose the most suitable person with the right qualities because we simply do not know what qualities the Secretary of State is looking for. The only quality that I am seeking is that the director should at least know something about the complex industry which he has been appointed to run.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, made the point quite rightly, I think on behalf of his noble friend Lord Ezra, who has put his name to this amendment with mine. He suggested that it would be of significance to have somebody who was technically qualified to carry out functions of this nature because we need to raise the general appreciation of science and scientists in our society. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, on that.
Finally I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, which I believe to be absolutely right. It would be absurd for the Government to appoint somebody as director of the industry who did not possess experience of the kind that I mention. As my noble friend Lady Phillips said, I regard a certain appointment in a certain other industry of somebody who has great distinction but no apparent knowledge of the industry to which he has been appointed as being rather odd.
In my view this is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. It is a kind of base line from which the Secretary of State should work. At least the director should have some experience, however that is defined, in the electricity supply industry. I am astonished that the Government cannot see that that is a sensible amendment to the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that I may be forgiven if I attempt to make myself absolutely clear to my noble friend. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who has understood what I was trying to say. I said that, while I did not preclude the possibility of governments behaving foolishly from time to time, nevertheless I thought that it was most unlikely that any government would be so foolish as to offer such an appallingly difficult job as this one to someone who did not have wide experience in the supply industry. I then went on to outline other qualities which I thought he would need to possess. My noble friend said just now that it might be that the appointee would have that experience in the supply industry, or it might be that he would not. I have to tell my noble friend that with that comment she made it much more difficult for me to oppose the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: I am sorry that my noble friend should feel that. However, I believe that the comments of both the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend in no way detract from the argument I put forward that the amendment imposes a restriction upon choice.
4 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To give the Committee some assistance, can the noble Baroness tell us what kind of salary level is contemplated for this post?
Baroness Hooper: No, I cannot.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to get up again, but does the noble Baroness understand that she has worried some of us on this side of the Chamber? If she does not know the kind of salary level which is offered, how can she be confident that the calibre of person appointed will be suited to the job? I hope the noble Baroness will find out whether her advisers have any further information on that.
Baroness Hooper: I did not say that I do not know it. I said that I cannot tell the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: I am not going to pursue the salary point for the moment. Will the noble Baroness clarify the answer she gave to her noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil? I thought the noble Lord was being reasonable. He said that he wanted to know the criteria for the appointment. The noble Baroness said she did not want to be restricted on that. But she did not even go so far as to say that the Government would like to appoint someone who knows something about the industry, even if in the end they do not succeed in that.
However, I think that the noble Lord was hoping to hear from the noble Baroness that, as a minimum, the Government would regard it as a good thing if they could possibly appoint someone with appropriate knowledge. I can just about understand the view that perhaps such a person does not exist, or that such a person may not be willing to accept the salary offered. However, I believe the noble Lord was trying to press the noble Baroness to give at least some reassurance that the Government would
762
desperately like to appoint someone who knew something about what he was doing, if such a person could possibly be obtained.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Baroness gets up——
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This is Committee stage, not Report stage. I am trying to save the time of the Committee, and I am trying to save the noble Baroness from the indignity of getting up and down like a jack-in-the-box at the Dispatch Box. I merely wish to ask the noble Baroness to clarify her answer to me. Is she saying that she actually knows what level of salary is to be made available to the director, but that she is not prepared to come forward and divulge that information to Parliament? Will the noble Baroness clarify that in her reply to my noble friend?
Baroness Hooper: I must say that I should have thought it obvious, as my noble friend Lord Peyton said initially and as others have said, that in looking for a suitable appointee the Government will look to people who have experience of the industry. There can be no question about that. I am simply saying in responding to this amendment that we feel, for the reasons which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, put quite admirably, that it would be a restriction if for some reason such a person is not available. On the question of salary, the important point is, as stated in the Bill, that the salary will be appropriate. I am not in a position to discuss that further.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Why is the noble Baroness not in such a position? Is she not aware that that is the kind of information that would be useful to the Committee and relevant to the Bill and to the discussion of the Bill?
Baroness Hooper: That may be so, but nevertheless it is also very relevant in the light of any negotiations that may take place, now or in the future, with any suitably qualified candidate. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to discuss figures at this point.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Amherst, E.

Ardwick, L.

Carter, L.

Attlee, E.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Aylestone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

763

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ennals, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Molloy, L.

Galpern, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E,

Northfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Hampton, L.

Peston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Phillips, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hayter, L.

[Teller.]

Hirshfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hooson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Reilly, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochester, L.

Ilchester, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Serota, B.

Kagan, L.

Somers, L.

Kearton, L.

Stallard, L.

Kennet, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Leatherland, L.

Tordoff, L.

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gridley, L.

Alport, L.

Haig, E.

Annan, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Arran, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Balfour, E.

Henley, L.

Bauer, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Bessborough, E.

Hooper, B.

Blake, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Blyth, L.

Kitchener, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Luke, L.

Brentford, V.

Lytton, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mar, C.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Marley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

De Freyne, L.

MurtÓn of Lindisfarne, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundee, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Effingham, E.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Pennock, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Porritt, L.

Elton, L.

Pym, L.

Foley, L.

Reay, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reigate, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

764

Sandys, L.

Terrington, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Thurlow, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trafford, L.

Southborough, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strange, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Windlesham, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sudeley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Swansea, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall appoint an officer to be known as the Deputy Director of Electricity Supply to be resident in post in Scotland responsible to the Secretary of State and the Director for the carrying out in Scotland of the functions assigned to the Director by this Act.").
The noble Lord said: After privatisation there will be distribution, transmission and generation companies in England and Wales which will be separate entities, whereas in Scotland there will be two vertically integrated companies with a wholly-owned subsidiary nuclear company. The director general will be expected to regulate all those different companies. We believe there is a clear need for a deputy in Scotland because of the totally different structure of the industry. He would operate within the organisation and act as deputy to the director general and he would help to create the information base for Scottish electricity regulation.
Such a deputy would ensure that the different structure of the industry in Scotland produced information which would compare adequately with the information produced in England and Wales so that there would be a yardstick of competition. The appointment of a deputy would also provide a clear line of communication from the director general through the deputy director to the Scottish Office and the other Scottish agencies interested in the public electricity supply functions of the new companies. We believe that because of the different structures of the industry in Scotland and in England and Wales and because of the different proposals contained in the Bill specifically for the electricity industry, a deputy is required.
I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Energy of the other place, which is composed largely of members of his own party. That committee reached a unanimous conclusion on this particular point. It stated:
"we believe that Scotland's interests will best be served by the establishment of a separate Scottish Regulator, working closely with his English and Welsh counterpart, with regular interchanges of information and staff. The relationship between the Scottish Office and London Departments is an analogy. In this way the distinctive structure of the ESI in industry will be mirrored by a distinctive regulatory structure".—[Office Report, Commons, 5/4/89; col. 248.]
The amendment which I now put forward does not go so far. It does not seek a totally separate regulator for Scotland. We are asking for a deputy

765
director within the UK industry as a whole but with very specific responsibilities for the Scottish industry and responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland through the director. I expect the Minister will have noted the debate in another place and I am sure that, having read the report, he will respond with more than the Government were able to give at Report stage in the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not fully understand the amendment. I was unable to attend the Second Reading of the Bill, but from reading the report of the debate it seems to me that the Government intend to do just what the amendment proposes. I see from the speech of my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden that the director general himself is to be appointed by the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Scotland, that the director will have an office in Scotland and will be responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to the Scottish industry, and that he will be supported by a deputy director for Scotland who will be appointed by him.
As I understand it that undertaking has already been given by the Government. Is my noble friend saying that my reading of the debate is not correct? However, it does not appear on the face of the Bill and I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, wishes to put it on the face of the Bill. If that is all he is doing I have no objection. We certainly need such a person and we want to make sure that we have this person. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to clarify the position.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The purpose of the amendment is to provide that there shall be a deputy director appointed by the Secretary of State. Whether or not that appointment was made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, it would certainly be made by the Government. He would be a deputy with powers in Scotland and he would liaise with the Director General of Electricity Supply in the UK. He would have the power of decison-making within Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I shall listen with interest to what my noble friend says on this matter. I should have no objection to such an appointment appearing on the face of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about who would appoint such a person.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may make a short contribution in support of my noble friend Lord Carmichael on this particular amendment. It is clear from the approach which has been taken to the privatisation of electricity and from the information that has been supplied and obtained that, while Scotland plays a role in the supply of electricity in the United Kingdom, and will play an expanding role as time goes on, Scottish electricity supply is a self-contained unit for operational purposes. In that context there are different issues to be dealt with and different problems from those affecting England and Wales.
766
It is clearly recognised in the White Paper Privatisation of the Scottish Electricity Industry that the principle behind privatisation is that:
"Management will be better able to take decisions in the interests of the business and its customers throughout Scotland"
The White Paper further states the aim of the privatisation is to remove control from Whitehall to Scotland so that decisions—and note the word "decisions"—can be made by the industry itself in Scotland.
It is in that context that we have moved the amendment to give a deputy director for Scotland the power to make decisions in Scotland as and when they are needed to deal with the particular Scottish problem. What the Bill does is quite the opposite. At the moment, the proposal is that the director shall have an office in Scotland, but only as an appendage lacking the independence that we on this side suggest is necessary to control the industry effectively and efficiently within Scotland.
While at the same time contributing to the United Kingdom context of electricity supply, the amendment is in no way put forward in any spirit of nationalism. However, if the measure is not taken, the complaint will again be raised—it is bound to be raised anyway—that Scotland is being treated as a second-class nation and as an appendage of England and Wales so far as concerns electricity supply. The Government are not facing up to the information in their own White Paper
Scotland's sources of electricity are recognised as being unique in relation to plant, fuel, surplus capacity and access to and use of nuclear power. Perhaps I may also say that Scotland is unique in its climate, a fact which brings us other problems in the winter time. In those circumstances, surely it makes sense to have an independent director in Scotland so that he can be recognised as being the director for Scotland, dealing with the Scottish system, and to whom ready access can be obtained as and when it is required. For example, he will be able to make emergency decisions regarding electricity supply so that matters can be discussed as quickly as possible and decisions made and implemented in the interests of the Scottish consumers. At the end of the day, they are the people who matter.
Perhaps I may say in closing that appointing a Scottish director to recognise the unique character of the Scottish industry might even encourage some people to invest in the electricity industry in Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry, but I still do not understand. The amendment states that there should be a deputy director who is responsible to the director
"for the carrying out in Scotland of the functions assigned to the Director by this Act".
He is not independent; he is responsible to the director, as described here. It seems to me perfectly sensible to give a Scottish locus to the matter.
Lord Wiliams of Elvel: Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness. He is responsible to the director and the Secretary of State. That is what the amendment says.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: But the amendment says that he is responsible to the director.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clearly, he must in some sense be responsible to or liaise with the director, but it is a joint responsibility with the Secretary of State, so he can bypass him.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): Perhaps I may intervene at this stage in this interesting debate and at the outset ask the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, whether he is also speaking to Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 8.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Yes.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The wording of these amendments suggests that a Deputy Director General of Electricity Supply should be appointed under statute and be directly responsible to the Secretary of State for the regulation of the industry in Scotland. That would effectively result in a separate regulator for Scotland. I believe that that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, wishes to make.
It is quite clear to us that this would not be beneficial, since it ignores the fact that the Scottish companies will be competing in the GB market. We are clear that two separate regulators would be inefficient. We would fail adequately to monitor common carriage arrangements and fair trading practices across the border, and lose the opportunity for yardstick comparisons across the whole GB industry to bring out best practices and provide leverage for increased efficiency.
In addition, the structure proposed by the amendments would not be sound in management terms. A Scottish deputy director responsible both to the director and the Secretary of State could cause a conflict of loyalties. In effect, the amendments would provide the Scottish deputy director with a direct link to the Secretary of State which his counterpart, the deputy director for England and Wales, would not have. I should make it clear here that there will in fact be two deputies—one for Scotland and the other for England and Wales.
The purpose of our proposals in the Bill is to give the director general both independence and authority. He would be unable to achieve that position for Scotland if the Scottish deputy director had an in-built right to go over his head to the Secretary of State. Our proposal for a deputy director general for Scotland, reporting direct to the director general, who in turn reports to the Secretary of State, will be achieved by administrative action and ensures that the Scottish industry has the best of both worlds—a representative of the director general based in Scotland, but still part of a single regulatory regime.
We see no need for the detailed structure of the director general's organisation to be set out in the Bill. The Bill rightly restricts itself to describing the functions and responsibilities of the director general, as the regulator of the single GB market. The director general will be appointed jointly by the Secretaries
768
of State for Energy and for Scotland—as has been made clear in another place—and be responsible to both Secretaries of State. Categoric assurances have been given on a number of occasions by the Government that the director general will have reporting to him a deputy director general based in Scotland.
I understand that these amendments may have been put forward as a result of many representations, but particularly one from the Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that I met the chairman of the north council only last week and discussed that point. She was reassured by what I had to say about the Government's intentions in this matter and has subsequently written to me endorsing what she said at the meeting.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that both the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, will understand the thinking behind the Government's proposals in this respect and perhaps seek to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the information that he discussed the matter with the Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland. He is correct in saying that the amendment arose largely because of the council's worries, but he will see from the reference that I made to the Select Committee—it was a unanimous decison of the all-party Select Committee—that it is not something which merely came internally from Scotland. I believe that it arose because the structure of the industry in Scotland is quite different from that south of the border. What is suitable for one would perhaps not be suitable for the other.
Although we are not such a huge country—indeed, although the whole of the United Kingdom is not such a huge country—there will be a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing between the director, the Secretaries of State and the deputy director. The Minister suggested that the director would be answerable to both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Energy, which again struck me as a case of there being two masters. I still believe that it might have been better had there been one deputy in Scotland answerable to the Secretary of State. The Minister will realise that I was careful not to say "Secretary of State for Scotland". As far as I understand the matter, a Secretary of State is a Secretary of State. I am a little disappointed. There is still scope because of the difference in structure, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, after ("term") insert ("not less than two years but").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 4.
These are two relatively small, probing amendments. They concern the term of appointment

769
and the possible re-appointment of the director. As drafted, the Bill says that the person shall hold office as director
"for a term not exceeding five years,"
but it does not set any minimum period. It is therefore theoretically possible for there to be an appointment for two days and that would then be the end of the matter. It seems to me that there should be a certain security of employment for the genius who will be the director of the whole industry. I suggest that he should be there for at least two years in order to understand what he is trying to do, as he may be a person of no experience in the electricity supply industry. I do not stick particularly on the period of two years. It could be three years or one year but I think that there should be some minimum time.
As regards reappointment, I wonder whether this phrase is necessary. I am aware that it has occurred in previous legislation but if it were knocked out—and I am all in favour of knocking out otiose legislation—I wonder whether it would make any difference whatever. It seems to me to be absolutely axiomatic that if a person is appointed for one period he can be reappointed for another period. However, perhaps the noble Baroness can tell me why it is essential to have this provision in the legislation.
I have said that these amendments were of a probing nature. I shall not ask the Committee to decide now on the matter. I should be grateful however to hear the Government's views. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise that these are probing amendments so I shall attempt to respond to the points raised by the noble Lord. With respect to Amendment No. 3, as he said, Clause 1(2) of the Bill provides for the appointment of the director to be:
"for a term not exceeding five years".
That of course does not rule out appointments for periods of less than five years. I hope that the mover of the amendment will appreciate that we should not wish to rule out of the Bill the possibility of the appointment of a director for a period of less than two years.
Given the important nature of the office of the director, which will require skills of a high order. I personally would regard this as a very remote contingency. But there may be circumstances in the future—for example, in the event of a sudden vacancy in the office with a consequent need for a short-term stop-gap appointment while a long-term successor was found—in which a short-term appointment might be appropriate. I would not wish to close the door on this possibility—remote though I believe it is—by amending a well precedented provision, as the noble Lord recognised.
Nevertheless, I can assure the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State certainly intends that the term of the first director to be appointed will be for a full five years.
Turning to Amendment No. 4, which the noble Lord was not in fact against but simply felt was
770
otiose, we feel that it is important for it to be clear that a person may be reappointed, since an effective director who has spent a term in office and built up his experience would obviously be a very suitable person to be reappointed. As the noble Lord has already said, this is again a precedented provision. We feel that it is necessary to make the position absolutely clear in view of those other precedents.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wonder whether the noble Baroness could elaborate on that last point. For the life of me I cannot see why those words should be there. I can see why the provision has been included in previous legislation but that is not a very good argument for putting it in this Bill. Let me put the question to her very quickly. What would happen to a director whose term of office expired if this sentence were not in the final Act? Would he be ineligible for reappointment?
Baroness Hooper: I take the noble Lord's point. However, I simply reiterate that in view of the precedents for this provision in other forms of legislation, its omission may leave doubt in certain people's minds. We feel therefore that it is preferable to follow the precedent.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: If it is to be argued that the aim of some legislative provisions is to remove doubts from the minds of certain people, then legislation will be very lengthy indeed. Even by present standards it will be lengthened.
I find the present amendment proposed by the noble Lord not at all to be desired. I am sure that he would not wish to press it since it may be that the first appointee to this extraordinary post will not have all the qualities that experience will prove to be necessary. In my view it would be unfortunate from the point of view of the industry and the customer, and particularly the unfortunate individual who with difficulty may be bearing that burden of office, to be saddled with a two-year minimum.
I am much more sympathetic to the second amendment. The mere fact that the words accord with precedent does not weigh very much with me. In fact I believe that the time has come when such precedents could, with convenience, be blown out of the water.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said about my second amendment, Amendment No. 4. It seems to me that the Government are unable to answer my question: if those words were not in the legislation, would the gentleman or lady in question be ineligible for reappointment? So far as I can see the answer is no, and he or she would be perfectly eligible for reappointment. I do not therefore see why we need those words.
The term of office, however, is an important point. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, I shall not press this amendment to any kind of conclusion or a Division. I simply wish to probe the Government's intentions. Indeed the noble Baroness has been kind

771
enough to say that it is the Government's intention to make an appointment for the full five-year term. That is all very well and I understand that the Government wish to retain flexibility. If a vacancy occurs at short notice—perhaps the person in question dies or is rendered incapable or, subject to the provisions of the Act, is dismissed from office—I understand that there may have to be a temporary appointment. So I certainly would not press my proposed two-year limit.
On the other hand, I have a certain sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that if one starts off with a five-year term and after, say, six months it is generally accepted, not least by the individual who holds the appointment, that the job is quite beyond him, then there seems to be no other possibility than for him to survive through the remaining four and-half years of his term of office.
So in a sense perhaps we should have a one-year renewable arrangement so that there could be a term of probation, as it were, to decide whether or not the person in question is suitable for the job; and indeed, he or she might wish to take a view on that. However, as I said, I shall not prolong the discussion in the Committee. I think it has been useful to find out the Government's attitude. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert ("in connection with the performance of the functions as Director or if the Director otherwise conducts himself in a manner which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State makes it inappropriate that he should continue to hold the office of Director.").
The noble Lord said: The continued appointment of the director and his holding office is of course conditional upon his both being capable and not misbehaving. In the words of Clause 1(3):
"The Secretary of State may remove any person from office as the Director on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour".
My amendment goes wider than that. In a sense it tries to explore the meaning of "misbehaviour" in the eyes of the Government. It is a rather odd expression and perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to tell the Committee of precedents and indicate where they have ocurred in previous legislation, advising us how it has been interpreted by Secretaries of State when they wished to remove from office directors or holders of similar posts.
It is clear that there are certain circumstances under which a director could not continue to hold office. I do not wish to go into details. There are obvious circumstances, as I am sure the Committee would recognise, which would require that the director should be sacked. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness whether or not those circumstances can be summed up in the word "misbehaviour", or what the definition of misbehaviour is. If not, it seems to me that it is wise to put the onus on to the Secretary of State to form an opinion. It is his duty to form an opinion. His opinion would be that it is inappropriate for the director to continue to hold office.
That seems a somewhat more elegant formula than that suggested by Clause 1(3) of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I see no need for this amendment. The simple words "incapacity or misbehaviour" have been used on previous occasions. So far as I know, they have given rise to no difficulty. Believe it or not, the courts interpret the words used by Parliament in a spirit of reasonableness and common sense. For example, if somebody proved himself to have an incapacity for playing contract bridge, obviously that would not be held by the courts to be a ground for removal in these circumstances. It clearly means a relevant incapacity.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Lord say what a relevant misbehaviour is?
Lord Renton: I was coming to that. The noble Lord is too impatient this afternoon! Misbehaviour means, I should have thought, negligence in the performance of duties, or notorious misconduct which comes to the notice of a wide circle of people. Alas, it might be thought that extreme, incurable and irremediable deafness might be another form of incapacity. However, on misbehaviour, I mentioned negligence, but neglect of duties is clearly a form of misbehaviour which would also justify the Secretary of State removing anybody.
We surely need not labour this point. A criminal offence of any serious character—not a minor driving offence, obviously—would amount to misbehaviour. People holding such important public positions must be people of integrity who are respected. If in circumstances which prevail they fail to behave as required, that is misbehaviour. I have studied the words in these four lines of the amendment. They do not seem to me to add anything of importance, or that is required, to the simple and well-established expression already in the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am sorry if I failed to make myself wholly clear. They place the onus on the Secretary of State to form an opinion. That is what the words add.
Lord Renton: Obviously if the Secretary of State is given power to remove somebody he has to form an opinion about them first.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord said that the words did not add anything. I was trying to clarify what they added.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has explained, the amendment seeks to establish poor performance of his functions as a criterion for the director's removal from office by the Secretary of State. In our view—which concurs with that of my noble friend Lord Renton—adequate provision is already made for this in the present wording of subsection (3). That subsection enables the Secretary of State to remove any person from

773
office as the director on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour. Persistent or significant failure to act in accordance with his or her duties under the Bill would constitute misbehaviour. I can happily accept those examples put forward by my noble friend Lord Renton.
In my view, the effect of this amendment is to introduce a somewhat unwelcome subjective element. It gives the Secretary of State potentially wide-ranging and unjustified powers of dismissal vis-à-vis the director. Most important of all, it could compromise the director's independence.
The present formulation is a well-precedented provision which has appeared in the Gas Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Fair Trading Act. Again, we do not have any examples of any problems having arisen as a result of those appointments under those provisions. Therefore I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment and I trust that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clearly there have been no problems because nobody has been sacked under any of those Acts. The Director General of Fair Trading has never been sacked. The Director General of Oftel has never been sacked. These are very recent events.
I hope that the noble Baroness was listening carefully when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that misbehaviour included notorious conduct. The noble Lord said that if there were notorious conduct of one form or another it might not be possible for someone holding the high office of a director to continue. Is that view endorsed by the Government? Is that right?
Baroness Hooper: There is no question but that the main emphasis of this provision would bear on the failure of the individual to act in accordance with his duties under the Bill. However, it is possible to envisage other circumstances where individuals, through a course of conduct, may cause a question to be raised as to suitability for continuing in office.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to be more precise. Does she accept the view put forward, as I understand it, by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that somebody guilty of notorious conduct—I think that was the expression——
Lord Renton: Notorious misconduct.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Notorious misconduct. Would such a person be guilty of misbehaviour as interpreted and therefore be subject to dismissal?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am not the most enthusiastic supporter of this Bill, as I think my noble friend is aware. However, I do not think that the noble Lord opposite is helping his case, or indeed mine or anybody else's, by insisting on adding to the Bill the words contained in this amendment. If Parliament is always going to seek to add definition after definition in order to make clear its meaning, the result will not be clarity but obscurity.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If the Bill were perfectly clear to me at the outset, I should be very happy. I am seeking a government view on what they think they are writing into the legislation. I am not trying to prolong the debate.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that I have already explained that. I also pointed out that this is a precedented provision. While I fully recognise that that does not make everything perfect in everyone's view, we can say from experience that it is a provision that has proved satisfactory.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
["(6) The Secretary of State in appointing the Director, and the Director in carrying out his functions, shall have as their prime objective the efficient supply of electricity including a programme of energy conservation.").
The noble Lord said: We are embarking here on what may become a continuing theme, which is the efficiency of supply. In begging to move this amendment I would have accepted a grouping with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Shepherd and others, Amendment No. 62, had my noble friend Lord Shepherd been in this Chamber today. Unfortunately, he is unavoidably absent. He obviously wishes to have his say, so I shall speak only to Amendment No. 9.
The general theme of efficiency of electricity supply and of energy conservation has been one which has occupied another place and, indeed, your Lordships on Second Reading, when a number of noble Lords spoke to the matter; and there were many debates in another place on it. It seems to me appropriate that at an early stage in the Committee's proceedings we should have a discussion about both the efficient supply of electricity and a programme of energy conservation.
The amendment which I am moving seeks to lay down as a primary duty on the Secretary of State in appointing a director the objective of the efficient supply of electricity, including a programme of energy conservation. Our purpose is to make this prime objective stand right up front in the Bill. In its report on the efficient use of electricity, the committee of my noble friend Lord Shepherd pointed out that more efficient use of electricity could reduce significantly both future investment in electrical power generation and the demand for primary energy, which in turn would have an environmental benefit. The amendment would bring both cost and environmental benefits, so we are dealing both with efficiency of supply and, by energy conservation, improving the efficiency of supply and bringing other benefits.
I said in introducing the amendment that the background had been quite well rehearsed. Obviously, in environmental terms the serious threat of the greenhouse effect and global warming has been recognised. The electricity supply industry is

775
Britain's biggest polluter in that sense, producing some 39 per cent. of our carbon dioxide emissions. We are also aware of the European obligations that we are under to improve the efficiency of final demand and reduce emissions. If we try hard and if this is placed as a prime objective, we can do things which are not being done at present. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Energy himself said—I am looking at an article in the National Builder of February 1989—that he regards that as being top of the political bill, so I am not trying to achieve objectives which are not in the Government's mind. I am trying to make sure that what he and the Government think is actually written in as a prime objective of the Secretary of State. He said:
"A staggering £8 billion a year could be saved through the wider use of energy efficiency measures".
In Clause 3 of the Bill there is a duty on the Secretary of State and the director to promote efficiency and economy on the part of such firms as public electricity suppliers. However, that is only a secondary duty and not a primary duty of the Secretary of State when appointing the director. We believe that there is merit in making it a prime objective. In our view, it is the first essential step.
The Government have taken a lot of trouble to persuade us that both efficiency and, by extension, energy conservation are objectives of theirs, but we are not yet persuaded that that is an overriding aim because we are not yet persuaded that the Bill is strong enough to ensure that the discrepancy which we perceive between what the Government say and what they actually do is removed. We should not like to see the Energy Efficiency Office cut back; we should like to see that body properly funded. We should like to see more direct action taken by the Government in connection with those two important matters. Above all, we should like to lay on the Secretary of State himself in the appointment of a director the duty to make sure that that is really what the whole Bill is about.
In pursuing the duties that the amendment would impose, the director and the Secretary of State could look again at home installation grants and surveys to help industrialists save energy, which this Government have apparently abandoned. They could inform consumers about more efficient domestic appliances. There are all sorts of things that the Government could do if they were really serious about the matter. The object of this amendment is to ensure that the Government are as serious in deed as in word. We should like to impose a duty to achieve environmental and cost benefits for the industry and for the consumer. It is time that the Government translated their words into action.
I very much hope that the Committee and the Government will support the thrust of the amendment and I look for a positive statement from the noble Baroness.
Viscount Hanworth: I should like to support this amendment very strongly. I do not think there is anybody, including the Government, who does not support energy conservation, in theory at least. The Government have signally failed to do very much
776
about it, however. As has been pointed out already, they have even cut the money allowed to the Energy Efficiency Office.
This is the only quick way in which we can try to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions, which I think amount to 39 per cent., from our power stations. There are many other advantages as well, because, if we can get energy conservation and energy efficient appliances, we can reduce the amount of money spent, particularly by those who are ill able to pay their bills.
An additional concern in this regard is the area boards. They have no real incentive to reduce or to help their clients reduce energy consumption. There should be something in the Bill to make them do so. Commercially, of course, the more electricity they sell the better it is for them. I hope that the Government will take this seriously, and I should have thought that the amendment was one of the essential moves forward in dealing with the matter.
The EC has said that a 20 to 30 per cent. reduction in electricity consumption is possible. When the Friends of the Earth gave evidence to EC Panel B, they talked about 70 per cent. We looked through their case very carefully, and in theory that is possible, but not in practice—people are not going to abandon their existing refrigerators and buy new ones to save a little current. However, it does show that there is a vast opportunity for saving energy. It would save the capital required for building one or more new power stations.
It is possible to promote the insulation of houses. Until consumers realise the importance of this matter and the fact that they can get their money back in perhaps two or three years, they are naturally unwilling to pay an extra couple of hundred pounds—or it may be more today—on the price of a house. Again, the Government say that it should be left to the market-place. It is no good leaving it to the market-place if the market-place does not understand the issues involved. I hope that at last the Government will take this matter seriously and will agree to this amendment and others that promote the concept of energy efficiency and conservation.
5 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My attitude to this amendment will depend very much upon what my noble friend says in reply. The one thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that the time will come when energy conservation once again becomes fashionable. It will become a password again. We shall all be warm supporters of it in principle and in practice. And we shall be sorry that we did not do it before. I do not see any argument at the moment against my noble friend agreeing at least to include in this clause a reference to energy conservation. She may not like the exact wording of the noble Lord's amendment. I hope however that she will be able to assure those of use who are anxious about this subject that the Government will take it away, if they cannot accept what is in front of them now, and come back saying that the principle of energy conservation can be enshrined in this clause.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that the noble Baroness will listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has said. It is quite true that over the last few years, since oil prices have been reduced and there has been something of a glut of oil, which is coming to an end, we have become less conservation conscious. Nevertheless, this is probably one of the most important amendments that will be moved.
I know that the noble Baroness is concerned about conservation because I recently attended, as she did, a reception which concerned cavity wall insulation. She will be aware that only about 20 per cent. of houses capable of having cavity wall insulation inserted are so insulated. In that area alone there is scope for. enormous saving.
The greatest saving could be made by the electricity industry. I may be touching on other amendments, but the greatest wasters of energy are the power stations. In order to produce power, three times as much energy is used than is required. The rest of it is thrown either into rivers, into the sea or into the air. I am talking here about electricity which is generated simply for the sake of producing electricity. However, if coal, oil or other fuel were used to produce heat as well as power, we would certainly use our fuels, fossil or otherwise, to the very best advantage.
At most power stations in this country the overall thermal efficiency is about 38 per cent. If the power industry was obliged to provide heat, the overall efficiency could be as high as 80 per cent. Therefore the greatest waster of energy is the power industry, and that is why it is important to have this amendment in the Bill at this stage. A duty would be imposed upon the Secretary of State and the director to tell the electricity industry that it must stop wasting heat through chimneys and through cooling waters, either into rivers or seas. By that very action the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere would be enormously reduced. If that was combined with the other matters mentioned by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, then the contribution of this country to the problem of reducing global warming would be significant.
I urge the noble Baroness and the Government to take this amendment very seriously. It would not hurt to have it in the Bill and I am sure that the Government would get the green vote well behind them. By heaven, if for no other reason, they should take that to heart because, after the Vale of Glamorgan, they badly need those votes.
Lord Renton: I go along with my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil in asking my noble friend on the Front Bench to reconsider this matter. I have paid close attention to the arguments made in support of the amendment and I think that there is a good deal in some of them. I could not support the amendment as it stands, but I should like to make a general comment.
There is an enormous advantage in Parliament declaring its intention, sometimes by means of what is called a purpose clause. I know that I am predisposed in favour of purpose clauses because they were recommended by a committee, the first of
778
its kind for 100 years, of which I had the honour to be chairman. I think that in a Bill of this kind, which has several very important objectives, those objectives need to be clearly stated as well as the responsibilities of the people fulfilling those objectives.
The noble Lord, as I understand him, was referring to the Long Title. That is very interesting. It includes the words:
"to make new provision with respect to the supply of electricity through electric lines and the generation and transmission of electricity for such supply".
I hope that I have now convinced the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that, in the context of this Bill, supply does not include generation. They are separate processes. They need to be separately treated and always have been in our legislation. I speak with some distant experience because I had the responsibility, along with the late Reginald Maudling, of piloting the Electricity Act 1957 through another place. That Act is to be totally repealed, as I see from the repeal schedule to the Bill.
The Long Title, alas, does not include any reference to energy conservation. But the amendment does. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested that pollution should somehow be brought in. I rely again on past experience; I helped to pilot the Clean Air Act 1956. That is to remain on the statute book except for one section. The Clean Air Act 1968 is to remain except for parts of two sections. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 is to remain except for two minor amendments. Therefore, we do not need to deal, as the noble Lord suggested, with control of pollution because those who are responsible for operating the provisions of this Bill will be bound by those other statutes and will have to do that anyway. There is no need for them to be repeated.
Dealing with the amendment itself, it refers to the efficient supply of electricity and omits generation. It refers to:
"including a programme of energy conservation".
I should have thought that it should not just include "a programme" but should have among the prime objectives, among others, energy conservation, just like that.
There is another prime objective: that is, the protection of the environment. Section 57 of the 1957 Act specifically dealt rather fully with that. We have a partial repetition of that section in Clause 37 of this Bill, which deals with preservation of amenity and fisheries. We shall come to that in detail later. I would have thought that that is also a prime objective.
Therefore, my conclusion is that, although I do not think that the noble Lord has got this amendment quite right, something on these lines is desirable. The question—and I am not pressing for an answer this afternoon because I do not think that that is fair to my noble friend Lady Hooper—is whether it should be in the form, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested, of a subsection of Clause 1 or whether it should be a purpose clause on its own at the very start of the Bill.
Lord Somers: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He said that this amendment mentions supply but does not say anything about generation. One cannot supply electricity unless it is generated.
Lord Renton: That is perfectly obvious. However, if the noble Lord will bear with me, I do not want to have to enlighten him about the whole history of the matter, but there was a time when the Central Electricity Authority was responsible for generation and supply and was monolithic. In the 1957 Act we split that up and made the CEGB responsible for generation and partly for transmission, but the area boards were responsible only for supply and without any powers as to generation. Therefore, the two things have been separately treated. They are separate functions. I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord.
Instead of having a new subsection to Clause 1, it might be better if we had, at the start, before Clause 1 a new purpose clause on its own. It would not be effective to say, "Oh, but the Long Title is something akin to a purpose clause". Yes, it can be made so but it does not have to be so, and it would be much better, bearing in mind the limits of the technique with regard to Long Titles and the limits of the terms of this Long Title, if what we are really getting at is covered by a purpose clause.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The noble Baroness will recall that yesterday in part of an answer to a Question of mine she stated that it was the Government's intention to include energy conservation, when I had referred to the protection which is given in this Bill to the nuclear industry.
Ever since last September when the Prime Minister spoke at the Royal Society, it has been the accepted view in rhetoric of the Government that they have at last recognised the importance of what is generally called the greenhouse effect. However, some of your Lordships who have been pressing this for many years are worried about their response to what they have learnt from their scientific advisers. In particular, in the recent seminar held at No. 10 it appears that there was a distortion of some of the evidence given by one of the scientists, distortion to lead to the conclusion that nuclear energy was the main answer to offset the greenhouse effect on our production of energy.
That was corrected by the scientist involved, who had not intended to give that impression and did not believe that he had done so. What is worrying some of us is that the Prime Minister and the Government who follow her have suddenly had their eyes opened to this question of the greenhouse effect and have then come to the immediate conclusion that the solution is to increase the nuclear energy production of electricity.
I have given the noble Baroness on three occasions now the evidence produced in the United States that as regards the greenhouse effect, energy conservation is seven times as efficient as the use of nuclear power. Do the Government really intend to be serious about this issue which concerns every member of society? If they do, then surely this kind of amendment
780
should be welcomed by them and accepted, even if they say that it needs redrafting.
What is essential in this amendment is that energy conservation is included as one of the prime objectives. Do the Government believe that? If they do, then are they prepared to state that as one of the obligations on the Secretary of State when he appoints the director? We have seen how much money the Government are spending on publicity on the poll tax and on the Water Bill. What publicity are they funding to let the public of this country know the ways in which they can reduce their energy demand, and, as will inevitably follow, then reduce the danger to the atmosphere which any form of energy production includes? Will the Government give the same kind of funding to the importance of energy conservation, which my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has already pointed out spreads over a wide area of domestic use and which, it has been pointed out, includes the new kind of electric light bulb?
Will the Government put their money where their mouth is? Will they use the opportunity which they have to give the public information on the way in which energy can be conserved? If they will do that and if they really mean what they say about their concern for the greenhouse effect, they will welcome the opportunity of putting that into legislation in this Bill. That will be the test of the Government's sincerity, as we proceed with this Bill and the various amendments that have been proposed, on the crucial importance to our planet of energy conservation. Will the Government show their sincerity both by using their power in publicity and by including as a requisite for the appointment of a director the recognition that energy conservation is one of the prime objectives of this Bill?
Lord Ezra: I apologise to the Committee for arriving late, but I have come back from abroad at breakneck speed to be here. As my name is attached to this amendment and I feel strongly on the subject, I should like to say a few words at the risk of perhaps repeating what others have said.
I believe that we are in a state of development, environmentally, when we should not be passing any legislation concerned with energy which does not refer to energy conservation. Energy conservation is of such vital importance not only in economic terms but now in fundamental environmental terms that it is essential that right at the early stages of this important Bill the obligations on the part of the director who is to regulate this great industry should include clear reference to the need to secure efficiency in the generation and supply of electricity and in the conservation of energy. Therefore, I plead with the Government that even if they cannot accept the wording in the amendment they will at least take it away in the knowledge that the nation expects that these issues should be absolutely in the forefront of any legislation from now on that deals with energy.
Baroness Hooper: I can begin by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that this is in all probability the first of a number of debates during

781
the Bill's progress that we will be having on the subject of energy efficiency and pollution. It is an important subject. The Government are fully committed to energy efficiency and to the effects that electricity generation have on our environment. Nevertheless, in responding to this debate I will concentrate on energy efficiency rather than the general environmental aspect, and I think that was the lead given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Referring to the amendment, the general duties of the Secretary of State and of the director are set out in Clause 3 of the Bill. That clause gives the Secretary of State and the director each the duty, when exercising their functions under Part I of the Bill, to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are satisfied; the duty to secure that licence holders are able to finance the carrying on of the activities which they are authorised by their licences to carry on; and, subject to subsection (2) of that clause, the duty to promote competition on the generation and supply of electricity.
The clause also includes duties in respect of efficiency and economy. Subsection (3)(b) of that clause places a duty on the Secretary of State and on the director to exercise their functions under Part I of the Bill to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons authorised by licences to supply electricity and the efficient use of electricity supplied by them. I have tabled an amendment extending this provision to cover persons authorised by licences to transmit electricity. The Secretary of State and the director will have to take these and other duties into account when exercising their functions under Part I of the Bill.
However important the subject, I do not believe it would be right to single out one duty as a paramount duty to which all others are subsidiary. We believe that energy efficiency is important but we also believe that the duty to consumers is important, that security of supply is important, and so on. Therefore, in my view it is likely to make for a more sensible arrangement for the Secretary of State and the director to have regard to their duties as a whole, as set out in Clause 3, when exercising their functions under Part I.
The Committee may also wish to note that efficiency is included within the general duties of the holder of a public electricity supply licence and of the holder of a transmission licence. Clause 9 of the Bill makes it a duty of a public electricity supplier to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electrical supply. It also places a general obligation on the holder of a transmission licence to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission. This wording,
"to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system",
of electricity supply and of transmission is of course well precedented. It appears in Section 3(2) of the Elecricity (Scotland) Act 1979, in Section 2(5) of the Electricity Act 1957 and in Section 1(2) of the Electricity Act 1947, the last of which was passed by the post-war Labour Administration.
782
The Government have recognised that all forms of energy production have some environmental consequences and that energy efficiency can help to minimise these. An ETSU study on the impact of energy efficiency on emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants is now under way. Other government action includes economic pricing of fuels, the proposed non-fossil obligation for the supply industry and the continued development of commercially viable alternative and renewable energy sources.
However, we believe that there is no single solution and we will be working on the development of policies across the spectrum and working internationally to improve understanding of the problem and of the action needed. As regards the Energy Efficiency Office, which has been referred to in this context, the programmes to date have achieved considerable savings and success. The office is continuing to carry out its mandate by encouraging increased energy efficiency by special targeting, by best practice programmes and concentrating a little more effort on the regions.
Perhaps I may pick up some of the points that have been made about energy efficiency as opposed to energy conservation. Both terms have been used in the course of our debate; indeed, the amendment refers to both. These are, of course, two quite different concepts. Energy conservation is simply about using less energy. Increased energy efficiency, to which this Government are committed, is quite different. It is about using energy or electricity more efficiently. It was to promote energy efficiency that the Government established the Energy Efficiency Office in 1983. More efficient use of electricity does not necessarily lead to lower use of electricity. It might, for instance, lead to higher levels of comfort or to increased production. In some cases it could encourage a switch to an electrical process from another fuel.
Electricity demand is growing, and is likely to continue to grow, in all major industrialised countries, as consumers install new electrical processes and equipment. Major international organisations such as the International Energy Agency and the European Commission are forecasting continuing growth in electricity demand, even after taking account of prospective efficiency gains, on which we are all working. So investment in electricity supply involves quite a diffèrent set of decisions to investment in efficiency in electricity use. We believe that decisions on the efficient use of electricity are for individual consumers to take. Decisions on the amount of electricity that needs to be generated will, on the other hand, be for suppliers, based on their estimates of demand including their estimates of consumers' decisions on energy efficiency.
Some reference has been made to the notion of least-cost planning. That would involve the electricity supplier or the regulator deciding that a particular conservation measure was preferable to contracting for electricity supply. A planning process like this takes decisions away from customers and it is only relevant in the cases of heavily-regulated monopolies as seen in parts of the United States.

783
Least-cost planning is in fact currently used in three states in the United States of America and it has been criticised on two grounds. First, if the anticipated reductions in electricity supply do not occur there is likely to be a shortage of electricity leading to reductions in the security of supply. Secondly, there is a continuing debate on how the cost of conservation measures should be passed on to customers since they would have to pay more to repay the suppliers for the cost of the conservation measures while using less electricity.
As I have said, the Government's view is that in general customers can and should decide which energy efficiency measures are appropriate and should pay for the measures and take the benefits from any savings. This makes decisions more relevant to customers' wishes and needs as well as ensuring that the best energy efficiency measures are taken. That is why the Government's programme concentrates on energy efficiency. We see our role as providing information and advice to energy users. As I have said, the Energy Efficiency Office has focused its attentions on raising general awareness of energy efficiency. It is currently targeting its activities on key areas of energy use and offering specific advice backed by technical support. We are directing measures in other areas as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced. He will be leading a campaign—the details of which are currently being worked out—to increase the efficiency of energy use in the public sector where the energy bill is around £1.8 billion a year and where clearly more can be done.
Also in the domestic sector, we are continuing to devote attention to the problem of pensioners and low-income households through the community insulation programme and the homes' insulation scheme. As regards the Electricity Bill itself, our proposals as they stand in Clause 3 break new gound in promoting energy efficiency both within the industry and by those who use electricity. Having made a fairly general reply as well as responding to the specific points raised by the amendment I emphasise again that while having some sympathy and interest in encouraging energy efficiency, we do not believe that it would be right to single out one duty as paramount to which all others are subsidiary as proposed by this amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I believe that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for the very full reply that she has given. However, she has not really dealt with some of the salient points. I do not believe that she has dealt with the point that I made that one of the most inefficient organisations in electricity supply is the suppliers themselves. The noble Baroness quoted Clause 9(2)(a) which says,
"to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission".
She added that this duty was contained in the 1947 Act and, I believe, also in the 1957 Act. That is the problem. The electricity industry has used that provision in order to provide simply electricity. It has said that the duty placed on it is not to supply power and heat efficiently, but simply to provide
784
electricity efficiently. For that it has gone in for very large power stations with very large generating sets producing electricity at its most economical cost. A 660 megawatt power station will produce electricity at 38 per cent. overall efficiency whereas a 200 megawatt power station will produce it at perhaps only 32 per cent. If the duty on the industry was to use the input of energy efficiently, the overall thermal efficiency could be doubled to about 76 per cent.
That could be done by the use of combined heat and power. By the use and sale of heat the industry could first of all reduce the amount of primary energy used—coal, oil or nuclear what-have-you—and could also reduce the price of electricity to the consumer because two commodities would be sold instead of one. If all our coal-fired power stations at the present time were operating on the basis of combined heat and power and district heating and that were done efficiency, instead of using 80 million tonnes of coal a year, we could be using only 40 million tonnes. Consider what effect that would have on the overall warming effect and CO2 emissions. That is why this amendment is so important.
In the future it should be prohibited for any electricity supplier to build a power station without using the input energy to the utmost efficiency. That is why this amendment is so important and why we are fearful that the Government are not taking energy efficiency as seriously as they should. This is a complicated matter. I hope that I have been able in simple terms to illustrate how much more efficiently electricity, power and heat can be generated. If we had done this right from the start we could now be using only 40 million tonnes of coal instead of 80 million tonnes of coal each year. That is what this amendment is about, and that is what my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and others on this side of the Committee have been talking about. It is so essential to the future of the globe, and not only the energy industry, that this matter is taken seriously. I hope the noble Baroness and the Government will think again about the reply that has been given.
Baroness Phillips: I wish to make a comment that has nothing to do with the amendment. After listening to my noble friend on two occasions while discussing this amendment, I suggest to the Minister that since the office of director appears to be very open, including the salary, we have here a potential candidate who would be absolutely splendid.
Lord Renton: I agree that we should be most. grateful to my noble friend for her interesting and full reply to this debate. It was very detailed, and all of us would benefit by studying it in detail when we see it in Hansard. However, it is quite clear from what she said that the amendment would not be right. I hope I am not labouring the point too much, but it helps to get these things right. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will turn to Clause 4 of the Bill on page 3 he will see three expressions used separately. It reads:
"A person who...generates electricity".
A little later there are the words "transmits electricity" and after that the words,
"supplies electricity to any premises".

785
Those are three quite separate concepts and only one of them is mentioned in the noble Lord's amendment. To reinforce this, on page 4, starting at line 12, we see the definition of "supply" and after that the definition of "transmit". I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to press an amendment which is clearly technically not right, and after this interesting and open-minded discussion it would be as well for us to consider the matter further when we see Hansard.
Lord Howie of Troon: The problem with combined heat and power is that while more hot water is produced one gets less electricity. That is fine if one wants only hot water, but it is not quite so good if one wants electricity. The argument about combined heat and power is rather more complicated than my noble friend suggested. The elegant power station at Pembroke could supply combined heat and power for Milford Haven, but 2,000 megawatts of electricity supplying a marginal amount of hot water in Milford Haven is not such a wonderful idea.
I shall tell the Committee what I do not like about the amendment. I am sorry to say this to my noble friends because I am quite sure that their hearts are entirely in the right place. What is wrong is that it asks the director to interfere with matters which are not essentially his business. He is supposed to supply electricity. He should supply electricity in the most admirable manner, conserving all kinds of things. However, in this amendment we are asking him to provide a programme of energy conservation. This goes far beyond the remit of electricity supply. It governs all kinds of energy—windmills, watermills and donkeys walking around in circles, and so on. The amendment is honest in its intention but is fundamentally misconceived.
It is as though we are seeking to pass a Bill about the supply of potatoes. We might rightly say that they should be the best potatoes and healthy potatoes and preferably Ayreshire potatoes, but then we might go further and cover matters which are not to do with potatoes and are not the business of the potato merchant. The proposal is a good idea which has overreached itself. My noble friend on the Front Bench should withdraw the amendment, rethink it and then bring it back at Report stage when I am perfectly sure it will be in a condition acceptable to the Chamber as a whole.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may say with great respect to the noble Lord opposite that he recalls to my mind a remark which I believe was once made by the late Will Rogers, a shrewd observer of the United States Congress. He said that there are two things you never want to see being made—the first, sausages, and the second, laws. This is a moment when I feel inclined to endorse that comment with some warmth.
I accept to a degree what my noble friend said about Clause 3 but I have reservations, as is apparent from the amendment, as to whether it is sensible that duties should be jointly performed by two people. That might be a shortcut to conflict rather than to ensuring the proper performance of those
786
duties. Therefore, despite what the Minister said, I am still somewhat in favour of a reference in this clause to the importance of energy conservation. I do not go along too much with those who see a clear division between energy efficiency and energy conservation. To my mind, they are closely involved with one another. My noble friend said that energy saving is something which customers could and should decide for themselves. That is all right, but in a complicated industry customers need clear advice. That is why both the Secretary of State in appointing the director and the director in performing his duties should have energy efficiency very much in mind.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support what the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Peyton, have just said. The director should have a responsibility for energy conservation because that strikes at the root of what we are talking about. This should be stated somewhere, unequivocally.
Secondly, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said about the efficient use of electricity. If the noble Baroness has read the report recently issued by Sub-Committee B she will have seen that there is serious concern about the lack of continuity in the work that the Electricity Council is currently carrying out, and which in the Bill we cannot see being carried out by anybody else, to stimulate the efficient use of electricity. These two issues—energy conservation and the efficient use of electricity—should be set out clearly and should be related to the task of the director right at the beginning.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon took me up on my previous remarks. I obviously did not explain them properly. I said that because of the duty on the electricity industry to provide electricity as cheaply and as efficiently as possible the industry, instead of supplying both electricity and heat, had gone in for these huge 2,000-megawatt power stations and 660-megawatt sets so that it could produce electricity more cheaply. Had it been required to make the most efficient use of the total input of energy it would not have built the 2,000-megawatt power stations. It would probably have built 200-megawatt power stations near towns and factory complexes to supply both heat and power efficiently.
Lord Howie of Troon: One would get less electricity. We are both agreed about that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, but one would in fact achieve an overall thermal efficiency of between 76 per cent. and 80 per cent. instead of 38 per cent., which is the maximum one achieves from a 660-megawatt set.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I should like the noble Baroness to answer two questions when she comes to reply. In her first speech she made a great deal of the Government's concern about energy efficiency. If that concern is sincere, how is it that the size of the energy efficiency unit has been cut by about 50 per cent? Secondly, I wish to take up a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.

787
The noble Baroness stressed in part of her speech the Government's belief that it is the responsibility of the consumer to choose what kind of electrical appliances are used. Does that mean that the Government abdicate all responsibility for giving guidance and information? Further, will she answer this question which I asked before she spoke. If the Government are sincere in their concern regarding the greenhouse effect, and if they are sincere in their concern for energy efficiency, will they use the power of publicity which they have to let people know and thereby give a lead to customers?
It has been shown by what has been said by Members on all sides of the Committee that there is a great deal of concern about the importance of energy conservation. Can the noble Baroness say, as regards the proposal laid down in the amendment, that it is the Government's view that energy conservation is one of their prime objectives? If that is so, can she at least tell the Committee that, although she does not perhaps agree with the wording of the amendment, she will take it back and ensure that it is spelt out quite clearly somewhere in the Bill that the Government consider energy conservation to be of prime importance? Further, can she confirm that they will ensure, by means of clauses in the Bill, that this objective is given as a directive to the Secretary of State and to the director whom he appoints?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I very much hope that the noble Baroness has listened carefully to our debate this afternoon. I also hope that she will read what has been said in Hansard. There is support from all sides of the Committee for the generality of the proposal which I have put forward. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I accept that my drafting is far from perfect and I believe that the amendment could be reconstructed in a much more satisfactory manner. I also agree that, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it would perhaps be better to have a purpose clause rather than inserting the provision in Clause 1. It does not concern me which way the Government go on that issue.
I believe that in the noble Baroness's reply to the debate—that is, her initial reply; although she may now have further things to say—she somewhat missed the point. She recited the various provisions in the Bill which in her view go to meet the problem I have raised. However, she did not point out that in Clause 3 the duty to promote efficiency and economy, which is laid on the Secretary of State and the director, is subordinate to the duty to promote competition. Therefore, the first duty under Clause 3 is to promote competition, and only after that, and subject to that, to promote efficiency and economy. That argument does not seem to us to be strong enough. Many noble Lords have stressed that view.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, made a point about consumers, as did my noble friend Lord Hatch. My noble friend also made a point about the EEU and its underfunding. My noble friend Lord Stoddart made a most important point about the construction of power stations and the need for a proper and
788
efficient construction process in that respect. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments which have been put forward but I thought that they should be mentioned.
If it is true—as I believe it is—that the Bill is not strong enough on the whole issue of efficiency and energy conservation, that is not really the point which I seek to make. The point I am trying to make, which was accepted by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Peyton, is that if this is the prime objective of the Bill we should spell it out in Clause 1; that is, right at the beginning in a purpose clause, or as a particular point in Clause l. It is not good enough to say, "Well, the provision is somewhere around in Clause 3, Clause 45, Clause 96 or Clause 130". We want it spelt out as a matter of prime importance, as a prime objective, in Clause 1. That is why I tabled this amendment.
I very much hope that the noble Baroness, having listened to all that has been said by Members from all sides of the Committee, will be able to give us a little more comfort and perhaps indicate to us that she may be prepared to consider an amendment along the lines of the one I have put forward. I give her that opportunity.
Baroness Hooper: It is very kind of the noble Lord to give me such an opportunity. I too do not intend to repeat any of the arguments which I made in response to the initial debate. However, I should perhaps return to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about the efficiency of the generators. We believe that that point will be covered by the competition in generation to which our proposals will give rise. Clearly the efficiency with which a generator uses fuel will significantly affect its costs and therefore its ability to compete successfully. That may also answer the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about the duty to promote competition provided in Clause 3(1). I think that that is the main new area which has arisen at this point in Committee.
I should like to take the opportunity to say again to my noble friend Lord Peyton that customers will be receiving advice on energy efficiency as a direct result of the provisions under Clause 3(b). If I understood him correctly, he was most anxious on that score. I think that the director general would not be in a position to fulfil his duty to promote energy efficiency if he did not ensure that customers received such advice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I must say that I am again most disappointed in the noble Baroness's refusal to accept that we should have a provision at the beginning of the Bill to show in very clear terms what the Bill is really meant to be about. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, it is meant to be about efficiency and energy conservation.
We have been discussing this amendment for 68 minutes, and I do not wish to detain the Committee any further. However, I hope that we shall return to this issue—I am sure we will—at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Director General of Electricity Supply]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 72, line 12, after ["State") insert ("after consultation with the consumer committees").
The noble Lord said: I feel almost apologetic in raising an amendment which, compared to the amendment on conservation, seems rather less important. With hindsight, it would perhaps have been better if this amendment had been grouped with one of the earlier amendments. It could then have been included in a similar type of debate. I shall try to be as brief as possible in what I have to say.
The amendment refers to the provision in Schedule 1 which states that if any person ceases to hold the office of director the Secretary of State shall determine whether there are special circumstances. It proposes that the Secretary of State should only determine after consultation with the consumers' committees whether there are special circumstances which make it right for the director to receive compensation for leaving the job.
The reason for what is proposed is that since the consumers' committees will almost certainly on a daily, ongoing basis be more in touch with the director than the Secretary of State is ever likely to be they should have an opinion as to whether or not he has done the job properly or with the enthusiasm that they would wish.
Grouped with Amendment No. 12 is Amendment No. 13 which applies to the same circumstances-that compensation may be paid to the director should he leave his job. The compensation would be determined by the Secretary of State. In that case I readily accept that there is a flaw in the amendment because it suggests that the powers to make any compensation award will not be available to the Secretary of State under Clause 1(3) should he,
"remove any person from office as the Director on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour".
Obviously if someone were dismissed or removed from office because of incapacity, that is a quite different matter from someone removed because of misbehaviour. We have no desire to make it impossible for someone to be given compensation because of incapacity. Misbehaviour is a much more serious matter. I do not wish to go into great detail; we have discussed it before. It has been suggested that sometimes people, following misbehaviour, are allowed to plead that they are retiring on grounds of illness before they can be brought before the body which will decide on the misbehaviour. I realise that the amendment is possibly faulty. I believe however that the Minister knows the purport of it and can therefore perhaps reply. It is a matter we can bring back on Report. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Our proposals give consumers' committees many powers but none of them relates to the appointment or dismissal of the director
790
general. I do not think it would be right to place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the consumers' committees before determining whether special circumstances exist which make it right to pay compensation to the director when he ceases to hold office. To require the Secretary of State to consult all the consumers' committees on the matter seems to me to be a somewhat bureaucratic, intrusive and time-consuming way of proceeding which I believe we should seek to avoid. I therefore trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 12.
On Amendment No. 13, I must say that I can see the case for not paying compensation to a director where he has been removed on the ground of misbehaviour. But I am not entirely convinced that it would be wrong in all the circumstances to which the noble Lord himself drew our attention where the director had been removed on the grounds, for example, of incapacity. I do not wish to speculate on hypothetical situations but it may be that in such a case there could be humanitarian reasons where the payment of some sort of compensation might be appropriate. I am not sure that we would want to rule that out. I am sure that the noble Lord himself would not either.
I shall of course consider the amendment in the light of what the noble Lord has said, and I therefore hope that he will feel able to withdraw it at this stage.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for having given the assurance particularly on the second amendment, that she will look at it perhaps with a view to bringing the matter back.
As regards the first amendment I agree with her that it may appear bureaucratic that the Secretary of State should consult all the consumers' committees. It may be impossible to make the amendment any less bureaucratic or clumsy, given our intentions when we put it down. The purpose was that the consumers should have some input as to whether someone had been a good director or not. Presumably that is the basis on which the director would be given some sort of compensation. Those consumers would have been working extremely closely with him and therefore in some ways the Secretary of State should be able to take advice from them. Again, I accept that rather than asking all consumers' committees for their opinions it might have been better to suggest asking the chairman. I shall look at that before Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 72, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to a discussion we had earlier. Under the Bill as drafted the Treasury is required to approve any determination made in respect of remuneration of

791
the director. That seems to me a recipe for disaster. I believe that the Secretary of State ought to have the power to appoint a director whom he wants without having to go to the Treasury for approval of such a determination. Indeed, if he wishes to give him a pension, a gratuity, make him an allowance, pay his expenses or pay any sort of compensation, I believe that he should be free to do so without having to seek the approval of the Treasury. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My name appears on the amendment. I wish to make clear that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, put down his amendment of his own volition and choice. Without any consultation with him or anyone else, I put down an exactly similar amendment for similar reasons. The fact that we reached the same conclusion without any previous discussion must add greatly to the strength of the arguments which the noble Lord has adduced and with which I broadly agree.
There would be no purpose in repeating at length the arguments put forward at an earlier stage. I hope that my noble friend will appreciate the very real anxiety which some of us feel about the possibility of the Government even finding someone with the immense gifts which will be necessary for the satisfactory performance of the huge task laid upon him. I very much question the contribution of the Treasury to the matter of assessing the salary of this being with almost supernatural powers. I wonder whether the intervention of the Treasury on the salary will be altogether helpful.
I put them so mildly and with such restraint that I hope my arguments will commend themselves to my noble friend on that count alone. I feel that the Treasury's contribution on the matter might not be totally helpful. It could be that if the Government have the great good fortune to identify a person qualified to do the job, the intervention of the Treasury could be effective in removing the prize from the Government's grasp. I hope that my noble friend will look with great sympathy on the amendment.
Lord Ezra: I wish to suport what the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Peyton, have said. I very much fear that the Treasury, whose main task is zealously to guard the public purse and to say "No" on every conceivable occasion may not be the right people to ensure that the person who is selected by the Secretary of State for the job will receive the remuneration and conditions consistent with the responsibility and status involved. While no doubt we shall be told that this has always been put into legislation, we are after all approaching the 21st century. It is about time that a few changes were made. One of the changes that I believe we should make is to try to restrict the Treasury to those things which are important for it to do, and not to enable it to spread its tentacles into every other conceivable activity.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have enormous sympathy for my noble friend in replying to this discussion. As someone who has served for some time and is still serving on bodies which the
792
Government are busy freeing from governmental control and are asking to be totally independent and to act independently, I know that it is increasingly difficult to run an independent body when Treasury agreement has to be given to such measures. I think we are moving into an age when it is wrong for the Treasury to do things in that way. I agree with that idea, but I do not think we can expect my noble friend to propose to do something different on this Bill to what is being done in all other directions, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. He understands better than any of us the difficulties of working within this restraint.
I do not know what my noble friend will say in reply, but I believe that he should seriously draw the attention of the Secretary of State to what has been said, not just in relation to this post but to others of this kind. Everyone seems to accept that the Treasury has to control these things in order to run the economy: However, that control makes it very difficult for the organisation concerned. The kind of organisations I am involved in operate on a very much smaller scale than the electricity industry. In fact those organisations are minute by comparison. But I can say that Treasury constraints make life very difficult. Treasury controls on such big concerns as the electricity industry pose a very great constraint. However, I do not think that we can expect to get this amendment accepted in these circumstances.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: When my noble friend replies, can he confirm that at the end of the day it will not be the Treasury which pays the salary but the industry? Therefore, it seems all the more of an anomaly that the Treasury should have to be consulted.
The Earl of Dundee: Picking up the point of my noble friend first, I should say that the more successful the industry is, and indeed the more successful every aspect of the economy is, the more money the Treasury has to spend. From listening to some of the remarks made about the Treasury, I slightly got the impression that it is not considered to be on our side as regards energy efficiency, or might not be as keen as everybody else is on the general aims to which we aspire. Perish the thought.
However, I point out that this provision is well precedented. There are similar provisions in Schedule 1 to the Gas Act 1986, Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 and Schedule 1 to the Fair Trading Act 1973. The director general, although not a civil servant, will be a Crown appointee. He will be responsible as accounting officer for the costs of the Office of Electricity Regulation which will be a government department funded by vote. It is therefore entirely fitting and usual for the payment of remuneration, pensions and other matters to require Treasury approval. This amendment would remove an essential element of proper financial control, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, may therefore feel able to withdraw it. I can assure the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee that these conditions will in no way inhibit the Secretary of State's choice of the best candidate for the job.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Surely the conditions must inhibit the choice. After all, the level of salary and the level of conditions of service which are offered must have something to do with the choice. If the salary and conditions of service are set at a given level, they may preclude a particular person at any given time. Surely the point was aptly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, that the industry itself will pay the remuneration and expenses. I should have thought that the remuneration and the expenses should not be related to the Civil Service. In order to get the calibre of staff required—this is no reflection on the Civil Service but on the relationship of salaries and conditions of service in the industry—the salaries and conditions of the director and his staff should be related to salaries within the industry itself. Otherwise the calibre and type of staff that are needed will not be attracted to the regulating authority. If the regulating authority is to be efficient, and if it is to do the job, we need that type of staff. That is what this argument is all about.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to the Government Dispatch Box for the first time in the Committee. However, I am afraid I disagree with him on almost every point he made. The Treasury is not on his side. I should like the noble Earl to recognise that. The job of the Treasury is to ensure comparability among various grades in the Civil Service. That is why these measures are made.
The fact that there is a precedent for the provision in other Acts is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I have already pointed out, no reason at all for putting it in this Bill. We must get away from the idea that just because something is written into previous legislation it must automatically be written into every new piece of legislation that comes before the Chamber.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon must be right when he says that the calibre of person required as director, even if such a genius exists in the first place, will only be attracted by the same kind of salaries that are paid in the industry itself. He will not be attracted by an ordinary Civil Service salary. Finally, the fact that we are talking about a government department, and therefore the Treasury must intervene in some way just because the director is an accounting officer in charge of a government department, seems to me to reiterate the same fallacy that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out. There is no need for this measure, and I do not see why the Government persist in it.
What is surprising about this Committee is that the Government spokesman, whether it is the noble Baroness or the noble Earl, seems to be faced on all sides of the Committee by hostile interventions. That is the case even where their own Benches are concerned. We have not heard many Members of the Committee stand up and support the Government on many of the issues that we have been discussing. That is very interesting. I hope very much that the noble Earl will agree to look at this provision to see whether the Department of Energy
794
can consult the Treasury to see whether in this new departure we may try to arrive at a formula which does not inhibit the Secretary of State from recruiting the right person for the job. I believe if this sub-paragraph remains in the schedule, the Secretary of State will be so inhibited.
The Earl of Dundee: As I said earlier, I do not believe that the Secretary of State's choice will be inhibited. However, I hear what the noble Lord says. Indeed I listened very carefully to what other Members of the Committee said. I shall of course pass on those remarks to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that my right honourable friend will bear in mind that what we want to do, and what we will do, is to get the salary right. I have absolute confidence that the right man for the job will be attracted and that he will not be put off by what is on offer. As I have said, I have listened carefully to what has been said and I shall pass on the remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not think that we are getting much further, but I am grateful to the noble Earl for at least passing on our remarks to his right honourable friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 72, line 18, leave out from "may" to "appoint" in line 19.
The noble Lord said: This is an extremely important amendment because it concerns the ability of the director to apoint such staff as he may determine. The question of the staffing of the director's office is a matter of enormous importance.
As I understand the position, the current government proposals envisage a regulatory body for the whole of the electricity supply industry of approximately 115 staff. That complement will have to regulate 12 separate area boards which will become public electricity suppliers, the grid, the generating companies, private generators, the Scottish companies and possibly other new entrants such as major manufacturers who wish to have a licence for generating or to feed electricity into the grid. According to estimates, they will probably have to deal with approximately 30,000 complaints or representations from the public. The number may turn out to be higher: I believe that the Gas Consumers' Council has to deal with many more than 30,000 complaints.
The director must be free to appoint such staff as he may determine. He must not be subject to the Treasury in this matter. He must be allowed to say, "I really do not think, after a certain amount of experience, that I can operate with the allocation that the Treasury has given me and therefore I want to raise the number of my staff".
Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on the previous amendment, I speak from bitter personal experience. I have been in charge of a commission and I have tried to raise the number of staff, very modestly, to the level which I thought

795
appropriate. I was sat on by the Treasury. It is almost certain that the poor director—assuming that we can find somebody at the salary that the Treasury approves—will be sat on by the Treasury if he says that he wants more than 115 people in his office to perform the vast task with which he is charged.
Therefore I hope very much that the Government will look with favour on the amendment and allow the director to appoint such staff as he may determine. He should have the power to appoint the people he wants to the positions that he wants in the numbers that he wants. He should not be subject to outside interference in that task. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I have often complained when we find in a statute the words "with the consent of the Treasury" or "with the approval of the Treasury". I have complained when those words have been used in relation to duties to be performed by Ministers. But when we have duties to be performed by somebody who is not a Minister although appointed by a Minister and who is not going to remain on the staff of the Minister, then it is different. I think that in these particular circumstances it may be necessary to make the position abundantly clear that the approval of the Treasury is required.
I say that on the assumption that the director general will have his own budget, his own separate funds and so on, and that they will not be carried merely on the staff of the department of the Secretary of State. If they are to be carried on the staff of the department of the Secretary of State then it is rather different. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Ezra: To follow up that last point, I do not see where the Treasury comes into this. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, made clear, the consumer of electricity will pay for this regulatory body in the end it is in the interests of the consumer of electricity that there should be as effective a body as possible to regulate the industry.
The most that I should say is feasible in this clause is to state that the director should consult with the Secretary of State and then make his own determination as to what he needs in order to do the job. The locus of the Treasury seems to me to be quite unnecessary. I do not see how the Treasury comes into the matter. The staff will not be funded out of government money and this body has nothing to do with any other appointments in the government service. It is specifically related to the direction and relation of the electricity industry under privatisation. Therefore it is an entirely new body and has to be looked at on its merits.
Lord Trafford: I am a little puzzled by the amendment, because if one reads on to the following line one sees that the money shall be paid by Parliament, not by the consumer. It states that:
"There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) the remuneration of, and any travelling or other allowances payable under this Act to, the Director and any staff of the Director".

This is therefore a grant by Parliament. It is not the case that consumers will be paying the salary of the
796
director, or of his staff. If I am right in that assumption that makes some difference because there is then some public accountability.
I do not think that I can go along with comments made on this amendment or on the previous amendment. They seem to me to be unnatural in the sense that we all must know that the director general, whoever he is, will have negotiated a package with the Secretary of State. It is just not true that governments do not employ people, in nationalised industries or other concerns, and do not break their own regulations in order to get who they think is the right man. I see frowns on the Front Bench opposite. Perhaps I may remind them of one particular name—MacGregor. I seem to remember that the deal made in that case through the Treasury by the Government was quite exceptional.
If the director is so exceptional, and we have heard this afternoon how exceptional he will have to be, perhaps some similar deal will have to be reached. However, I recognise that that is not relevant to the immediate amendment, which concerns his staff. I should have thought that any director of such quality would foresee this issue. He would say, "I want the following terms", and those terms would include his staff. He would not be a very good regulator if he did not foresee such questions. If he did not think ahead, that would suggest to me that the wrong chap had been chosen.
Having said that, far more potent are the words under paragraph 3:
"There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament".
That suggests to me that such accountability, in one way or another, must come back to the Treasury. I shall be very interested to hear whether my interpretation of that position is correct when my noble friend comes to answer. If it is, then the Treasury it is. That is why I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that that is why the Treasury has its finger in this too.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I cannot understand why this provision is included in the Bill. I understood that one of the reasons for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry was to remove the dead hand of the Treasury. I understood that it was the dead hand of the Treasury which was making the industry inefficient. Therefore one of the reasons for the Bill is to remove the dead hand of the Treasury so that the industry will be more efficient. But there we find that the dead hand of the Treasury is to be placed on the regulator. That is the last place where we want the dead hand of the Treasury to be.
If we believe that the privatised electricity industry should be properly regulated, the director should be of sufficient calibre to regulate it and he should have sufficient staff with good conditions of service and remuneration. He should be allowed to get on with the job and to appoint those staff without the dead hand of the Treasury which has been referred to on so many occasions by Ministers from the Treasury Bench. I cannot for the life of me see why the Treasury need come into the equation at all. If we

797
believe that there should be proper regulation by a person competent, able, willing and eager to regulate the privatised electricity industry, we want no dead hand upon them at all. I shall therefore support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The Office of Electricity Regulation will be a non-ministerial government department. It is entirely customary for all Civil Service manpower issues to be cleared with the Treasury. It would be completely wrong to ignore past precedents and seek to establish a new policy in that area.
However, I should like to assure noble Lords that the director will be given all the resources that he needs to perform his function effectively and efficiently, and that OFFER will have fully adequate staff and resources to carry out its very important job. We currently anticipate a need for a staff complement of around 220. That is the number that we have quoted. That represents a net increase of 115—which is, I believe the figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—public sector posts.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. She referred to a net increase. What does that mean? What is the base line?
Baroness Hooper: We currently have staff carrying out functions which will be carried out by the staff of the regulator; for example, meter examiners, certain staff of the existing consumer bodies and so on. They add up to about 105, so the net increase——
Lord Williams of Elvel: Am I right in thinking that all that is pre-privatisation? Is it right to say that the effect of privatisation—in other words, the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Energy to the director which will take place as a result of the Bill—will lead to a net increase of 115 staff? Does privatisation therefore equal 115?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, one could put it like that. We should not like to be tied to any figure at this stage because, obviously, once the appointment of the director has taken place, he may himself wish to take a view on the likely size and shape of the new organisation. But, at this stage, those are the sort of numbers that we envisage.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of who pays for OFFER. It is in fact funded by vote of Parliament—my noble friend is quite correct about that point—with the normal parliamentary controls, so in that sense it is right to involve the Treasury. But the costs will be recovered by licence fees, so there will be no net cost to public funds and customers will ultimately pay the cost, as my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes pointed out.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to say briefly that I accept what my noble friend said just now; namely, that if moneys have to be found by Parliament, then the Treasury must come into the matter somewhere. However, what concerns me
798
again and again about the passage of legislation is that Parliament increasingly puts forward the arguments and they are thrown back by Ministers. Very little movement takes place. One must therefore take the opportunity of voicing anxieties under the aegis of an amendment which one knows very well does not have a chance of being accepted.
My anxiety here—this is the point that divides me from the Government, whom I ordinarily support—is that they have greatly underrated the complexity of the changes that they are putting in motion. If they are convinced that 115 extra staff is all that will be required by the Director General of Electricity Supply, and if they are right in that, most of the arguments that I shall put forward during the Committee stage are quite unfounded. I believe that they will find that the tasks that they have put into the Bill for the director general are so mixed and complicated that the numbers of staff needed will make the figure of 115 look absolutely laughable. I very much hope that I am wrong and they are right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: In her reply, the noble Baroness said that the director will be given all the resources needed to do the job. Does that mean that, if the director says to the Treasury, "You're giving me £x million, but I want £y million", he will get his £y million? Who decides if there is a dispute? Does the director merely have to ask and he will be given?
Baroness Hooper: The procedures for reimbursement or a payment which is voted by Parliament can involve parliamentary debate, so there is opportunity for discussion in that sense. However, I hope that I have made it clear that, although the costs will initially be voted by Parliament, they will not give rise to any expenditure because there will be reimbursement through the licence fees, which will be set at such a level as to avoid expenditure. It is therefore intended that the director general will be given all the resources that he needs to perform his duties.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Is that an absolute assurance that the director general will get all the resources that he or she needs—that is, in the view of the director general, not in the view of the Treasury? Will he get everything that he wants?
Baroness Hooper: Yes.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether my noble friend would be so kind as to answer the question that I raised about the director general's estimates. Of course, one must refer to his accounts as well. Will they be carried separately and presented to Parliament separately, or as part of the estimates and accounts of the Secretary of State?
Baroness Hooper: I am so sorry. Would my noble friend mind repeating what he said?
Lord Renten: The director general is obviously going to have to have estimates of expenditure; otherwise he will not be able to get the approval of the Treasury. Also, when he has spent the money,

799
he will have to present accounts to Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee may call for his accounts. What I want to know is: are his estimates and his accounts going to be something entirely separate from the estimates and accounts of the department of the Secretary of State, or are they going to be part of those? I think we ought to know because it is relevant.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may comment on that point. The director general is the accounting officer. Therefore, if he is the accounting officer, the accounts are separate from the department, which has a separate accounting officer who is the permanent secretary. As I understand it, that is the position, subject to any correction by the noble Baroness.
However, having answered on behalf of the noble Baroness, I must tell her how grateful we are for her assurance that the director will get all that he wants in the way of resources. We think that that is a major advance. We regard that assurance as being absolutely critical to a proper functioning of the office. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said, privatisation will involve problems of a very complex nature, the extent of which no incoming director can immediately appreciate. I agree with the noble Lord that, as he learns how complicated it all is, he will need quite a number of extra staff. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may just confirm that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton is correct. There will be separate presentation of the accounts, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, indicated. I should also like to say that the reason for the provision and the requirement of Treasury approval is that we believe it is necessary for normal public accountability procedures to be applied in view of the fact that the consumer is paying the ultimate bill.
Lord Trafford: Before my noble friend sits down——
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may continue for a moment. I should like to make clear, in relation to the assurance that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the director general will get all he needs, not necessarily all he wants.
Lord Trafford: I was about to ask the noble Baroness to make some qualification to her statement. It seemed to me that her assurance had been misinterpreted or massaged a little. I know perfectly well, as does the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, from many years in another place as well as in this Chamber that governments do not make that kind of commitment. As it was massaged very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I am glad to hear that my noble friend has been able to clarify that point.
Lord Dormand of Easington: There is, however, a question that has to be asked; namely, who decides how much he needs?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, will know that Members of Parliament in either House are always looking for good precedents. Perhaps we could have some clarification about who is to decide this point. We need to have this on the record. Who will decide what those needs are? Is it to be the director general or, ultimately, the Treasury?
Baroness Hooper: My understanding is that it will be for the director general, who is doing the job and is the best person to know his needs, to set the levels that he thinks he will need. The Secretary of State, through the public accountability procedures that we envisage, with Treasury consent, will be available to ensure that those are truly his needs rather than his wants.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Those noble Lords who read Hansard tomorrow will know that I begged leave to withdraw this amendment before the noble Baroness was able to rise and somewhat modify the assurance that she gave to the Committee. However, I was impeded by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and had to accept that the noble Baroness wished to qualify somewhat what I thought she had said earlier. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 72, line 28, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Lord said: I am bowed down with disappointment by the reaction to previous amendments. I think that I should probably be wasting the Committee's time if I were to move this amendment. However, before I say formally that I do not intend to move it, perhaps I may observe how much I admire the sense of sportsmanship shown by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on being deprived of his prize, which he very nearly obtained. It is not my intention to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 2 [Consumers' committees]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("Director") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: I think it may be convenient if with this amendment we also consider Amendments Nos. 25, 63 and 64. My point is very simple. Clause 2(1) lays down that,
"The Director shall establish committees, to be known as consumers' committees".
I believe that it would be wise if, instead of being appointed by the director, who will be deeply involved in the organisation and government of this industry, the members of the consumers' committees, which are there to represent the customers and no one else, were appointed from as far outside the industry as possible.
I do not think that I need expand at all on the argument. I just hope that the Government will accept that this course would be sensible. I do not always want to add to the powers of Ministers, but I hope the Government will accept that it would be sensible for customers to feel that they are represented and that their interests are the responsibility of people appointed by the Secretary of State rather than the director, who will be deeply enmeshed in the affairs of the industry. In moving this amendment I hope that my noble friend will not make the mistake of thinking that the brevity with which I do it indicates any lack of conviction that this will be the right course for the Government to take. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I am bound to say that I have very much been looking forward to discussing this amendment, not simply because it is the first amendment with which 1 am dealing. Although the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to it as simple, I think that it is an amendment of fundamental importance. Having said that, I am not certain that I agree with it. I am glad that the amendment has been tabled because I believe that the subject is worthy of very serious consideration by this Committee.
Let me put it this way. When I first saw the Bill I thought that this kind of amendment was precisely what would be needed. My thinking went along the following lines—and it relates to other amendments to do with consumers which we shall deal with in due course. First, so far as I am concerned the central criterion in discussing this Bill is whether any or all parts of it are in the interests of consumers. I have argued ad nauseam in this Chamber that industry exists for the sake of consumers, which is the original Adam Smith point: consumers do not exist for the sake of industry. I repeat that yet again. We must judge the matter in terms of what is in the interests of the consumers.
Looking at the Bill, it is clear that although arguments have been put forward in terms of competition there will not be much competition arising from this Bill. Therefore the consumer will be protected in two main ways: he will be protected by the regulator—the director; and he will be somewhat protected by these committees.
The question arises as to how these committees will be appointed and the kind of committee that we want. We shall be debating that issue during our discussions on several other amendments. But it seems to me that above all we want these consumers' committees to be independent. We want the committees to be independent of the industry. We do not want them to be in the pocket of the industry. In my view, we certainly want them to be independent of politics and such matters.
The question then is: how can they best be appointed to give that kind of independence? I have racked my brains to find the reason why I say that I do not know whether I support the amendment in its entirety, and I look forward to hearing the arguments that will be put forward. In one sense I should like neither the director nor the Secretary of
802
State to appoint the Committees. I should like to find some way in which the whole structure would emerge as independent of either body, but I cannot think of any solution.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What about the local authorities?
Lord Peston: I had intended to raise that point. On the one hand, my worry is that I do not want these committees to be in the pocket of the regulator—and this relates to many other amendments as they will come up. Much as I want to see the regulator succeed, a number of consumer matters may involve conflict with the director himself or herself. I do not want the consumer committees to be in the pocket of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord said that it was a simple question. However, I do not see it as quite that simple. Who would be more likely to appoint the kind of independent consumers who would be difficult, who would represent the consumers' interest and who would be largely independent of all other bodies, not least political ones? I stand second to none in believing that politics are important, but not in this area.
In a way I am not being terribly helpful to the noble Lord. I am intervening at this stage in the hope of prompting the Minister to say something on these matters. In particular I should like to know a little more about what the Government have in mind about the way that the appointments will take place.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart raised the point that I was going to raise. The Government in their antipathy to the local authorities seem to have left them out altogether, even though the committees are local committees. It is an oddity that there is a local focus on them, but yet that notion of locale does not extend to the one democratic body left at local level.
Those are the considerations that I raise. It is not like me to be shilly-shallying about saying yes or no in this Chamber. Perhaps I had better leave the matter there. I should like to know why the provision is for the director rather than the Secretary of State to establish these committees. I should like to hear some argument from the Government side on independence and how people will be appointed if it is done in the way that the Government lay down. I should like to hear why the Secretary of State would not do a better job. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is inserting the words "Secretary of State" in his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may make one observation. Regrettably, I made a mistake. The grouping is wrong. Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 relate to Clause 3 and not to Clause 2.. They deal with a totally different point. I hope therefore that I may make it clear that I am not speaking to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 as the grouping suggests that I would.
Lord Ezra: I support this amendment. I agree that the consumer committees should be distinct from the director. Safeguarding the interests of consumers

803
may come within the scope of the director's responsibilities, but he has an overall responsibility. He has a responsibility towards the enterprises. He has a responsibility towards the consumer. He will have many other responsibilities, as we shall find as we go through this Bill. However, the consumers need to be safeguarded in as independent a way as can be devised. In the present state of play I do not believe that we can think of a more independent way of their being appointed than by the Secretary of State. He represents the Government. He should be seeing all sides of the issue. It is therefore right to have this simple amendment at this stage, making it clear that the consumer committees are appointed by the Secretary of State, so that they can talk on equal terms to the director.
In many cases they will no doubt see eye to eye with the director, but there may be cases when they do not. If they are appointed by him and under his direct control, I do not understand what will happen when there is a clear clash of interests. It is for that reason that I support this amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Like my noble friend Lord Peston I am a little worried about this amendment. I do not know whether the Secretary of State would be a better person than the director to appoint these members of the committee. Secretaries of State are by nature political animals. They are members of political parties. They are subject to both local and national pressures. A Secretary of State could therefore be under pressure to remove a member of a committee who was proving awkward.
Lord Dormand of Easington: It happens.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As my noble friend says, it happens. It has happened before and no doubt will happen in the future. Someone who is doing the job well might be considered a nuisance by one of the new companies and perhaps dropped from the local committee. On the other hand, the director is likely to replace someone who is being ineffective. He would want the local committees to be effective. Therefore he would remove people who were ineffective since their ineffectiveness would reflect upon him because he had appointed them.
I urge the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to think about this a little more closely. I do not know whether he intends to press the amendment or not. If he were to press the amendment today, I might have some difficulty in supporting him. I am almost ashamed to be supporting the Government. Nevertheless, on this issue they may perhaps be more right than the noble Lord. However, I should like to consider it first.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with what the noble Lord has just said about the difficulties of the Secretary of State making appointments. However, do not all the arguments that he has used also apply to local authorities? I do not understand why he thought that local authorities might be involved in this matter.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may come back on this issue. The noble Baroness may recall that I was seeking independence from both the Secretary of State and the director general. One obvious body that might have rights to nominate such bodies would be local authorities. This Government have clearly set their hearts against that concept. They do not like local authorities appointing people to all kinds of committees. I am not seeking to persuade the Government on that view. My point was this. One can achieve independence of either of the other two only through the local authorities.
Perhaps the noble Baroness has further ideas on how to achieve independence. I was making the hypothetical point that, if we could find a formula that achieved independent representation it would be better than having either the director general or the Secretary of State.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was simply referring to the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the Secretary of State belonged to a political party. So also do many members of local authorities. The same arguments apply.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I had not intended to intervene but I have been provoked. I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment of my local friend Lord Peyton. I am a little alarmed to hear some of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and others about the undesirability of the role of the Secretary of State in these matters. I have to declare an interest as chairman of a public body to which the Secretary of State makes appointments. I have also been the Minister who had made these appointments. I can tell the noble Lord that one of the great problems is to find the people to do these jobs, in particular in the regional areas. It is not easy for the Secretary of State. He does not have the freedom that the noble Lord attributes to him in finding the right people.
However, the question of independence is beyond doubt. If there is any dissatisfaction with a member of any of these public bodies, it is the normal practice for the chairman of these bodies to bring this to the attention of the Secretary of State on the basis of poor performance. It happens very rarely indeed in my experience and usually it would occur only at the time of re-appointment. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is quite wrong in attributing improper motives to any Secretary of State under any government.
7 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Naturally, I accept what the noble Baroness has said, but I am sure she will agree that, particularly during the lifetime of the present Government, there have often been considerable arguments about appointments to various public bodies—for example the health authorities. There has been some worry among members of the public that perhaps appointments are being made on political grounds. But, as I said

805
during my earlier remarks, I should like to think about this much more deeply. I should not like to have to vote upon it this afternoon, one of my reasons being the one which the noble Baroness gave—that one really has to weigh up and balance the various issues involved. But I understand, and I accept exactly what she has said.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is a rather curious problem that it appears to be agreed on all sides of the Committee that one is really concerned with the protection of the consumer, and yet if one looks at the drafting of the clause there is no form of legal protection available. If this lies within the remit of the Secretary of State, he is answerable to Parliament: there is some protection. If it lies within the remit of the director, the director is not answerable to the Secretary of State in any effective way and is assuredly not answerable to Parliament. Therefore, purely on the aspect of what is the better protection for the public, I would not know which way this should be resolved. On the issue of independence, I should not have thought there was very much in it either way, but then I am not competent to judge.
It appears that a lot more thought may have to be given to the matter, but there is something to be said, if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will concede the point, for choosing the Secretary of State as proposed of the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: We have embarked now upon a new aspect of the Bill, that which deals with consumer committees in Clause 2. It might be therefore be helpful to the Committee if, before we deal with the substance of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton, I outline the issues rather more fully. My noble friend hoped that brevity on his part would not indicate any lack of enthusiasm for his own amendment. I fear that my brevity may not be quite equal to his if I have to explain the matter as fully as I think I should, because so much of what has been said in this short debate has encompassed the wider issues relating to consumer committees which are important when we look at this amendment.
The new regional consumers' committees which the director will establish under this clause lie at the heart of our proposals for consumer protection in the privatised electricity supply industry. They will be fully integrated with the director's office and will provide him with an essential element of lay advice. The existing national consumers' body, the Electricity Consumers Council, whose annual report is published today, have themselves welcomed this as a major step forward. That is something for which we must be grateful.
The staff of the existing Area Electricity Consultative Councils have made an important contribution to consumer protection in the existing electricity industry, but we need a new sort of consumer representation body to reflect the new structure of the industry.
The new committees will be made up of lay representatives who will be vital to the committees'
806
ability to handle complaints and other matters effectively at grass roots level. The committees will be able to appoint local representatives and other sub-committees with the approval of the director, which means that even in sparsely populated areas, consumers can benefit from effective local representation. The committees will monitor the area boards' successor companies in the first instance, but will also be able to look into the activities of any second-tier suppliers who may be granted licences in the future.
The Bill gives the committees a radical new set of powers and duties. They will have their own specific role in complaint handling. The director will have a duty to investigate any complaint which deals with any of the supply companies' duties or obligations under the Bill or the licences and which is made directly to him or referred to him by the consumers' committees, and the committees will have a duty to investigate any other complaint made to them or referred to them by the director.
Under the terms of the public electricity suppliers' licences, the committees will also have the automatic right to be consulted by the supply companies on complaint handling procedures, which will then have to be approved by the director. They will be able to demand meetings with the senior management of the local supply companies and, in addition, the committees will play a major role in helping the supply companies to formulate codes of practice, which will be published and made available to anyone who wants them, on the payment of bills and on the special needs of the elderly and the disabled.
One of the most radical and widely welcomed features of our proposals is that, when the director sets out the standards of service which the supply companies will have to achieve in supplying domestic customers, he can ask the committees to determine any disputes arising over failures to meet those standards or over-compensation.
Above all, the committees will be the director's eyes and ears in their own areas, and will report to him on any matter they think should be brought to his attention which affects consumers interests in the area they serve.
That is the background upon which to base discussion of my noble friend's amendments. I hope it will be helpful to the Committee. I now turn to those amendments. Of course I accept what my noble friend said about the last two, Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, being taken separately. We can do that.
The source of the committees' effectiveness will be the fact that they are part of the director's organisation, rather than, as is the case at present, pressure groups, albeit sometimes very effective ones, acting from the sidelines. It is precisely this aspect of our proposals which has been most warmly welcomed by the existing Electricity Consumers Council.
The first two amendments proposed by the noble Lord would strike at the foundations of this new approach which has been so widely welcomed. The ultimate responsibility—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, used those very words—for protecting the interests of consumers in the electricity industry

807
will lie with the director general. It is therefore clearly right that he, and not the Secretary of State, should be the person who establishes and appoints the new committees. However, it is right that the Secretary of State should have an interest in the appointment of the chairman of the committees, given his duty under Clause 3 of the Bill of protecting the interests of the consumer. I thought that was the point that my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes was making when she intervened.
That is why this clause as presently drafted provides that in making his choice of chairman the director must consult the Secretary of State and then consult the chairman in appointing the rest of the committee. This provides for an appropriate degree of involvement by the Secretary of State. It will also go some way towards preventing any suspicion of impropriety, however unfounded, over any of the director's appointments. However, to go further and do what my noble friend would have us do—that is, to remove the director entirely from the appointments process—would materially undermine his ability to carry out his statutory duty to protect consumers' interests. Therefore I do not think that there is any worry about incestuous appointments, which may be one of the concerns behind this amendment. This aspect has been given a great deal of thought and we have come to the conclusion that the proposals outlined in the Bill are the right ones and they they strike the right balance. I hope that my noble friend is reassured.
Lord Peston: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his interesting reply. He has clarified for me at least the Government's thinking, although that does not mean to say that I agree with it. However, it throws light on precisely why this amendment is so important. The noble Lord said that the consumers' committees will be fully integrated into the director general's office. He referred to them as being part of the director's organisation. The interesting point raised by this amendment is why this should be so. I was quite astounded by the Electricity Consumer Council's welcome for this aspect of the matter.
One situation that I have in mind is where the consumers' committees may be unhappy with the director general. There is nothing here that gives them any access. That seems to be one of the reasons why one is extremely interested in this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stoddart that this is a matter that is well worth further investigation. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this to a Division, and I hope that the Government will accept that this is an interesting matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, raised an interesting question about the Secretary of State's responsibility. It must be the case that ultimately the Secretary of State is responsible. There must be some way in which one can get via the director general to the Secretary of State if there is a problem. I do not mean the normal things that noble Lords do in order to find a way of querying some matter; I am speaking more generally. The Secretary of State is not mentioned explicitly here. I should like an assurance that the fact that at the beginning of the Bill it is
808
stated that the Secretary of State does the appointing means that the Secretary of State ends up as the responsible person. I was hoping for some comment on that matter in elucidation.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I can give the noble Lord the reassurance which he seeks. It is certainly the case that consumers' committees will have a right of access to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State ultimately has the responsibility which the noble Lord and my noble friend ascribed to him. There should be no difficulty whatever in the consumers' committees getting to that point.
Lord Ezra: If the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, says that if the consumers' committees, in a hypothetical situation, disagree with the director's decision, they will be able to go to the Secretary of State, that relieves my mind.
I am worried about one other point. In subsection (2)(b), in relation to which there is an amendment later on, the Secretary of State seems to come into the matter again. There seems to be an uneasy Boxing and Coxing between the two. The director will appoint these committees but the Secretary of State can decide what areas they are responsible for. There should be some recognition that either one or the other is responsible. This slight untidiness is another cause for concern.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Perhaps my noble friend can tell me this. If the consumers' committees appointed by the director and the director comes cosily together and decide that something is in the consumers' interest, and consumers do not think that it is in their interests, who is going to mediate on their behalf?
Lord Glenarthur: That is an interesting hypothetical situation, but nevertheless I suspect that, with my noble friend's experience, it may be a real one. If that sort of situation arises, it is a matter in the first instance for the director to sort out. Ultimately, as I have said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, if access is required by these committees to the Secretary of State, that access is available. That presumably shifts the burden from the director to the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to subsection (2) and said that he thought we were bringing in the Secretary of State one minute and keeping him out the next. That is something which raises a particular aspect so far as concerns paragraph (b). We shall be debating an amendment on that aspect in due course when I think the matter will become clear to the noble Lord.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: At least this amendment has done one good thing: it has provoked the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to support the Government, or at least to be neutral in their cause. I very much need the affection and regard of my noble friends and I hope that they will score that up as a point in my favour on a day when I am not likely to score many others.

809
I believe that the amendment which I moved very briefly has given an airing to a point on which no one has a clear mind except perhaps the Government. I hope that the Government will do a little further exploration in the light of the doubts that have been expressed. I have to summon up all my resources of fortitude to combat the disappointment that I feel that in the event of my going into the Lobby, which I was not going to do anyhow, I would have the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, with me. However, my recovery abilities, even at my great age, enable me to get over such disappointments.
My noble friend made it clear that the consumers' committees will be fully integrated with the director's office. I am not sure that that is a good thing. He has a fairly substantial patronage and I think that one always needs to look carefully at that kind of thing. The director general will have an awful lot on his hands, and he is only going to have 115 extra staff with whom to perform this function. They are going to be supermen and superwomen. They will have quite a lot to do. I am worried about saddling them with a lot of other tasks. I mean this seriously.
Therefore I hope very much that my noble friend will not come back with an amendment, but that he will have the courtesy or even the good sense to reflect upon the anxieties which have been expressed here. I am not at all sure that I am happy that consumers' affairs should be integrated into the director's office. I say that because I very much hope that the director general will be somebody knowledgeable in the electricity supply industry. That being the case, if he is well advised he will gather around him some other people who are well versed in the electricity supply industry. I am not sure that a whole host of specialists of that kind would be the people one would want to represent customers. An expert knowledge of the electricity supply industry is not necessary. However, it is necessary to ask questions and insist on intelligible answers. Experts are not always the right people to do that.
In the circumstances, if my noble friend will be good enough to give me an undertaking that he will reflect, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall always reflect upon my noble friend's amendments and the advice which he puts forward. I used the word "incestuous" in its colloquial sense when I spoke earlier, but I think that that is not a real concern. Here we have a balance which is right. It is one which I understand is comparable to those in other pieces of legislation currently before the Chamber. I am thinking of the Water Bill.
Therefore, I go so far as to say that this is something for which there is precedence and which, if we were to follow my noble friend's advice, would strike at the foundations of what has been accepted as a new approach having considerable merit. I cannot promise that after reflecting on my noble friend's words I would feel able to make any change.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hesitate to trespass on the patience of the Committee. The consumer committee for the South West has particularly put it to me that it is unhappy with the position. I am not always profoundly moved by the Government's assertion that conclusions at which they had arrived before the debate are necessarily right. All I ask is that my noble friend should reflect on the idea that it may be necessary to move the consumer committees a distance away from the director general's office. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: I believe that this may be a convenient moment at which to break. I beg to move that the House do now resume and that we do not return to the Committee stage of this Bill before twenty minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Scrabster Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time, and reported from the Committee.

Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The House will be indebted to Mr. David Harris, Member of Parliament for St. Ives, who as long ago as 16th December 1986, in an Adjournment debate in another place, highlighted a deficiency in the common land Act 1965 and also to Mr. Tony Favell, Member of Parliament for Stockport, for introducing a Bill to deal with what can be described as an iniquitous situation affecting the basic rights of many individual citizens. It is due to the persistence of Mr. Harris and Mr. Favell and the tenacity of many individuals who have suffered as a result of the defect in the 1965 Act that this Bill. has arrived on the Floor of your Lordships' House.
It is important to state at the outset that this Bill in its rather limited form does not preclude or thwart any attempts by the Government to introduce a more comprehensive Bill dealing with common land. Indeed, there is considerable pressure building up for a Bill to be introduced as early as possible.
I am sure that this House would wish to recognise the work of the Countryside Commission which set up the common land forum which brought together interested bodies such as the Country Landowners' Association, the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers' Association, and so on, to produce a report. The forum produced a report in 1986, which, although it deals with many controversial issues, will nevertheless prove invaluable to the Department of the Environment when drafting legislation. The
Government also produced a Green Paper in 1987 in which it was reported:
"The Government accepts the case for legislation based broadly on the common land forum's report and intends to introduce legislation at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits".
A review of the law on common lands is a Conservative manifesto commitment and I know that a good deal of preparatory work has been done by the department. However, it would be helpful if my noble friend in replying would say a word or two about progress on the matter. Even in the Bill's limited form I am aware of the difficulties of getting the wording right. It is not easy to achieve a balance that, on the one hand, gives due rights back to the individual citizen and, on the other, preserves rights of access to common lands for all people.
The reason for the Bill is that the 1965 common land Act proved defective. Under that Act between 1967 and 1970 any citizen could provisionally register any piece of land which he or she felt should be common land. The county councils were given responsibility for registration and the only requirement on those councils to inform under the Act was that they advertise in the press by way of official notice.
Many applications at that time for common land status included dwellings. Very often, when the official notice appeared, usually in a little-read part of a local newspaper, only plot number were used to describe a dwelling. This made it even more likely that a person who might be affected directly would not realise the significance of the notice.
Once an application for deregistration was lodged, a period of time followed during which objections could be heard. However, how can one object when one is blissfully ignorant of anything about which to object? No provision was made in the 1965 Act to allow for deregistration once the period for objection had passed.
It seems almost unbelievable that any person could apply for common land status of another person's land and property without there being a requirement to serve notice on the owner. Even with planning applications, a local authority is required not only to serve notice on the owner but also to inform immediate neighbours. The situation is wholly unacceptable and makes a nonsense of the saying that a man's home is his castle.
To illustrate the point I give your Lordships a true example but I shall retain anonymity of the person concerned. Mr. X goes abroad on business in the late 1960s. While he is away a neighbour, albeit with the best of intentions, registers his land as common land. The requisite time passes for objections and Mr. X receives no notification whatever. It is not until 1987 that he discovers that his home and his land have been registered as common land. Unless this Bill is passed there is nothing that can be done to right that injustice.
There are difficulties, even with this very short Bill in achieving the correct wording—the question, for instance, of a person whose garden but not house is registered. The requirements of the Bill set out in Clause 1 refer to land ancillary to a dwelling. There
812
is also the question of buildings which existed prior to the 1965 Act but which have subsequently been converted. An example is a converted chapel in Somerset. There is also the question of the meaning of the word "garden" in Clause 1.
Perhaps I may give a case illustrating the point, again retaining anonymity. Mr. Y, who owns one acre of land on which there is a dwelling, has had his land registered without his knowledge. About one-third of the land is set out as woodland. Therefore, the wooded part of his land would not be covered by the Bill even though it forms an extension of his garden. That is an issue which I know concerns my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton.
A suggested form of words for Clause 1(3)—I quote them specifically so that the Minister can give some thought to the matter before the next stage of the Bill—is:
"For the purposes of subsection (2) above land ancillary to a dwelling house means land which is within the curtilage of the dwelling house, including sites of any private garages or outbuildings, and which is used and enjoyed with the dwelling house, and in that subsection 'dwelling house' includes a building consisting of two or more separate dwellings".
The key word in that suggested wording is 'curtilage'. In the case of any court action, reference could be made to the Oxford English Dictionary definition which is:
"A small court, yard, garth or piece of ground attached to a dwelling house and forming an enclosure with it".
I must point out at this stage that there is considerable nervousness and downright opposition to the rewording of Clause 1 by, for example, the Open Spaces Society and signatories to the common land forum report. They are anxious that the passing of this Bill should not in any way prejudice the proposed new legislation arising out of the work of the forum and the Government's Green Paper published in 1987 on common lands.
I am also concerned that the Bill should receive support and therefore I invite my noble friend the Minister to look at the wording of Clause 1 and, if necessary, discuss any modification before the Committee stage. In another place this Bill enjoyed all-party support. I hope that the same support can be obtained in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Baroness Blatch.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Blatch for introducing so well the Second Reading of this Bill. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. I also congratulate Mr. Favell, its promoter in another place, on doing something about this subject and particularly on getting as far as he has.
I am afraid that I have some doubt as to how far the Bill goes. I have received two views. One is that it only allows a house owner to deregister a house and garden where the site of the house as well as the garden was put on the common land register and that it does not allow deregistration of the garden to a house if only the garden was put on the register. The other is that the garden-only situation, as it might be more simply explained, will be remedied

813
by the Bill. I hope so. Perhaps that is right but I have my doubts, and those who take that view might well be disappointed.
Of course it would be preferable to make sure of the position and to amend the Bill in order to put the matter beyond doubt. I should have preferred to see the word "or" inserted at the end of Clause 1(2)(a). I shall be glad to hear what my noble friend Lady Blatch thinks about that and also my noble friend Lord Hesketh, because I understand that the Bill has the tacit blessing of the Government.
There are one or two other areas where the drafting might still be improved a little. It has been suggested to me that the word "garage" in Clause 1(3) would be better in the plural as some people have garages for more than one car.
However, there are further difficulties regarding amenity land which has been registered and those difficulties will not be solved by this Bill. That is why I draw attention to a case in Crowborough, East Sussex, that has been brought to my attention. At some time before 1965 the present owner bought a freehold cottage and amenity land in Crowborough. It is a wedge-shaped site of some two-and-a-half acres with a road on one side of the wedge. At the point of the wedge there is just over an acre of woodland, with an approach road to the cottage through a portion of it. There is no fence or boundary between the woodland and the garden; the garden just merges into the woodland. The woodland has only been used for amenity purposes.
At the base of the wedge there is a garden with a cottage roughly in the middle of it. The owner of this property has spent a great deal of his time abroad in Sri Lanka where he has been employed in business. He has been in England for only short spells mainly on holiday at the property in Crowborough. Consequently, he was not as closely in touch with the nuances, I was going to say, of socialist legislation—which I think it was—as some of us were.
One of his neighbours registered the woodland as common land without the owner ever finding out in time to try to deregister it. It was not until 18 years later that he found out. That was in 1987. There is no doubt that if he had applied in time he would have successfully deregistered, so I am assured. There was no suspicion of existing common rights attached to the site. He naturally feels aggrieved. He purchased freehold land in this country and his rights have not been respected. He feels that Her Majesty's Government owes him a proper remedy and that this Bill is a waste of time because it does not remedy his situation. I agree that he must have mixed feelings about all politicians of both major parties—one party for getting him into this mess and the other for not getting him out of it!
To solve this man's problem would require still further amendment. My noble friend Lady Blatch suggested one course and the other would be to delete Clause 1(3) or to replace subsection (3) by seeking to define amenity land more satisfactorily. Possibly as a last ditch, if one does not want to get too involved in the major area of common land legislation, one could limit the area which is
814
applicable in order not to raise these wider issues. However, this is a Private Member's Bill and I am nervous that to amend it would kill it; after all, half or even a third of a loaf is better than none at all.
Nevertheless, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Hesketh and his department can see a reliable way to have something better done quickly without waiting for further legislation that may be some way off. I cannot help feeling that dealing with this matter of common land overall is going to be a lengthy and complicated business.
There seems no doubt, I am afraid, that the Commons Registration Act proved to be a charter for unneighbourly neighbours on several occasions. Of course there should have been more adequate notification procedures. I am not surprised that some people feel that it was perhaps vindictive that such procedures were left out. Surely it is not difficult to ascertain the ownership of a house in order to notify the owner. At any rate, more hard words could be said and perhaps it is better not to do so now.
I find myself still considering what to do about this situation. I am reluctant to table amendments. I shall be glad to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench may be able to suggest. Failing that, I should like to hear how soon we may expect a more comprehensive remedy to be produced. To conclude, I am sure that the Bill should have a Second Reading.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by saying that I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, not only for promoting the Bill in this House but also for her lucid explanation of the problems that it seeks to solve and her readiness in understanding its very limited nature. From my experience in another place it would be the height of folly and an exercise in futility if we in this House in considering the Bill sought what might euphemistically be termed as improvements to it. For one reason or another that would provide some people with an opportunity to use the Bill not necessarily for our purposes but in order to delay and frustrate legislation.
I have received advice primarily from the Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society that any attempt to broaden the Bill could be interpreted as an opportunity for change. Such an attempt is likely to meet with opposition whether in this House or in another place—if it ever reaches there in the time allowed. I say at once that we fully support the raison d'être of the Bill.
We have to concentrate on two matters. The noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, categorised the Commons Registration Act 1965 as a piece of socialist legislation. That was the first political note introduced into this matter and it obviously has some purpose and meaning. With the passage of time it has been recognised that there are defects in the legislation. Now we have the opportunity to put right some of the consequent defects which have been so clearly outlined. It was said in the other place during the debate that took place on 7th April that it was for this Government to do something about it—the antithesis of socialist legislation. I look

815
forward very much to what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will say to us.
Over the last two years—namely, since the manifesto pledge was made—there have been occasions when it could be argued that the Government were in difficulty in knowing precisely what the interests involved with this matter wished them to do in detail. My knowledge of the subject is through reading about it and it is not the detailed knowledge that I respect very much. I do not use the term special pleading at all. I fully understand those involved, whether a landowner, a neighbour or a general member of the public, getting hot under the collar. I accept the views of those who were unable to come to a firm conclusion as to what they wanted. I believe that that position is valid.
I hope that the Minister will confirm my information, that for some months now, and at least from the beginning of the year, there has been general agreement among the bodies that make up the forum as to what it wants. I have come across a body called the Moorlands Association. There may be some people in the House who are much more knowledgeable than I on the subject. This association is not a member of the Common Land Forum. Its particular interest is that it wants special provisions for grousemoor commons. It is a laudable objective for people with that point of view. They are concerned to limit the access of the public to certain lands, and that would raise problems. I wonder to what extent the Government listen more carefully to the Moorlands Association than they do to other bodies and interests.
There are people outside this House who take a deep interest in this matter and they are entitled to receive from the Minister a broad strategy or timeplan in which it is envisaged that a manifesto commitment entered into in 1987 is going to be delivered. It is now 1989. It is a tiny issue in the totality of a manifesto. I appreciate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has told the House, that even with tiny issues, if there is one word wrong a major problem arises. Even though it may be a major problem for a tiny handful of people, we should not allow that to happen. The resources that the noble Baroness and I have at our disposal are minimal. We listen to what people tell us, agree with an argument and then stand up to express our views. The department undoubtedly has a very heavy workload, but it also has the people who can worry these matters through.
We on this side of the Chamber not only do not object to but fully support the basis of the Bill, which is to put right matters that should have been got right at the beginning. The Bill now provides the opportunity to put such matters right. I say to the House that any attempt to get legislation through and to broaden, widen or create the opportunity for deregistration by individuals or groups, using the device of the words on the face of this Bill, is likely to create opposition—which is a legitimate tactic in principle—and to run into the sand. The noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, used a very good phrase to the effect that half or a third of a loaf is much better than nothing at all.
816
In that context, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to tell us. I hope very much that it will not be generalities. He is entitled to give them, but at the end of the day if all this Bill achieves is what it sets out to achieve, we are still left with the need for a major piece of legislation in this context. In that event, we shall come back with another tiny nibble at the issue in due time. We on this side of the House warmly appreciate the Bill and the manner in which it has been presented. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say.
7.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words in support of the Bill. I commend the honourable Member for Stockport for introducing it in the other place and my noble friend for taking responsibility for it in this House. I was interested to read recently in the national press of the difficulties Mr. and Mrs. Roe were having in trying to sell their house in Northumberland which had been incorrectly registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965. We do not know how many other householders are in a similar position but we believe that there could be several hundreds.
In the 1965 Act there was no requirement that owners be notified that their land had been so registered, which would have enabled them to object at the appropriate time and secure the removal of houses from the register. There was extensive publicity about the registration process and the opportunity to object to the provisional registration of land, but there was no reason why householders should consider it necessary to check whether their houses had been registered. That was a point drawn to your Lordships' attention by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton.
The report of the Common Land Forum in 1986 recommended legislation to enable incorrectly registered houses and gardens to be removed from the registers. This was one of over 100 recommendations for a comprehensive legislative package. It remains our aim, as we stated in our response in January 1987 to the Forum Report, to introduce comprehensive legislation, based broadly on the forum's recommendations, at a suitable opportunity when Parliamentary time permits. This current Bill will not affect that intention but, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said a month ago at the Third Reading of this Bill in the other place, comprehensive legislation needs to be on the basis of some further work and agreement.
In the meantime we believe that it is unreasonable to expect people who find their houses on the registers to wait indefinitely for legislation to be enacted before they can sell their properties. This Bill will have the very useful result of enabling a start to be made on removing the most obvious absurdities. The sponsors of the Bill have confined it to cases where the houses have been in existence since 1945, so it may not cover all the anomalies, although hopefully it will embrace the majority of them.

817
As regards the suggestion that Clause 1(3) of the Bill might be amended to include the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, for the reasons pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, we would be wary of any amendments being introduced which might extend the Bill to cover areas beyond the gardens of houses. Nevertheless, we will look into the suggestion, without any commitment, in conjunction with the Bill's sponsors.
My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton suggested that "and" in line 15 could be changed to "or". Again, with the sponsors of the Bill, we will consider this suggestion. Further to that, he also asked whether the "garden only" position is adequately covered by the Bill. We shall look at this matter and discuss it with the sponsors to ensure that the Bill is unambiguous on this point.
If the Bill is passed it will be for the Secretary of State to make regulations. We would hope to have them in place as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted. We shall consult on the content of the regulations on which departmental officials have already started work. One matter which will need to be covered is publicity. We anticipate that the regulations will make provision for there to be publicity on site and in the local press, as well as notification to parish and other councils, interested owners and commoners, and to the Open Spaces Society. I hope that the speedy progress already made by the Bill will continue and I commend it to the House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said so far. He is correct when he says that there needs to be broad agreement. I am told that the interests within the forum have resolved their differences—the differences between the ramblers, the Open Spaces Society and the Countryside Commission. Can the Minister confirm that there is now no impediment to bringing forward the Bill? If there is no opposition within the forum, can we anticipate an early presentation of a government measure?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring back to his earlier remarks concerning the Moorlands Association and the access interest. We are considering these matters at the moment very carefully and equally. That is why I was unable earlier to give him the specific date he asked for.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord ought to be quite clear. We are dealing with the forum, and within the forum there is no dispute. He is telling us that a body—the Moorlands Association—which is outside the forum is having its voice weighed and taken into account. That may be perfectly proper but the Minister should recognise that the voices to be heard are the forum voices. They are now as one. To that extent there should be no impediment to progress.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may mention one point.
818
I want the "or" at the end of subsection (2)(a) of Clause 1 and not at the end of subsection (2)(b).
Lord Graham of Edmonton: To be or not to be.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall have to read the Official Report to see whether I have it right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and contributed in such a constructive way. It is a joy to have all sides of the House in agreement about the objective. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his promise to look without prejudice into the suggestions made during the debate. However, the warnings given by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and myself, and even the reference made by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton about half a loaf being more acceptable than no loaf at all, should be borne in mind.
Any modification to the Bill must secure a basis of agreement because the Bill's progress must not be hampered. As a result of a defect in the 1965 Act, many innocent people have suffered in a number of ways, including financially where common land status has prevented the sale of a person's property. Although Parliament awaits a Bill on the wider issues of common land, I feel that it is right now to press ahead with this Bill to put right an injustice affecting some hundreds of people. Tonight's debate bodes well for its progress. I hope that it will reach the statute book unimpeded.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.55 to 8.20 p. m.]

Electricity Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Act").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 are grouped together and therefore we shall discuss them together, but it is in fact Amendment No. 20 which I and my noble friend Lord Williams are most anxious to use as a basis for exploring the role of the consumers' committees. We investigated that issue just a short while ago in relation to Amendment No. 19 and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, very helpfully clarified some aspects of the matter. However, I now wish to pursue it further.
I shall start in the usual way by asking a question. The Bill says "Part" and that part I take to mean Part I; therefore it does not apply to the rest of the Bill. The reason that we have put forward the proposal to substitute "Part" for "Act"—which I assume to be the correct word, rather than "Bill", although I am not an expert in such matters—is that

819
we wish to ask why certain matters which occur in the later parts of the Bill have been left out.
Perhaps I may direct the Committee to certain clauses in Part II and then much more importantly in Part III in order to ask why they are left out. The clauses that I have in mind, although there may be others, are, first, Clause 70, which deals with the so-called target investment limit and matters related thereto. I know that that is a highly technical matter but I do not see why it should be ruled out of any consideration by the consumers' committees.
However, much more important than that are Clauses 92, 93, 94 and 95, which deal with the matters such as the security of buildings and grants and loans in connection with aspects of storage and reprocessing of nuclear power. Clause 94 deals with statistical information and Clause 95 deals with our favourite subject, restrictive practices, and so on.
With leave of the Committee, perhaps I may partly answer my question relating to why such matters have been left out. In my view they have been left out in one way because of the Government's emphasis on the local nature of the consumers' committees, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has drawn our attention. I do not wish to anticipate the debates that we shall have on the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, which deal with what one might call the national nature of a possible consumers' committee.
Therefore, it may be that the reason for the inclusion of the word "Part" instead of "Act" is precisely that the Government wish the consumers' committees to concentrate solely on local matters. It is possible that that is the explanation. But if it is, I would then have to say that I do not agree with it. I think that the consumer interest is on a larger scale than just that. Moreover, when we come to debate such issues in relation to a later amendment, I shall wax heavily on that aspect.
This is our opening shot on the issue. It seems to me to put the point in its simplest form: consumers are interested in all aspects of everything contained in the Bill, which I am sure will one day be an Act. Therefore it seems to me that the consumers' committees should not prima facie be limited in any way to what they may at least become interested in. I am not suggesting for one moment that they will necessarily be encouraged to take an interest in any technical matters; but I certainly believe that that is the central issue. I say that because we use many of these amendments as a means to learn what the Government have in mind so as to understand the nature of the legislation which they are putting forward. We also use such amendments in order to try to explain to the Government our views of how the Bill might be improved.
I am convinced that the Government could easily accept Amendment No. 20, which is the one upon which I concentrate at present, without in any way undermining the principles of the Bill or losing credibility with their supporters in terms of not making concessions. It is an example of something which would in a minor way improve the legislation.
820
However, whatever one thinks of that view, I should especially like to hear the noble Lord's argument on this matter with a view to reflecting upon it.
Lord Renton: I have studied these amendments and I must say that I think for the three which are to be grouped after Amendment No. 20 there is no case whatever to be made. However, we should seriously consider whether Amendment No. 20 should be made; namely, in subsection (1) of Clause 2 to refer to this "Act" instead of this "Part". At the moment I have an open mind on the issue. The only possible later clauses are those from Clause 92 onwards. Quite frankly, I do not think that consumers' committees will be involved in them. Clause 92 is headed:
"Directions for preserving security of electricity supplies".
That is not a matter which will impinge upon the services which consumers will receive; it only impinges very indirectly and contingently. It deals mainly with civil emergencies. It is important that it should do so. I do not think that consumers' committees should be involved in that.
Clause 94 concerns "Provision of statistical information". It is permissive that the Secretary of State may provide information and serve a notice on a licence holder for an exemption, but then again in the nature of things consumers' committees will obviously get such information as is available. I think that it is stretching things rather to say that any of these other matters—that is, competition and restrictive trade practices, rights of entry and so on—should become the responsibility of the director and the committees. Therefore, although I still have an open mind on the subject, I am not convinced that there is a case for Amendment No. 20.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and respond primarily to his Amendment No. 20, since he has not referred to the other amendments specifically. I should like to begin by explaining that Part I of the Bill establishes the regulatory regime for the electricity supply industry after reorganisation. The regulatory regime is designed to protect the interests of the consumer from possible abuses of monopoly power by the reorganised and eventually privatised industry. Within the overall regulatory framework, the consumers' committees have a vital role to play.
Those committees will form an integral part of the director's office and will carry out on his behalf a wide range of activities such as monitoring the activities of the public electricity suppliers, (that is the successors to the area boards) investigating customers' complaints and helping the suppliers to formulate codes of practice on the payment of bills and on the special needs of the elderly and disabled.
The main role of the consumers' committees is to assist the director to carry out responsibilities for protecting the interests of the consumer. All the provisions in the Bill relating to the committees' role are therefore to be found in Part I and that is why Clause 2(1) is drafted in the way that it is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Peston, realised when he floated the question.

821
I shall come to the specific point in a moment but I have to say that there is no role for the committees to play in the areas covered by Parts II and III of the Bill, which are, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, largely concerned with wider matters. They are concerned with the transfer of the property of the boards and the Electricity Council to the successor companies and the resolution of a number of issues relating to these transfers. As such, not only are they not suitable for what is proposed, but they are matters for the Secretary of State and will largely have been completed before the committees even begin their work. That is the rationale lying behind the clause as it is at present drafted.
The noble Lord raised points about a number of clauses, and perhaps I may take Clause 70 first. In essence, it prevents a future government from renationalising the industry without new primary legislation. I should have thought that that was more of a political question than one for consumers. Clause 92 is about security precautions and, as my noble friend said, about emergency planning. Again, these are more matters of national policy than for a consumer body to deal with. Clause 93 activates Schedule 12, which is about the payment of financial assistance on nuclear liabilities. I have to say here that the Secretary of State's use of this will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. So, again, it is not really suitable for consumer committees.
Lord Williams of Evel: On that point under Clause 93 and Schedule 12, does the noble Lord really believe that consumers' committees should not make any input into that discussion at all?
Lord Glenarthur: I dare say they can make an input, but the input surely will take place during the parliamentary scrutiny. It is rather like the kind of scrutiny we are conducting now where consumer bodies make their representations known. I suggest that that is the appropriate mechanism. It is not one which should be directly part of the consumer elements which we are talking about. At the moment we are dealing with those elements under Part I of the Bill as opposed to Parts II and III.
That does not mean that just because the clause as written does not go so far as Part III or this element of it, it will not be possible for consumer views to be made known. I am saying that it will be a matter subject to parliamentary scrutiny and not to that of consumers' committees, although consumer views will be known.
Clause 94 is about the collection of government statistics and Clause 95 is about competition law. Again, that leads us on to matters such as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which I do not think are matters for consumers' committees. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is logical that the consumers' committees should be established for the purposes of Part I only.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Before my noble friend sits down, is he saying that the regional
822
consumers' committees would not be in a position to give evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and that it is not envisaged that they should do so, should the occasion arise?
Lord Glenarthur: I am bound to say that I do not know the answer to that. I suspect that it is possible for them to make some representations. I know that anything to do with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is fairly complex and I hate to trespass on that ground. I shall certainly try to find out, in order to satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Peston: As always, the noble Lord has answered in a very clear, forthright manner. We are indebted to him for that, but I do not like the content of the answers. First, as I understand it, these committees cannot give evidence. They have no locus in order to become involved in, say, monopolies, mergers, restrictive practices and that sort of thing. That is my understanding of the Bill.
Lord Renton: With great respect, the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is derived not only through representations and references made to it by government. The commission can consider representations from anywhere else in society.
Lord Peston: What it considers is of course up to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. What we are concerned about is what these people can do by right and obligation with respect to protecting consumers in the industry. What I have in mind and have been probing for—and let us take the restrictive practices; I can argue through all these clauses and give examples—is where a local consumer body believes that the local production of electricity or supply of electricity is being subject to abuse of monopoly power. First, I feel it is only right that it should be drawn to the commission's attention. It is a matter that concerns the commission and I should be horrified to be told that it did not think the matter concerned it.
Secondly, I should like to see in the legislation at least some notion that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission had some broader obligation to listen to consumers' committees. After all, we are discussing competition and consumer protection. I give that as just one example. I am bound to say that again — —
Lord Trafford: Is the noble Lord asking that there should be some method of referral by these committees to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? If that is so, with respect it does not make sense. But if he is talking about whether, on request, the consumers' committees, can give evidence, then of course they can, as can any other body. But they cannot initiate a referral, which is what the noble Lord seems to be implying from his example.
Lord Peston: I do not know whether the Minister wishes to speak before me on this point. What I have in mind is clearly not that the committees should make a referral. I am not seeking via this Bill completely to change the mergers and monopolies

823
legislation of this country. I am capable of doing so but I am not seeking to do that at this moment. I am simply asking what, as of right and as normal behaviour, these consumers' committees can do.
My conception of them is not simply as bodies that deal with complaints, although I think that is very important. It is as bodies which concern themselves with consumers' affairs generally. That is a very important matter. I happen to believe that the abuse of monopoly power is a major issue for consumers. It is my view—I am not certain that the Government will agree with it—that there are serious problems of potential abuse of monopoly power with respect to the Bill. Therefore, I strongly wish to see the committees have some more specific role.
I give that as an example, but I think the noble Lord is aware that on the point that was made as to whether there is any reason why local consumers should have an interest in matters to do with nuclear power and all that, I am inclined to think that it is not something which should be ruled out of their remit.
Lord Trafford: Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to Clause 12, which covers some of the points he is asking about. It concerns how the director and others may refer matters to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The clause states:
"The Director may make to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (in this Part referred to as 'the Monopolies Commission') a reference which is so framed as to require the Commission to investigate".
That surely is the pathway, if that is what the noble Lord is looking for, through which these committees can influence matters, even if it does not allow them actual power. In other words, the director can refer matters to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Lord Peston: I am indebted to the noble Lord for his remarks, but that is not my point. My point concerns the consumers' committees. I agree that what the noble Lord has said clarifies the point that arose under the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Our vision of the consumers' committees is of something rather more independent than is the Government's vision, as I see it. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was very clear in his response to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, as regards the close relationship between the consumers' committees and the director general. Essentially, I am pointing out that that is not quite our conception. Our view is an alternative view, and one which I think is at least worth considering in terms of consumer protection.
I hope that we do not want to have at this moment a debate on the detail of everything that the consumers' committees do. It is a question of the broadness or narrowness of the remit of the committees. I am not clear what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is trying to say to us. At one point it seemed as if he was arguing that the remit of the consumers' committees was narrower than our vision, but at another time it seemed as if he was
824
saying that the committees could do almost anything they wanted to under the terms of Part I of the Bill and that they did not have to worry about Part III as their conditions were already stated under Part I. All I am seeking to establish is that anything these committees believe is of relevance to consumers should be something that will not be considered to be ultra vires.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall try to help the noble Lord a little further. The first point to make is that the Bill specifically states that the committees have a wider role in consumer affairs than just that of handling complaints. They can of course advise on anything that the noble Lord would wish them to advise on.
The noble Lord homed in on Clause 95 and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission case. My noble friend Lord Trafford is broadly right on this. The committees can of course give evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. They do not need to be involved in Clause 95, because Clause 95 is about the operation of competition law. That is a matter for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Director General of Fair Trading and not the director as regards this Bill. That is why, in the broad terms in which the noble Lord seeks to explore this issue, the role of the committees is relevant only to Part I of the Bill and not to the later parts. I think that he may be under a misapprehension.
Lord Peston: The point of these amendments is to remove misapprehensions that Members of the Committee such as myself have. I put the simple question that if a local consumers' committee comes to the conclusion that it perceives an abuse of monopoly power, could it, with no problems whatever, simply go directly or write directly to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or the Director General of Fair Trading to say that it had discovered what in its view constituted an abuse of monopoly power? The committee could not refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or the Director General of Fair Trading in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, pointed out, but could it draw it to the attention of those bodies?
Are the Government saying that that kind of thing can happen and that the same can apply to related matters, and there is nothing to stop the committees, if, for example, they have certain views about the security of nuclear installations in their local areas, expressing a view to those bodies? That is all the reassurance that I require. I do not necessarily require it at this moment. But the point of the amendment was to clarify that kind of issue. We are seeking to discover what these committees can do. As the Government will see in respect of other amendments, we want the committees to be active defenders of and protagonists for the interests of consumers. The last thing we want to discover in a year or two's time when this Bill is law is that we have passed a Bill which gives the committees very limited roles.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The short answer to the noble Lord is, yes. If he cares to look at Clause 49(a) of the Bill, he will see that it refers to the general duties of the consumers' committees to advise the director. Not only would they be able to give evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and, I daresay, also take up any other matter with the Director General of Fair Trading, but no doubt they would also, through making the representations that Clause 49(a) allows them to do, be able to advise the director, who may himself be able to do precisely what the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Peston: I shall obviously read that answer more precisely again. I think some of this may turn on the use of words like "might", "ought", "have a right to" and other such expressions. I shall consider those words and come back to them. However, I am to some extent considerably reassured. Nevertheless, I must study the matter further.
I wish briefly to refer to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 which are slightly more in the nature of drafting amendments, in particular Amendment No. 21. There seems to be some confusion between, as it were, the word "appointed", which I felt referred to specific people, and the word "established", which referred to the committee. I felt that in that case the Government meant "established" and not "appointed". That is purely a question of the use of the English language rather than anything else.
Similarly, the words "authorised area" suggest. that that concept is written in tablets of stone. In fact I should have thought such an area is absolutely a proposed authorised area as regards the Bill as it now stands. It only becomes the authorised area subsequently.
I was going to say that I do not enjoy nit-picking; however, I do enjoy that. These two amendments show just how carefully we are scrutinising the Bill in order to get the wording right. I merely wish the Minister to ask those who are perhaps more expert than either he or I whether the wording is precisely right.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am rather puzzled about what would happen if the members of the consumers' committees wished to raise a complaint regarding the director himself being in default. Who would they go to? I have had a great deal of experience of the health service before the last reorganisation as the deputy chairman of the Manchester Executive Council of Health. I was also the chairman of the services committee, which used to deal with complaints against general practitioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. It was always a very difficult task when a complaint had been made against one of those individuals. In the main, general practitioners were involved in the largest percentage of the complaints. It was always extremely difficult to get professional people to be critical of their colleagues.
I believe that the Minister has made it clear to my noble friend that the consumers' committees can approach the Monopolies and Mergers
826
Commission. However, I do not envisage that that is the type of complaint that those committees would mostly deal with. Must we assume that the director will be in an unassailable position, and that finally he will only be the vehicle for any complaints those committees may wish to make? If that is the case, I do not think that the situation is sustainable, because people do not tend to react dispassionately and impartially if they are the subject of a complaint. There may well be a surfeit of complaints against the director. I find this situation rather odd. The position must be made clearer before I can be satisfied that the consumer is being given total protection.
Lord Glenarthur: We covered this point before dinner in some detail. If the noble Lord reads what was said then, I think he will be reassured to learn that the committees concerned can always approach the Secretary of State direct. I think that that takes into account the case that he envisages. However, I urge him to study the point which was considered in considerable detail before dinner.
Lord Dean of Beswick: That frightens me still further. I refer the noble Lord to a particularly shocking case that occurred in Leeds. I am not criticising a Conservative Secretary of State. I am talking about a tragic event in which a woman died due to negligence by a neuro-surgeon as a result of which the widower received substantial damages. The lack of action on the part of the Minister at the time—who, as I say, was not a Conservative Minister—was outrageous. The only reason that the case was ever fully dealt with—not to the satisfaction of the husband because he did not get his wife back—and the neuro-surgeon was censured was the persistence of members of the local community health council.
I am sorry that I missed the debate just before dinner, but if the Government believe that total protection for the consumer is enshrined in the Bill, I think that they are whistling in the dark. I do not believe that any such protection is encompassed in what the Minister said or in the Bill. I say that on the basis of experience in public life both as an MP and a local councillor.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not think that it is possible to draw conclusions from one experience in a different field, of which I accept the noble Lord has considerable knowledge. The Secretary of State has a most important role to play. That is why it is important that if the committees are not satisfied for some reason with the work of the director—and his role is set out in Schedule I—they have the right to go to the Secretary of State. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State would not be satisfied if it was possible to uphold the kind of point which the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry to belabour the point but more recently, about two years ago, in Yorkshire 17 elderly people died of salmonella. The Secretary of State for Health appointed a committee to investigate the matter. In the committee's report there was implied criticism of the chairman of the

827
Yorkshire Regional Health Authority and the chairman of the Wakefield District Health Authority. In the next round of changes in chairmanship, I and others involved with Yorkshire suggested that those two gentlemen ought to be removed because they had not done the job they were appointed to do. Sad to say, the Secretary of State in the present Government re-appointed them.
Therefore, in my experience the possibility of recourse to the Secretary of State does not mean what the Minister thinks it means. I have been involved with cases in which it has meant nothing at all.
Lord Glenarthur: I am not sure that we shall ever reach agreement on this point. I was slightly surprised to see that there was an earlier amendment which was not moved which would have exempted the director from scrutiny by the ombudsman. In the circumstances it is a good thing that it was not moved.
Perhaps I may revert to the most important aspect of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and explain how the clause will work. The director will establish a number of consumers' committees. The committees will consist of a chairman and between 10 and 20 members. The director will appoint the chairman of each committee after consultation with the Secretary of State, and will appoint the members after consultation with the chairman. There will be a committee for each of the area boards' successor companies in the first instance, with the flexibility to take account of new companies which may become public electricity suppliers in the future.
The noble Lord's amendment would have no effect on the numbers, responsibilities, membership or method of appointment of the committees. In technical terms, subsection (1) of this clause requires the director to bring the committees into existence, and subsections (3) and (4) provide some of the detail of what he is to do. It is appropriate to describe this process as "establishing" the committees, and that is why the word "establish" is used in subsection (1). Subsection (2) deals with a different topic, namely defining the area within which each committee may exercise its functions. So a different word is required, and the draftsman has chosen—I think with ample justification—to use the word "appointed". I do not think that there is very much between us and I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Peston: Of course I shall not press the amendment. As always, I am extremely interested in the use of the English language, particularly in respect of legislation which is not my subject, as the noble Lord well knows. If the words had been reversed and the first sentence had had "appointed" and the second "establish", he would have put up an equally good defence.
Perhaps I may refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dean. It may be because we have been out of power for so long that we on this side of the Chamber are hypersensitive to certain matters of a political nature connected with appointments
828
and need to be reassured. We do not regard matters related to appointments as trivial. We are not raising the issues quite as politically as it sometimes may appear; we think that there is more to it. I just make that remark en passant. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("supplier,") to end of line 13.
The noble Lord said: I hope that we can deal with this amendment very briefly. We are intrigued as to why there might sometimes be a committee covering a wider area. Have the Government included the provision hypothetically in case a need may arise? Or do they have in mind the possibility that the consumer committees might be used more generally for such suppliers? The noble Lord, Lord Renton, emphasised earlier the need to distinguish very carefully between suppliers and generators. I think that here we are discussing suppliers. I shall have questions in due course about generation.
All we want is a very quick answer as to whether the provision is included just in case it is needed but is not likely to arise or whether this will be the norm. If it is the latter, we may pursue the matter further. The purpose of the amendment is very much one of clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: Perhaps I may add that there are two aspects of the wording which concern me. The first was referred to earlier in connection with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and concerned why the Secretary of State should suddenly be brought into the matter. We have heard the Government argue vigorously that the director should determine all these matters and now we have the Secretary of State coming in.
The other point is that I am as concerned as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, by the doubts that he raised as to whether the committees should apply to an area covered by a supplier or by more than one supplier. There seems to be some doubt and ambiguity. I cannot see the case for enlarging the responsibilities. The areas covered by the suppliers are fairly considerable in themselves and I should have thought that that is the way that it ought to be established in the first place.
Lord Glenarthur: When the property rights and liabilities of the area boards are vested in their successor companies they will be vested in their entirety. The successor companies will, on receipt of their licences, become the public electricity suppliers for the existing areas of the area boards as they are presently constituted. The Government are fully committed to the appointment of one consumers' committee in the area of each of the 12 successor companies to the area boards and the two successor companies in Scotland.
The Bill before the Committee is designed to promote competition in the electricity industry. It is therefore possible that at some time in the future—as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, forecast—a new

829
company could obtain a public electricity supply licence for a small part of the area, or an area, of an existing public electricity supplier. The area of the new supplier might be so small that it would not be practical to appoint a new committee to serve it. Clause 2(2)(b) gives the Secretary of State in this instance the ability to decide that it would be sensible for the existing consumers' committee to serve the areas of both those suppliers. I should have said that that was an important element because it introduces the sort of flexibility that will be needed if, at some point in the future, such a small area comes into being. With that explanation of the essential point of flexibility, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for that answer which deals with the matter entirely to our satisfaction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) The consumers' Committees shall represent domestic electricity consumers and shall have the following duties—

(a) to provide effective and independent representation for such consumers in any investigations carried out by the Director or by any other bodies including the Office of Fair Trading or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and Parliamentary Select Committees;

(b) to disseminate advice and information to electricity consumers on energy-related matters.").

The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment, but I hope that I shall not need to delay the Committee too long. The relevant arguments have already been largely advanced by myself and others with regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Certain of the arguments with regard to paragraph (b) of the amendment were put forward in respect of Amendment No. 9 when such matters as energy conservation arose.
What we should like to see written more specifically into the Bill—I believe, regrettably, that we are somewhat at issue with the Government on this matter—is the independence of the consumer bodies. On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, the noble Lord, Lord Glanarthur, used such expressions as "fully integrated with the director's office". I must repeat, although not wishing to do so to the point of tedium, that I am not happy about that aspect. I should like to see those bodies more independent. If we were to write the words "effective" and "independent" into the legislation, that would at least help a little. I therefore ask the Government to at least consider amendments of their own which might deal with the matter.
Similarly, with respect to paragraph (b)—I thought I heard this point mentioned earlier, but often one does not take sufficient note—the noble Lord, or one of his colleagues, said that the consumers' committees would do what we propose under paragraph (b) anyway. I believe that I heard that
830
point being made, although I may have misunderstood, when we were discussing matters such as energy conservation. If what appears in paragraph (b) is undoubtedly part of their role, that is fine; I need no persuasion.
However, given the importance of energy efficiency, which has been debated, and the importance of conservation, if there is any doubt that one of the bodies that might be involved is the consumers' committee, we should write that provision into the Bill to make sure that there is no doubt about it. I should be most happy to be told that there is no doubt about the matter and that the Bill says that this happens in some form that I have missed. I have made my points about paragraph (a). I hope that the Government will take them seriously.
Lord Trafford: Perhaps the noble Lord will glance at Clauses 43 and 44 and, to a lesser extent, Clause 45. It seems to me that they render the amendment unnecessary. It is true that independence is not written in, but the independence of the committee depends upon its appointment, composition and so forth, which we debated earlier. If the noble Lord looks at those clauses, he will see for example that Clause 44(1) states:
"It shall be the duty of each consumers' committee to investigate any matter which appears to the committee to be a relevant matter".
To a large extent, that seems to cover what the noble Lord wants, but I accept that there is no mention of the term "independent". However, as we have already debated that matter and decided on the composition and appointment of the committee, it would be almost a contradiction to write the provision in as proposed. Be that as it may, I believe that the functions that the noble Lord wishes the committee to perform are covered.
Lord Renton: I am mystified by what is included in the concept of the three words, "provide … independent representation". What kind of representation? In what sense is it to be independent? Does the word "provide" mean "pay for", or is it to be done by the consumers' committees' own staff? I find this altogether puzzling.
As to paragraph (b)—
"to disseminate advice and information to electricity consumers on energy related matters"—
that could cost a certain amount of money each year. Is that to be carried on the budgets of the consumers' committees? I should have thought that information to consumers is surely something that the providers of electricity would provide just as companies provide all kinds of information not only to their shareholders, but also to consumers. I should be interested to hear what my noble friends say, but I think that the amendment introduces one or two elements of confusion.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I go along with my noble friend Lord Renton. That is not simply in order to get my own back on the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who assumed an attitude of lofty neutrality in respect of the helpful suggestion that I made previously;

831
namely, that consumers' committees should be made independent of the director general. I do not mind where they come from, but, I wish them to be divorced from the director general.
Here we have an amendment from the same source saying that it should be the duty of the consumers' committees
"to provide effective and independent representation".
One asks independent from whom? The consumers' committees will depend for their livelihood and very existence upon the director general. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, accepted that point just now. How is it that he can now appear at that Box and propose an amendment of this kind?
I was just now seeking independence, and instead of supporting me in my humble and modest gesture the noble Lord took a rather lofty stance in a neutral corner. How very disappointing! It is surprising that now he should appear in a different position altogether. One wonders who is independent from whom? Who will be the effective judge of the "effective and independent representation". Only the person who makes the appointment has the sanction. That is the problem.
I hope that the Government will consider this matter a little more because I personally am unhappy about it, as I said previously. I have grave misgivings about encouraging a committee to disseminate advice and information to electricity consumers on energy related matters. Every channel of communication today is clogged up with huge quantities of advice, some of which is very bad. We need to be very careful whom we authorise, let alone encourage, to add to the flood. I see no reason why we should encourage the noble Lord in this amendment.
Lord Renton: There is not enough room in the waste-paper baskets.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly understand the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in wishing to ensure the protection of the interests of domestic consumers and indeed the interest of my noble friend in securing precisely the same object. It is a concern which I think we all share. But I think I can explain why it would be unnecessary to amend the clause in the way proposed by the noble Lord.
Taking the parts of the proposed amendment in turn, we do not feel that the reference to domestic electricity consumers is necessary. The duties of the consumers' committees in the protection of domestic consumers are well documented in the Bill—for example, the committeees are required to make representations to and consult with each public electricity supplier allocated to the committee about all such matters as appear to the committee to affect the interests of customers or potential customers of that supplier.
Secondly, we do not feel it necessary to place a duty on the committees to provide effective and independent representation for consumers in the way in which the noble Lord suggests. The fundamental basis for our proposals for consumer
832
protection is that the new consumers' committees should be an integral part of the office of the director general. The noble Lord seems to think that that is a bad idea, but the fact is that by keeping these two close together it is more likely to be satisfactory than otherwise.
The balance of duties and roles between the director and the consumers' committees will be a fine one. It is designed to achieve the best results for the consumer. I suggest that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord would drive a wedge between the director and the consumers' committees and would have the effect of upsetting the careful balance that I have described. The network of local consumers' committees will help the director to protect consumers' interests by advising him as appropriate. It would inhibit this process if the committees operated independently of the director when he or any other body is carrying out an investigation, as this would isolate them from the rest of the regulatory organisation and in the end act against the consumers' interests.
The proposals contained in the Bill will result in a fully integrated regulatory framework and that, I think, will produce the best results on behalf of all consumers. Again, as I have mentioned in the past, these proposals have been warmly welcomed by the area electricity consultative councils and the Electricity Consumers Council.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I wonder whether my noble friend can say whether anybody else in all the consumer bodies has taken the same line as the Electricity Consumers Council. Is there another single consumer body that has taken that line?
Lord Glenarthur: I cannot say whether any individual consumer body has done so. I can say that the area electricity consultative councils have taken that view. I do not think one can lump them together and call them one body, but they certainly have welcomed the proposals.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. The answer is no.
Lord Glenarthur: I am not sure that I can necessarily take the noble Lord's word for that but I shall certainly check on it. I said to my noble friend that I did not have that particular information. I said that the area electricity consultative councils apparently welcomed those proposals.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That may be true. The noble Baroness asked whether any other consumer organisation welcomed the proposals and the answer is no, so far as I know.
Lord Glenarthur: I should have thought that there had been many that had represented consumers' councils. I should have thought that many of those who spoke in another place in support of the Bill when it went through Committee there could be counted upon as supporting those councils in their approach to the Bill. Indeed, I can quote at length some remarks in support of the consumer protection proposals in the Bill from a range of different

833
councils. One example is the Eastern Electricity Consultative Council. If I were to go through them all I would weary even the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. However, if he would like me to go through them ——
Lord Williams of Elvel: I take the point about councils. The noble Baroness asked about consumer organisations other than the area councils. So far as I know there are no others.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Those that I have listed here are councils. Whether or not there are any other individual bodies I do not know, nor do I know whether one counts the electricity supply trade union council as one. However, we may perhaps be tilting at windmills in this case because the majority of people welcome these proposals. Those are the people who are represented by the electricity consultative councils of the areas and the Electricity Consumers Council. Perhaps I may continue.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I must make my point clear. I was referring to a very narrow point. I was claiming that nobody else but the Electricity Consumers Council had welcomed, not the general consumer protection elements of the Bill, but simply the fact that the regional committees would suffice in their present form and not independent of the director. It is a very narrow point that the Electricity Consumers Council has welcomed this. It has not been supported by anybody else in the consumer movement so far as I am aware.
Lord Glenarthur: I know that my noble friend has an important role in the consumer movement. We are all aware of that. Perhaps she does not go so far in her council as both the Electricity Consumers Council and these other individual ones. I do not know of any other individual outlet that has made these particular claims. However, perhaps we can move on to the other parts with which this amendment deals.
We have already provided for the consumers' committees to play an important role in representing the consumer. They will have their own specific role in complaint handling. The director will have a duty to investigate any complaint which deals with any of the supply companies' duties or obligations under the Bill, or the licences, and which is made directly to him or referred to him by the consumers' committees, and the committees will have a duty to investigate any other complaint made to them or referred to them by the director.
In addition, when the director sets out the standards of service which the supply companies will have to achieve in supplying domestic customers he can ask the committees to determine any disputes arising over failures to meet those standards or over compensation.
Turning to the third part of the amendment of the noble Lord, the Bill already contains important provisions for the dissemination of information and advice by the director. For example, the director will be required to collect and publish comparative
834
information about all the public electricity suppliers so that consumers for the first time will be able to compare their local suppliers directly with all the other suppliers in the country. The committees will also have an important role to play. For example, they will be required to report to the director on any such matter as he may require and may make a report to him concerning any matter they consider likely to affect the interests of customers, or indeed potential customers, of the public electricity supplier allocated to the committee. They are also required to report to the director on their activities, including matters on which they have advised the director, and the director may arrange for the publication of the reports made to him by the consumers' committee.
The amendments of the noble Lord would have very little effect on the duties on the consumers' committees as they have already been set out in the Bill. To that extent, I believe them to be quite unnecessary.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord Perhaps I may say how disappointed I am at the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, of my amendment. I may sound lofty, but I was genuinely open-minded about his amendment. As I argued, I have problems on achieving independence. I was aware of my amendment and of his, and I was trying quite honestly to find a way through them. I still am.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, referred to driving a wedge. The difference between us is that I want to drive that wedge. That is my concept of independence. I have certain ideas, but I am not certain how to accomplish them. That is why I spoke in the way that I did on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I was genuinely uncertain although I have some ideas to which I may return at Report stage on how to accomplish what I want.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I thought that his suggestion that the relevant information will be disseminated by producers was preposterous. The producers are in the business of selling electricity. The issue relates to consumers. I want consumers to be able to be advised, "Don't buy this electricity because you can economise on it in the following way." I should certainly not ask the producers to be the centre of information on conservation and economy and such matters. I cannot make any sense of his intervention.
If I may refer again to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—so that we may annoy each other even more—I do not believe that the channels of communication are clogged or excessive, as was argued earlier. I do not intend to delay Members of the Committee, but electricity is wasted. There is a great opportunity here for the rational use of electricity in our country. It would be in the national interest to support a movement to that effect. I think the consumer councils can help to do that. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is telling me that they can help to do it and perhaps they will help to do it. My point was to bring it specifically to their notice.
These are matters to which I can return. I think they are serious. I certainly warn the noble Lord,

835
Lord Peyton, that I regard the question of independence as a very serious matter, as he does, and I hope that on Report we may get a meeting of minds between the two of us as to how we can get the independence we have in mind. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 30 not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) In appointing persons to be members of a consumers' committee the Director shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons who have experience of matters relevant to—

(a) industrial consumers;

(b) domestic consumers and fuel poverty;

(c) the geographical make-up of the area;

(d) the impact on the environment of electricity supply; and

(e) the provision of electricity supply services.").

The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment because it seeks to set out more clearly than is done in the body of the Bill the type of person who should be appointed to these consumers' committees. The Bill itself simply refers to,
"a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, matters relevant to the provision of electricity supply services".
I do not see that that really describes the kind of person about whom we are talking. This could be somebody who has spent his life supplying electricity. It could be someone who has spent his life making equipment with which to supply electricity. What we need are people who are conversant with the needs of consumers.
The amendment, as amended in turn by Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, which should be taken with it, seeks to set out more clearly the kinds of persons and the qualifications they should have to be selected to serve on these committees. I very much hope that the Government will accept that this is a helpful amendment. It spells out clearly the kinds of persons needed. It does not lay down precisely who they should be but merely says that when they are appointed regard should be had to these kinds of qualifications and this type of experience. I beg to move.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 31, Amendment No. 32:
Line 5, after ("industrial") insert ("and agricultural").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 33. I rise with trepidation on these two amendments to the amendment. I was hoping that at least one of the noble Lords in whose names the amendments stand would precede me on this matter.
As the Committee will be aware, this concerns agricultural and rural matters. I am an overwhelmingly urban person who is delighted that the countryside exists and is kept in good condition by other noble Lords so that I can visit it occasionally, but not too often. I am well aware that in matters of this kind what I might call the agricultural interest always feels neglected. Speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carter, I should
836
like to say that he was most anxious that we add this to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to which we are very sympathetic anyway. This is simply adding a dimension, and I am certain that noble Lords opposite who themselves are much more involved with the countryside than I am will add their voices.
It is the normal sensitivity of the farming and rural community that people assume that there is something very primitive about their lives and that matters to do with electricity and things of that sort do not concern them. Of course they clearly do. They are very concerned about the electricity supply, which is involved with livestock units in terms of milking and automatic feeding. There is the general problem of the isolated farmstead and access to electricity.
The general question of costs of connection in rural areas needs to be taken into account. The rural community is most anxious that the consumers' committees should not be dominated by urban interests. It is anxious that people should realise that poverty, which in the public image is often associated with urban areas, should be recognised as existing in rural areas, and therefore that this should be taken into account. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Carter I beg to move the amendment to the amendment.
Lord Wise: I should like to add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said regarding these two amendments. There is considerable concern within the argicultural industry and the rural communities that due regard should be taken of their interests. I understand that the Secretary of State is determining that the number of consumers' committees shall be the same number as the authorised areas but with possible additions of suppliers. I am not familiar with those areas but it must be fair to say that the rural communities will constitute a considerable proportion of the majority of them.
I hope that the local sub-committees to be established by the consumers' committees will include persons who have knowledge and experience of the needs of the agricultural industry and rural communities. It is by no means certain that they will; therefore it is most desirable that agriculture is represented on the main committees by people who have experience of its particular needs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, the costs of the supply to rural areas are greater. Companies may be disposed to concentrate their efforts on the relatively more profitable urban areas. However, the needs of rural areas must be considered, taken account of and safeguarded. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will pay due regard to this matter.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to support the amendment. I live in a very isolated agricultural area. Electricity makes all the difference in terms of farming equipment and the quality of life of people in remote cottages. The words, "including rural areas" would cover areas concerned with agriculture and possibly others as well. This is terribly important. When I first went to live in the

837
country there was no electricity; I cannot tell you how appalling it was. It would be quite simple for the Government to insert these two suggestions: "and agricultural" in line 5 and "including rural areas" in line 7. This would be much appreciated by the entire agricultural community. It is not something that could make difficulties for anyone else.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Greatly as I regret it, the harmony which ought to exist and would normally exist between the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and myself has not been at such a level that the confusion made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is to be tolerated at all. I hope in future he will be very careful to embarrass neither the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nor myself.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the noble Lord will recognise that it is not the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley; it is the noble Lord, Lord Wise.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord's guidance is always helpful. Having listened to the discussions on this amendment and on the amendment to the amendment, I feel a slight measure of regret that I did not move the previous amendment. If that had not been there—if the need to appoint people knowledgeable in the electricity supply industry had not been there—it would not have been necessary to add all the others.
I very much regret the notion that there must be people who are knowledgeable about electricity. What is wanted is people who are knowledgeable about other matters and who are good at asking experts questions and detecting lies in the answers. That is what is necessary. I do not want experts in the electricity or any other industry, but I want to have people who represent customers generally and who have some knowledge from their own background. However, the idea that whoever makes these appointments should go round dredging each section of the community for some suitable nominee is not one which I find at all acceptable. With great respect to my noble friend Lady Elliot who just spoke eloquently in support of the farming community, I do not believe that this would satisfy the farming community any more than it would any other section of society.
Lord Monk Bretton: I should also like to say a few words in support of my noble friend's amendment to the amendment. As regards the rural areas, it must be remembered that it is not merely about environment and scenery; it is about rural people and those who earn their living in the country.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may also speak in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Clause 2(4) as it stands is most unsatisfactory and in parts is almost unintelligible. It refers to persons being appointed having experience and having shown capacity in matters relevant to the provision of electricity supply services. Of course
838
if you are supplying services, someone has to receive them and that is the consumer. There is no mention of the consumer at all in selecting persons to sit on the consumers' committees. If one looks in the margin, the clause is entitled "Consumers' committees". To have a consumers' committee in this Bill composed of people experienced only in supplying electricity and not receiving it is a contradiction in terms, although I may be misreading the Bill entirely.
It creates a double standard, because the person not only has to have "experience of but also has to have:
"shown capacity in, matters relevant to the provision of electricity supply services".
One has to ask how a person's capacity is to be measured. Is it to be by his qualifications or because he has done something spectacular in the electricity sphere? The amendment proposed will bring a proper balance into the selection of persons to serve on the committees and in the public view will make it look like a consumers' committee rather than a suppliers' committee.
Lord Glenarthur: The consumers' committees will be able to review and report on any matter in their area relating to the supply of electricity as well as carrying out a number of functions relating to the protection of electricity consumers' interests. Therefore, it is only right that when appointing members to a committee the director should have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of the matters and indeed has shown capacity in, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, mentioned—and I shall come back to that element in a moment—matters relevant to the provision of electricity supply services. This does not mean that they need to have worked in the industry, but it points towards the desirability of candidates with relevant experience; for example, in consumer issues——
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord has just referred to experience in consumer issues, and that is. precisely what the Bill does not say, and that is the burden of our intervention.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord has hardly given me a moment even to get to my feet. If he allows me to proceed I will endeavour to explain why I cannot agree with him in his argument. I was about to say that I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton that what we need on these committees are people who are capable. They should be lay people who have the sort of background which will enable them to discharge their duties effectively in much the way that my noble friend described it—people with bags of common sense and wide experience. There are many ideas which could be encompassed in the suggestions made by the noble Lord, but those are the sort of people who should usefully be employed on these committees. In a sense this argument is similar to that which we had on Clause 1 about the people who ought to come forward to be considered for director.
I fear that the effect of the amendments would be unduly restrictive, and they could shut off from

839
membership a great proportion of very able people who do not meet the criteria which my noble friend Lord Peyton described. There is no reason why under subsection (4) as currently drafted people with experience in matters affecting industrial and domestic consumers, the needs of low income groups and pensioners or the impact of electricity supply on the environment should not be appointed to a committee; nor does subsection (4) as currently drafted exclude persons with experience in matters affecting agricultural consumers, as my noble friends Lord Wise and Lord Monk Bretton would have them do. Those agricultural consumers would be from rural areas and could be appointed to a committee in the same way as anybody else. However, we need to give the director maximum flexibility so that he can appoint able and useful people from all walks of life.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. May I simply say that Clause 2(4) does not do that. It is restricting the applicants to people who have experience and capacity—"capacity" is an unfortunate word to use when referring to electricity because it has a specific meaning, but I set that aside—in matters relevant to the provision of electricity supply services, not to the consumption of electricity supply services. Frankly, I would settle for the deletion of the word "provision" and the substitution of the word "consumption". One could argue that that is less restrictive than my noble friend's amendment. I hope that the Minister may settle for that.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord has perhaps missed the point in subsection (4), which states:
"In appointing a person to be a member of a consumers' committee, the Director shall have regard to the desirability of appointing".
To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, the subsection then continues:
"and has shown capacity in".
If we take that "regard" into account, it does not in any sense restrict the persons which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend seek to bring forward. As regards "has shown capacity in"—again to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay—that is a feature which is used elsewhere. I cannot say precisely in what part of the Bill, but I gather that it features in the Water Bill. There is therefore a precedent.
The main point is that the amendments would restrict the sort of people who have sufficient ability to come forward as members of these committees from so doing. The amendments also seek to ensure that the members of the consumers' committees should have experience of the geographical make-up of their area. I assure the Committee it is our clear intention that these committees should provide local representation for all consumers. I am sure that the director will reflect this when he comes to make his appointments. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill already provides for the consumers' committees to appoint, if appropriate, local sub-committees in extensive and sparsely populated areas, so that all
840
consumers will have a locally available representative body.
It is important that there should be real and effective representation for the consumer. I suggest to the Committee that the kind of additional factors that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has written into his Amendment No. 31 (as amended by my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Carter) would confine it rather than allow it to be as wide as it should properly be. I understand the intention that lies behind his amendment, but that is indeed what would happen. I hope that, with that explanation, he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before my noble friend sits down, I was most encouraged by his warm endorsement of the arguments that I attempted to put forward. Would I be right in construing that as an invitation to put down the amendment again at Report stage to leave out subsection (4)?
Lord Glenarthur: I hesitate to invite my noble friend to put down any amendment. This clause goes some way to supplying the kind of considerations that a director has to have regard to when it comes to appointing the committees. I do not believe that the method that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has chosen would leave the matter open enough. I believe that it would go the opposite way and restrict it.
Lord Peston: It was not my intention to prolong this discussion, but I am most perturbed. I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware of the paradoxical nature of the argument that he has put forward. Essentially, we are concerned with the appointment of consumers' committees. Subsection (4) gives us the only criterion we have here. It has been amply pointed out that the only criterion that seems to concern the Government is someone concerned with the provision of electricity supply services. What the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, seeks to do and what I was slightly amending, is to say that if we are going to specify any criteria at all for consumers' committees, then we might as well specify some consumer criteria. Alternatively, we can adopt the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and not specify any criteria at all.
The oddity is precisely the part that the Government have written in. The only matter they have sought to write into the consumers' committee part of the Bill is to make sure that the producer interest is represented. It is a matter for congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, because I had not realised how absurd this part of the Bill was until he made it abundantly clear.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Surely this is just play on words. I am a farmer, I have a house and I consume electricity. As a farmer it is enormously important to me that the provision of electricity is right. My interest is in the provision of electricity. Of course I am a consumer, but that is my interest and that is what it says. As a householder I am interested in that which is provided. I believe that when the noble Lord reads Hansard he will find that he did not quote that section just now. He said that

841
they were persons concerned with the provision of electricity. That is not what it says. Clause 2(4) refers to:
"the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, matters relevant to the provision".
The matters that I am interested in are:
"matters relevant to the provision of electricity".
It can be put either way but I believe this is really stretching a point. It may be that the subsection should say "consumption", but that is the consumers' end. What is being criticised is how it is provided. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with that.
Lord Tordoff: Will the noble Lord consider the possibility of rewording the second part of the clause to give emphasis to consumption rather than to provision? If he insists on having something in these terms to spell out to the director general the kind of person he should have, I hope he will take the point that we shall not go to the stake over a shopping list of people who ought to be on these committees. However, the balance should be on the basis of the consumer rather than the provider of electricity services.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: This has been an interesting discussion. Although I should like to study what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Ezra, and others, what my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil said may perhaps be a much more straightforward method than that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I should like to study what has been said. I am certainly not prepared to commit myself at this stage but I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to consider it.
Lord Ezra: As the noble Lord has said, we have had an interesting debate. I am glad that he will take the matter away to study it. I should like to make only one point before I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I do not think that my amendment is any more restrictive than the wording in the Bill. The words are the same: "shall have regard to". They are not at all restrictive. I should be quite happy to insert after "shall have regard to" the words "inter alia" in order to make quite clear that this is not a restrictive proposition. However, as the noble Lord has said that he will look at the question again, it is my intention to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Peston: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment to Amendment No. 31 standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and my noble friend Lord Carter.
Amendment No. 32, as an amendment to Amendment No. 31, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Ezra: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 31.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 42 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("(6A) In the event of a dispute arising between the Director and a committee, the committee shall have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: It would appear to be the desire of the Committee and indeed of the Government to give the consumers' committees some power and status. I fear that they are already in danger of becoming too much the creatures of the director. The very simple remedy for that would be to give them a measure of access to the Secretary of State. I am not even asking for some formal appeal machinery to be established but merely that they should have the right in the event of a dispute to make representations to the Secretary of State.
That would put those who might feel that they are in control of the consumers' committees on warning that they are not in total control of the position. In the event of a real dispute the last word will be with the Secretary of State, and the consumers' committees will have that degree of standing added to them. In view of the arguments that have been adduced on recent amendments I very much hope that my noble friend will find this a relatively easy argument to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: In supporting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I should like to say that it is my understanding from when we were discussing his earlier amendment that the Government have accepted the fact that if the committee should disagree with the director it would have access to the Secretary of State. I believe that Hansard will show that that was stated. If that is so, there is no reason for this provision not being spelt out in the Bill.
Lord Renton: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Peyton, who is an old parliamentary friend in every sense of the word, will not take amiss what I am about to say. I do not think that we need to give power to anyone, whether statutory or otherwise, to make representations to a Minister. Indeed, if there were to be anything written into a Bill—although it is quite unthinkable in these circumstances—it would be a power to prevent them from doing so.
Therefore I should have thought that this being a free country, any body of people has the right to make representations to a Secretary of State. In the particular context of this Bill it would be unthinkable if a consumers' committee could not make representations to the Secretary of State. After all, he will have been consulted about its set-up and so on. Therefore I would not really expect my noble friends to accept this amendment.
Baroness Seear: I should very much like to support this amendment. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that in a free country anyone can have access to the Secretary of State. However, what we want is to ensure that the people on such committees are listened to when they have that access. Surely it makes a great deal of difference to have written into the legislation the fact that they have such access.

843
In my view, these consumers' committees are already far too much the creatures of the director. Indeed, it would have been much better if they had been elected. However, they have not been and I do not suppose that there is any hope of getting that provision in. As I said, they are the creatures of the director and therefore they need all the safeguards that they can get. Having such a provision written on the face of the legislation must make a difference. Of course in theory we can all go and talk to the Prime Minister if we wish, but we are not very likely to get inside No. 10 Downing Street.
A noble Lord: Not for a year or two anyway.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly appreciate my noble friend's concern that consumers' commmittees should be able to appeal to the Secretary of State if they find themselves to be in an irreconcilable dispute with the director. Of course we hope that the director and the consumers' committees will be able to work out any differences between themselves. One of the advantages of the new approach to consumer representation under the Bill is that such committees will not be stuck out on their own, isolated from the rest of the regulatory organisation, but will be fully integrated with the directors' offices and reporting directly to him. That will mean that the committees and the director's offices will be working together with the same aims and objectives. This co-ordinated and integrated approach should mean that the potential for disputes will be greatly reduced, if not removed altogether.
However, in the event of a dispute between a committee and the director which proves impossible to sort out, of course, as I said in answer to an earlier amendment, it is open to the committees to make representations to the Secretary of State. Indeed, it is open to all of us—that is, Members of this Chamber, Members of another place, pressure groups, representative bodies and the general public—to make representations to the Secretary of State in regard to something about which we are concerned. Moreover, I can say from personal experience that people do so and they do so very regularly. I am sure that all my noble friends on this Front Bench would find themselves in precisely that position. Therefore I very much agree— —
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may intervene here for just a moment. I find myself at present in a position with two colleagues of this Chamber where we have been trying for three weeks to get an answer to a letter from someone in such a position. However, we have not even had a reply.
Lord Glenarthur: I am always happy to take on board the concerns of the noble Baroness about letters. However, in this instance I am not sure whether the letter has anything to do with the Bill. But if it has I shall certainly look into the matter. The fact is that people do have the right, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, to make representations, and they do so. I very much agree with him that, if one were to put anything on the face of the Bill about that point, it would only be wise under the circumstances—which I do not think
844
exist—to do it precisely the other way. That is to write it down in order to prevent that right which we are all so keen to seen maintained. That would, of course, be a nonsense.
Given the Secretary of State's duty relating to the protection of consumers' interests, he would wish to listen to the concerns of consumers' committees and do what he could to resolve them. But I do not believe that it needs to be written into the statute. It is the right of us all, a right which should be maintained, and I hope that my noble friend will see the force of the argument.
Lord Peston: This is an important point. As Members of the Committee are aware, I was not able to take part in the Second Reading debate on this matter. But anyone who has experience of regulations will be well aware of what the Americans call "regulation capture", namely that in the end the regulator gets captured by the industry. The Americans are perfectly well aware of that and it is a very serious matter. That is why some of us adopt the view that, whether it is done via the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, or through certain ideas which I have, we should like a wedge between the regulator and the consumers. That is because we are fearful that in due course the regulator will be captured by the enormously powerful industrial interests which will always be at work. It is quite right that they should be at work, but regulatory capture is not a satisfactory state of affairs.
I believe that the central point is the one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I hope that Members of the Committee will not take this in the wrong spirit but I can remember reading books which said that in Stalin's Russia every Soviet citizen had the right to go to see the great leader. I am not suggesting for one moment that any Secretary of State on the government side, or on our side when we return to power, will be quite a Stalin. But the notion that we all have the right to go to see the Secretary of State is all very well if we are talking to 11 year-olds, trying to give them a view of British democracy. But it bears no resemblance to the practice. Neither does it bear any resemblance to another matter on which I think the noble Lord ought to reflect. In due course the Secretary of State himself might become a bit fed up with the director and would like to have written into the legislation a direct representation notion.
Therefore I do not think it is as simple as the constitutional doctrine which has been enunciated by one or two noble Lords. The true position is precisely the one to which the noble Baroness has drawn our attention. Having been in your Lordships' House a while now, I am getting the hang of the nature of argument in the House. One of the arguments which I most like to listen to is the answer to almost every amendment put down. Noble Lords opposite say that it has precisely the opposite effect from the one we have in mind. Personally I cannot see that. I think that if this amendment were in the Bill it would have exactly the effect we should like it to have. Far from discouraging them, it will encourage the consumer bodies to make representations to the Secretary of State.

845
I am not happy at the ease with which the noble Lord seems to dismiss the amendment. One does not wish to press it at this late hour, but I think it is at least worth considering.
Lord Renton: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is that if the Secretary of State declined to consider the representations made, there would be the most awful political row.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The form of words does not matter to me at all. The precise procedures do not matter. Perhaps I may deal with the point of my noble friend Lord Renton. It does not worry me that the only right should be representation. Committees may have a formal right of appeal, anything they like, anything Ministers like. In replying to the debate my noble friend said that under the present arrangement the potential for disputes has been greatly reduced, if not removed altogether, or words to that effect. That phrase conveys a Utopian sense and I very much doubt whether it will be brought into existence by any legislation that any of us will ever see.
My noble friend said that the committees are perfectly free to make representations as things stand. Of course they are free to do so; we know that. But Ministers tend to have a somewhat one-sided view of the response that is sometimes made to representations. The point has been made that letters are not always answered with great dispatch. I would be very willing to give my noble friend an example that I have experienced recently. I do not think it is unfair or unpleasant to mention this publicly. My noble friend must address a simple question. Why is it that the chairman of a consumer body came up to London to see me recently and was particularly keen that this provision should be put into the Bill? That is the view of those bodies.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I must tell my noble friend that some of us are deeply anxious about this Bill. If we find that all the provisions in it, no matter what arguments are adduced against them, seem to be set in concrete, then far from putting our minds at ease the unease and anxiety which we feel will be increased. That cannot make the passage of the Bill any easier for my noble friend.
I willingly concede that my noble friend is the most courteous and reasonable of men. I hope that he will tell us from the Dispatch Box tonight that he will give further thought to this point.
10 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The difficulty I find with the suggestion of my noble friend is that he is seeking to write on the face of the Bill a provision which is the right of us all in any case and which would not in effect add to what is already provided for by the right that we have discussed. My noble friend seeks to write on to the face of the statute something which is already the right of us all. My noble friend says that a consumer body has made a representation to him— —
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am not asking my noble friend for anything now. I am simply asking him to give further thought to the arguments which have been adduced on all sides of the Chamber tonight in order to enshrine in the Bill recognition of the fact that the committees which the Bill is setting up will have a formal right to go to the Secretary of State.
Lord Glenarthur: If my noble friend had allowed me to continue, I would have reached that point. My noble friend is suggesting that we write something into the Bill which is already there, as of right, for all individuals. He claims that there are those who suggest that this would be the most practicable way of taking forward the kind of concerns which have been registered with him. My concern is that such a provision would be contrary to the kind of practice we normally follow in legislation and possibly even to the practices in some of the pieces of legislation which my noble friend dealt with in his time as a Minister. That is a real risk. Nevertheless, I am perfectly prepared to accept what my noble friend says as regards this matter being one of concern generally throughout the Chamber. I am, of course, prepared to look at it again. I do so without commitment because I wish to study what has been said. However, I shall gladly study the matter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I welcome what my noble friend has said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Electricity Consumers Commission.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, as soon as practicable after the appointed day, establish an advisory committee for matters affecting domestic consumers of electricity supplied by public electricity suppliers; and shall be known as the Electricity Consumers Commission.
(2) The Electricity Consumers Commission shall consist of a chairman and such other members, being not less than two and not more than four, as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint.
(3) In appointing members of the Electricity Consumers Commission the Secretary of State shall so far as practicable, ensure that the members of the Electricity Consumers Commission include members who are familiar with the special requirements of domestic consumers of electricity supplied by public electricity suppliers.
(4) A member of the Electricity Consumers Commission shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of the instrument appointing him and shall, on ceasing to hold office, be eligible for re-appointment.
(5) The Electricity Consumers Commission shall make representations to the director on any matters which it considers to be of interest to the domestic customers of any public electricity supplier.
(6) The Electricity Consumers Commission shall consult as they see fit with the chairmen of the customers' committees.
(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5) above the Electricity Consumers Commission may make representations to the Director on matters relating to the operation of the electricity grid.
(8) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5) above the Electricity Consumers Commission may make representations to the Director on matters relating to the operation of the electricity generating industry, including matters which relate to only one generating station.
(9) The Electricity Consumers Commission may make representations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading on any matter that falls within subsections (5), (7) or (8) above.
(10) Subject to subsection (11) below the Electricity Consumers Commission may make representations to whomever it considers appropriate, and may publish in any such manner as it considers appropriate, any matter that falls within subsections (5), (7) or (8) above.
( 11 ) In carrying out its functions under subsection ( 10) above the Electricity Consumers Commission shall have regard to the need for excluding, so far as is practicable—

(a) any matter which relates to the affairs of an individual, where the publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Electricity Consumers Commission seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual; and

(b) any matter which relates specifically to the affairs of a particular body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, where the publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Electricity Consumers Commission seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that body.

(12) Subject to subsection (13) below the Director shall furnish any information held by him to the Electricity Consumers Commission when requested.
(13) The Director shall not be required to furnish any information to the Electricity Consumers Commission unless—

(a) the Director is satisfied that it relates to a matter falling under subsections (5), (7) or (8) above; and

(b) the Director is satisfied that giving the information the Electricity Consumers Commission will not result in a breach of section 40(5)(a) and (b) below.

(14) Notwithstanding the generality of subsections (5), (7) or (8) above the Electricity Consumers Commission shall not make representations on behalf of any one individual domestic customer of electricity.
848
(15) The Electricity Consumers Commission shall, within eighteen months of being established and annually thereafter, make to the Director and Secretary of State a report on their activities in the previous twelve months or, in the case of the first such report, their activities since being established.
(16) Subject to subsection (10) above the Director shall publish any report made under subsection (15) above in such manner as he considers appropriate.
(17) The provisions of Schedule (Electricity Consumers Commission) shall have effect with respect to the Electricity Consumers Commission.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 44 I should like also to speak to consequential Amendment No. 61. Disagreeable though it is to have to move this amendment at such a late hour when I know that Members of the Committee are tired— —
Lord Renton: No, we are not.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My noble friend assures me that he is not tired. In many ways I am delighted to be doing so at this hour because the debates that have taken place in Committee this afternoon and this evening have paved the way for this amendment far more eloquently than I could have done. When I have described the amendment I think that the Committee will see that it will resolve a number of the problems which have vexed noble Lords on both sides of the Chamber during the course of the Committee stage and answer a number of questions which have not been resolved.
This is an amendment to which the National Consumer Council attaches a great deal of importance. Its purpose is to improve the structure of electricity consumer protection following the privatisation of the electricity industry.
I hope that the Committee will not be alarmed by the length of the proposed new clause which I shall describe briefly in a moment. Although it is long and we at the National Consumer Council believe of great importance to consumers, it is very modest indeed in terms of the resources that it would require and in relation to the Bill as a whole. The Electricity Consumers Commission proposed under subsection (2) of the new clause would consist only of a chairman and up to four members within the office of the regulator but independent of the regulator. This is what we have been talking about in relation to previous amendments in the case of the regional committees: this small committee in the regulator's office, at national level and independent of the regulator. I am sure that the very modesty of such a proposal will commend itself to the Committee. Indeed it is so modest that I cannot believe that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will be able to resist it.
Modest or not, it is a crucial amendment if consumers of a monopoly supplier of their basic needs are to be effectively protected. The passage of the Bill through your Lordships' Chamber provides a golden opportunity to ensure that the regulations which will govern the industry after privatisation and the structure of consumer protection will truly protect the interests of consumers.

849
There is already very much to be welcomed in the Bill for consumers, as I pointed out in detail at Second Reading. The regional consumer committees are very welcome and, as has emerged from debates this afternoon, will be able to deal primarily with complaints against their own regional electricity supply companies. They will also be able to advise, indeed they will have a duty to advise, the director on matters relating to their own areas. However, those matters will relate to their own areas only. They will not in any way give a national picture.
Who then will gather the information which is vital to national policy in the director's office, and who is to use that information for the formulation of national policy as the Gas Consumers' Council does? There is no one in the director's office specified for that task, with the staff, the responsibility or the specific resources for carrying it out. It is far too important a function to be left to some little haphazard, in-house sub-committee that the director may or may not set up, as my noble friend implied in reply to an earlier amendment. How cosy can you get?
Who, for example, will analyse the information coming in from the 12 consumers' committees? Who will make the comparisons about the performance of the 12 companies so far as concerns their customers? It will certainly not be the director; he will be far too busy negotiating prices with the 12 companies and watching the generating companies to ensure that there are no cartels or distortions of competition, while his staff at regional level will be cognisant only of regional performance and local problems.
Subsection (1) of the new clause sets up a new additional consumer body within the Bill, the Electricity Consumers Commission, which would have a remit to do what the local consumers' committees could not do and to do so in a way that is independent of the director. It would fill a very important gap in the otherwise excellent structure for consumer protection proposed in the Bill. The commission would be a small body appointed by the Secretary of State—not by the director, and it would therefore be independent of him, although within his office. Preferably it should be resourced by the Department of Trade and Industry, like the Gas Consumers' Council, because it is always preferable that such a body should not be resourced by the sponsoring department of the industry concerned.
Small though it may be and modestly resourced, the Electricity Consumers Commission would not be peripheral but central. It would not be lightweight, but extremely influential. It would be well and accurately informed, like the Gas Consumers' Council. Above all, it is necessary to supplement what will inevitably be very local knowledge in the case of the regional committees and to apply a national dimension to negotiations on both standards and policy.
Among the strengths of the Electricity Consumers Commission would be its independence from the regulator. No one has yet said in the debates that have taken place in Committee why that is so
850
important. The independence is important because the consumer's interest is not always necessarily identical with the regulator's interest. He must strike a balance; it is right and proper that he should. He must strike a balance between the different interest groups, of which the consumer is but one. We are not quarrelling with that. That is exactly as it should be, but it makes it all the more important that there should be a body at national level which is independent. Particularly as the regional committees are not to be independent, it makes it all the more important that this body should be created. There would be a good working relationship between the regulator and the commission. Indeed, they would be complementary, as has been so in the case of British Gas, but it would not be a cosy relationship because there would be that independence.
Subsection (3) is inserted to ensure that the commission focuses on the interests of domestic consumers and also that the Secretary of State appoints a chairman and members who are familiar with the special requirements of consumers.
Subsection (5) gives the commission a duty to make representations to the director on the generality of domestic consumers' interests and a special duty to see that the consumer interest is protected in the operation of the grid and in the operation of the generating industries under subsections (7) and (8). That will be vital for consumers because generating costs will have by far the largest influence on the prices that consumers will pay.
Subsection (6) ensures that the commission keeps in touch with the problems emerging and the performance of the regional companies so that it knows what is happening across the country and can formulate national policy to be negotiated by the regulator. I hope that, although it is not specified in the new clause, it could also be supplied with the excellent information retrieval equipment that the national Gas Consumers' Council has, which would help it carry out detailed analysis and identification of problems across the nation. That would help the new Electricity Consumers Commission to keep in touch in an immediate way with the issues as they develop in the regions. That information could be digested and carefully considered before national policy was formed and no one would be, as it were, shooting their mouths off in a premature or ill-informed manner, as some people may fear.
By virtue of subsection (9), there will be no doubt that the new Electricity Consumers Commission—here we come to an important point that we have debated previously—will also be able to make representations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission where the most contentious regulatory issues will be decided. So whereas the regional committees will not be able to do this, this commission would be able to make representations to the MMC as the Gas Consumers' Council already does and has done very successfully and without breaking any precedents whatsoever. Certainly this is not now possible for the regional committees. We have had that confirmed by my noble friend this

851
afternoon. So that is another very important function for this national body.
Under subsection (16) the commission would also be able to keep customers informed of the regulatory issues that are under discussion and the director would have a duty to publish its reports. This is not so again in the case of the regional committees.
Subsection (12) ensures that the commission can keep itself informed as well about what is happening in the industry. The other part of the subsection ensures that the commission is under the same obligation as the director, quite correctly, not to prejudice the interests of individuals or companies and also that it reports on its own activities at regular intervals.
Although this new clause is necessarily long, I can assure the Committee that it is based squarely on precedents in the Telecommunications Act 1984, in the Gas Act 1986 and in the schedule to the Water Bill that is currently in Committee before this Chamber. I hope that the Committee and my noble friend will agree that we should have no fear in taking what is best from other privatisation measures and incorporating it in this one. Indeed, the consequences of getting it wrong for consumers in this industry are far greater than they are in any of the other industries.
I have described as briefly as possible this long but what we at the National Consumer Council believe to be necessary new clause and schedule. I dwelt at some length during the Second Reading debate on a number of reasons why a national body was necessary, pointing out that, although the regional committees were valuable and necessary and we have welcomed their creation, they could not replace the need for some form of national representation. I quoted the example of the excellent national Gas Consumers' Council and how important its advice has been to its regulator and how many achievements he has had based on the advice and co-operation of the national Gas Consumers' Council.
I do not in any way wish to appear to denigrate or detract from the importance of the regional committees. Their role is important but it must be recognised that it is limited. With the best will in the world—and I speak from personal experience—it is not easy to find sufficient people at regional level who are of the requisite calibre to deal with national policy based on nationally assessed performance and national standards.
Also there is always the danger from time to time of a cosy relationship developing between the regional committees and their local companies. That need not always be a bad thing but it could be, and it has been known to happen. Together with the regional committees an Electricity Consumers Commission at national level would provide an umbrella of consumer protection far better than that which exists in today's public sector electricity industry and indeed better even than that which exists in the privatised gas industry. This amendment would put the finishing touches to what
852
I know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wants to be a customer oriented electricity industry in the private sector.
At this point I must say that it would be churlish not to mention the present Electricity Consumers Council and its chairman. Indeed I should have mentioned it during the Second Reading debate and it was very remiss of me not to have done so. However, it was not quite as churlish as the Secretary of State is being in banishing him and his whole council in the Bill. I hope that this will not be looked upon by the public as a lack of regard for the excellent work that he and his council have done; indeed, I know that my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues in the Department of Energy have benefited from its excellent advice, and that given particularly by the chairman of the Electricity Consumers Council, Mr. John Hatch. He has been a splendid chairman, and has been advising my noble friend's department throughout the drafting of the Bill. We at the National Consumer Council were pleased to see that he is to become a non-executive director of the grid company, where he will no doubt continue to keep an eye on the consumer interest.
Be that as it may, we at the National Consumer Council are not in entire agreement with the advice that he has given to the Minister. I very much regret that my council was not also consulted during the drafting of the Bill. I fear that we did not receive the consultation document. Perhaps it was lost in the post. If we had, our strong views might have been considered at an earlier stage and the need to move this new clause would have been avoided.
However, it is never too late to do good. Privatisation provides opportunities substantially to improve the consumers' lot. This amendment supplements and sustains the benefits that I feel the Bill will bring. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: As the noble Baroness quite rightly said in moving this amendment, it flows naturally from the debate which we have had in this Chamber during most of this afternoon and evening. Concern has been expressed all round about the adequacy of the consumer arrangements, in particular as regards their independence.
I regret that the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was not accepted. Perhaps we may return to that with regard to the regional bodies. However, it is clear that the independence of this national body would be secured if this proposal were accepted by the Committee.
The proposal also fills a glaring gap—namely, the lack of any national consumer body, in particular to represent and safeguard domestic interests. I strongly support the amendment on the grounds of independence, and the need to have some central national body to represent the consumers in the way set out in this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: It may save the time of the Committee if I respond at this stage. I hope that my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes will realise that we gave considerable thought to the question of

853
whether such a new national body as she proposes is needed in the privatised industry. As Members of the Committee will be aware, the Select Committee on Energy in another place recommended to the Government that there was no need for such a body. Indeed, the Government accepted that view in its formal response to the committee's report.
My noble friend referred to the Electricity Consumers Council. The last thing that I wish to do is to drive any wedge between two different consumer bodies who have at heart the interests of those they represent. However, the ECC's own annual report, to which I referred earlier, was published today. It states that in its view:
"the consumers committees both will and should be able to communicate their views and advice directly to the Director General".
It continues:
"Any separate body … would merely get in the way".
We have therefore had to give due weight to the advice of the existing national body that it should not be replaced.
Nonetheless, I entirely agree with my noble friend that national co-ordination of the activities of the new consumers' committees will be a vital part of the new arrangements. It is clearly very important that the experience of the various committees at local level is pooled and exchanged in order that national lessons, where appropriate, can be drawn.
Our existing proposals give this role to the director general, who will of course have the ultimate statutory duty to protect consumers' interests. Indeed, the purpose of Clause 45 of the Bill, which we shall have the opportunity to debate in due course, is to give the director a positive duty to make arrangements for the provision of information to the committees and for facilitating the exchange of information between them.
Our view has been that the reorganisation of the generation and transmission side of the industry and the introduction of genuine competition renders superfluous the kind of national body which my noble friend seeks to introduce. That is why we have avoided creating a new body which might come between the director general and the consumers' committees. That approach has been supported in the annual report to which I referred just now.
However, I have to say that my noble friend has considerable experience in this field, and the body which she chairs at the moment is one of considerable eminence. My noble friend has taken the trouble to set out in this amendment a very thorough exposition of what she feels such an electricity consumers' commission should consist of. She has certainly made a number of very important points and she has been backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Having heard what she said, and understanding the relevance of the important points which she made, I should like to consider this matter again. It is one which opens up an area of policy which we have looked at in the past, but I am perfectly prepared to take it away and look at it again. I hope that with the reassurance that she raised some
854
important points she will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I strained my ears to hear messages of hope in my noble friend's reply. I was a little disturbed to hear him say that his department had given great weight to what the Electricity Consumers Council had said. I do not understand why it was necessary for his department to give great weight to the opinion of one council and not to consult at all my council or other consumer organisations on this matter.
There is no question whatsoever of a wedge being driven between the two bodies. The National Gas Consumers' Council works in perfect harmony with the regulator and with the regional offices. That is something which is already self-evident. No advice need be taken on that. However, if my noble friend can give me an assurance that he believes a case has been made that he can pay attention to, I shall withdraw the amendment for further consideration with a view to moving an amendment on Report if the Minister has not come up with something before then.
Lord Glenarthur: I raised the matter of wedges. When I referred to the ECC's annual report and my noble friend's responsibilities as chairman of the National Consumer Council I said I did not seek to drive wedges between two different bodies which were essentially trying to deal with the same matter. Indeed, in her amendment my noble friend seeks to bring forward yet another commission, so to some extent the argument that she has just used could be turned on the body which she proposes to create.
My noble friend has set out some important matters which I should like to look at again. That is the assurance I give her. I will take the point away and look at it. I cannot forecast precisely what the nature of the review will be, but nevertheless I take her remarks very seriously.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: On the basis of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 59 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 74, line 36, at end insert—
("10. In paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (bodies to which Act applies in England and Wales), at the end there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(ii) consumers' committees established and maintained under the Electricity Act 1989.";
and the functions of a consumers' committee shall be regarded as public functions for the purposes of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, myself, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. This may be the last amendment that we will be discussing tonight. It may also be the first that the Government will accept as an extremely good amendment to the Bill—not that there may not have been several others that they might have accepted earlier as extremely good amendments.
The amendment on the face of it appears to be highly technical but it has a very important practical purpose. It would require the regional consumers' committees—we have not gone into the detail of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness—to admit members of the public to their meetings. That is the essential consequence thereof. This amendment has an interesting background in that a similar amendment was moved by one of the Government's own supporters in another place in connection with the Water Bill. I hope that the fact that we are moving an amendment from this side, prompted by what was moved before, will strengthen the view of the Government.
I hope that the noble Lord will comment on the fact that the Bill does not require consumers' committees to hold meetings at all. It does not require them to have direct contact with the public and therefore it overwhelmingly strengthens such committees. The noble Lord has gone out of his way, slightly more strongly than I would have done, to recommend those committees and their activities to us. I hope that this amendment will commend itself to him.
Since the Bill applies to Scotland but the amendment does not, I understand that were this to be acceptable to the Government there would be a need to produce a further amendment for Scotland. However, that would be a technical matter.
In a nutshell, this is a very sensible and practical amendment. It is the kind of amendment that we might have expected to come from the government side but we have moved it in order to be as helpful as we possibly can, particularly as it is our last amendment of the evening.
Lord Renton: The 1960 Act, to which reference is made in this amendment, was the one on which the Prime Minister made her maiden speech in another place when moving the Second Reading of the Bill which became the Act. Therefore, I do not know whether Members opposite realise that in moving this amendment they might be currying favour with the Prime Minister. That would be quite a good thing for them to do anyway.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If that is the reason why the noble Lord is speaking, then I am perfectly happy to withdraw this amendment if he feels that the object of it is to curry favour with the Prime Minister. We have no desire to do that.
Lord Renton: I shall let that point pass. I think that the noble Lord might regret, in view of what I am about to say, a suggestion that he might withdraw the amendment.
There is a serious point here and one that ought to be considered by the Government. I have an idea that this was moved in another place as an amendment to the Water Bill, or something like it. If it comes into the Water Bill, there seems to be no logical reason why it should not come into this Bill as well.
Lord Ezra: I should simply like to say that I believe that this modest amendment would reinforce the role of the consumer committees. It would make them more visible to the public and the public would be able to be more conversant with what they do. The matters discussed by the committees would be of direct interest to the public anyway. Therefore, with other Members of the Committee who have spoken, I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: It has always been part of the Government's plans that there should be some public meetings of the consumer committees. Certainly, that has not been precluded in any sense by the current drafting of the Bill. Nevertheless, we must be quite clear that the new committees, thanks to the new rights and duties which they will have been given, will have, on occasion, access to commercially confidential information and, indeed, to the personal details of individual complainants. The latter may well include details of customers who are experiencing hardship and it would clearly be improper to allow an automatic right of access to the general public to meetings of the committee dealing with such matters. Indeed, in such cases, the committee's ability to discharge its duties effectively might be quite seriously impaired.
There will undoubtedly be other instances where the issues under discussion will be of general interest and will not give rise to questions of privacy or confidentiality. However, I feel that it must be left to the committees themselves, in consultation with the director, to decide which occasions are suitable for public access and which are not. It is not an area which the Bill should define in advance. It is difficult, as I believe the noble Lord will appreciate, to foresee all the various circumstances which may bear on such a decision.
However, my noble friend Lord Renton pointed to the fact that the Water Bill contained a provision closely similar to this. Indeed, that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Therefore, even though this may be the last amendment that we shall deal with tonight, I cannot accept it in the form in which the noble Lord would like. However, I am prepared to take away the matter and consider it.
Lord Peston: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that I am always interested in history and matters of historical importance, quite independent of currying favour with the Prime Minister. His intervention was of enormous interest and I shall obtain a copy of the appropriate Hansard in order to see what arguments were put forward on that occasion from which one might learn something. I know that he was pulling one's leg about currying favour. I am afraid that I have never succeeded in currying favour with anyone. That has been a more general problem in matters which concern me.
On the substantive issue, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. I hope that when he comes back, he will elucidate two matters for us. The obvious one is why there is not simply a carry over from the motions put forward on the Water Bill to the Electricity Bill.

857
Clearly, that is a logical problem: whether there is anything special about this Bill. Secondly, the noble Lord knows that in moving an amendment of this kind I am doing it very much as a lay person and not in any sense as a legal expert. What we want, and what I believe the noble Lord said, is a broad obligation for public meetings plus some capacity for the committee, occasionally, to go into private session.
I have certainly sat on bodies which are largely open to the public but there is always some reserve business, as the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, when one is dealing with individual cases of a sensitive nature. I am entirely with him that that is what we should try to achieve, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before we conclude this evening's proceedings I should like to address some remarks to the noble Baroness on groupings. We had a problem this morning with groupings. By 11.30 a.m. we had not received any suggested groupings from the department. It is difficult for the Opposition to conduct their affairs if we do not receive the suggested groupings early in the day or, as in the case of other departments, the night before.
This morning I had to sit down and prepare groups and suggest to the department what groupings should be taken. I am not an expert on how to group amendments and I am afraid that some of our debates today have shown that my groupings were defective. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to ensure that the department produces groupings in good time.
Baroness Hooper: I take the point made by the noble Lord. I apologise for the fact that he had a problem. The department had worked out certain suggestions for groupings which were waiting to be printed on the Marshalled List in order to make them easily conveyable. I regret that the usual methods through the usual channels seem to have resulted in this problem arriving on the noble Lord's lap rather late in the day.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is not my lap, if I may say so, but the Government Whips' office. The proof is that the Marshalled List was out yesterday at 3 o'clock.
Baroness Hooper: No, it was later.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Whatever the time was, this is the first time I have dealt with the Department of Energy. I have dealt with other departments where there is a clear procedure so that the Government Whips' office has the suggested groupings early in the day. It is a question of negotiation between us as to how the amendments are finally grouped. Other noble Lords are also concerned with groupings because they have amendments.
Lord Peston: I should like to add one supplementary remark to those of my noble friend.
858
In some ways today has been a thoroughly interesting but relatively easy part of the Bill—at least, I understood some of the parts in which I was taking part! However, we are about to move on to a number of extremely technical matters where it is absolutely vital that we get the groupings right. I know that the noble Baroness would not disagree with that. If we are to make progress and not flounder I hope that my noble friend's remarks will be taken extremely seriously if for no other reason than that we could find ourselves discussing the wrong subjects. I look for some sympathy from the noble Baroness because we have some hard work ahead of us on this Bill.
Baroness Hooper: Noble Lords have my every sympathy; I am simply at a loss to understand why they did not receive our suggested groupings of amendments because it went much further than the groupings eventually agreed. However, I understand that it was because the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was unavailable, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned earlier, that a grouping could not be agreed.
Lord Peston: I think the point has been made and I thank the noble Baroness. I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  PRISONERS: SUICIDE PREVENTION
  PRISONERS: SUICIDE PREVENTION
  WRNS: RANKS
  WRNS: RANKS
  M.40: WIDENING AT STOKENCHURCH
  M.40: WIDENING AT STOKENCHURCH
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  FISH: LICENSED MEDICINES
  FISH: LICENSED MEDICINES
  SOCIAL FUND: APPLICATIONS TO COMMISSIONER
  SOCIAL FUND: APPLICATIONS TO COMMISSIONER