Sitting of 3 April 1990

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Foxhunter Radar
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Foxhunter radar is currently performing according to its original specifications.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): The Foxhunter programme is proceeding by way of staged improvements under a firm price contract. Radars to an agreed interim standard are already being fitted to the Tornado air defence variant. All radars will be brought up to the full technical standard, beginning next year.
    Mr. Haynes: I do not know what this lot are messing about at. They have been at it for a number of years and have spent millions of pounds, yet we do not have the proper radar for the defence of this nation. They should be here at the Bar, and Ministers should be charged with complicity.
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman did not ask a question. In so far as his statement meant anything, he was wholly incorrect. We are at great pains to ensure that the proper radar is regularly upgraded. The agreed interim standard radars have been fitted and radars to the full technical standard will start next year.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the air defence version of the Tornado, even equipped with its present radar, is a formidable piece of defence equipment and that when the radar is made to function properly, it will be the finest of its type anywhere?
    Mr. Clark: Of course, it is. The system in service, even with radar to the agreed interim standard, is enjoying a successful export demand.

    Tain Bombing Range
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards a noise evaluation survey in the vicinity of Tain bombing range, Ross-shire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): The noise survey at RAF Tain is scheduled to begin on 7 May and will continue for two weeks. A meeting has been arranged between officials of my Department and Ross and Cromarty district council to discuss the survey in detail and to select the location of measurement sites.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. I must express some concern over the letter to me from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces some months ago. He said that this welcome and long overdue noise evaluation survey would take place, but I am concerned about the time scale that the Department seems to envisage. The Minister said that there will be a meeting. Is there now a revised time scale that may lead to decisions and, I hope, to grants for noise insulation being made earlier to the community? A recent example of the problem is Inver primary school in a village over which much low flying takes place. The infant pupils are housed in a Portakabin that has no sound-proofing, so the pupils suffer significant disruption from low-flying military jets. That has a detrimental educational effect and it terrifies the children.
    Mr. Neubert: The survey at Tain is being given a high priority amid an extensive programme to survey 40 military airfields. The proposal for the first survey in May should lead to a report being made in about spring next year. It takes time to evaluate the data accumulated by such surveys. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the survey will be prosecuted as fast as possible, although it depends, of course, on good flying weather.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend say something about the general attitude of the Ministry of Defence to compensating people in the vicinity of bombing and gunnery ranges? There are sites all round the country, including Lulworth gunnery range in my constituency. The people understand the need for noise and explosions, but they are always concerned about damage to their property and about compensation from the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Neubert: Limited resources of staff and equipment are available to undertake surveys. The decision to undertake such a survey at Tain shows the Ministry's wish to relieve the impact of noise on local communities and, where appropriate, to pay compensation.

    Services (Premature Discharge)
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals have applied for premature discharge from each of the services in the last six months.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): In the six months from August 1989 to January 1990 a total of 1,947 personnel from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 2,461 Army personnel and 2,974 Royal Air Force personnel applied to leave prematurely.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that two steps need to be taken urgently? First, to deal with the uncertainty in the services, we should embark on a serious and thorough defence review; secondly, we should recognise that the anger and anxiety about pay has been exacerbated by the odious poll tax, as service men realise that the private and the general will pay the same.
    Mr. Hamilton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we already survey the reasons why people leave early or have applied to do so. The main reasons are the effect on family life, the lack of job satisfaction and the expected prospects outside the services—the latter being all to do with the flourishing economy in which we live.
    Sir John Stokes: Will my hon. Friend arrange for commanding officers of the units in the forces to tell those serving under their command that there is still a worthwhile and vital job to be done in the armed service of the Crown, now and for many years hereafter?
    Mr. Hamilton: I shall certainly make sure that my hon. Friend's sentiments are transmitted to the officers in command of the services. A great effort is made, when service men say that they want to leave, to talk to them and find out their reasons for leaving, and to do all that we can to persuade them to stay.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister of State appreciate that when The Daily Telegraph, the day after the publication of the Defence White Paper, chooses as the subject of its leader the inescapable reality of the dissatisfaction in the ranks, there must be something seriously wrong with the morale, pay and conditions of the people who serve us? Can he do something about that quickly, provide decent pay and conditions and improve the morale of the forces on whom we depend?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is clearly accepted by the armed forces that we are dealing with the problems of the future; they know that we shall come forward with plans before long. One question that I am often asked when I visit the armed forces is whether there is a chance of a Labour Government coming to power, because they know that that would have a much more dramatic effect on their future than anything else.
    Sir William Clark: Will the review include the provision of, and help with, housing for service men who leave the service?
    Mr. Hamilton: As my hon. Friend knows, much work has been done on housing for service men. We have introduced a scheme under which houses will be put into a housing association, which will in turn make them available. Progress is being made on the scheme and I hope that we can build on it.

    SGL Defence Ltd.
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department has available in relation to SGL Defence Ltd.; what is the number of meetings which he has had with representatives of this company; and what were the topics discussed.
    Mr. Alan Clark: I understand that SGL Defence Ltd. is a recently formed public relations company which intends to specialise in defence. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend have had meetings with anyone representing the company.
    Mr. Douglas: I am grateful for that reply, but is the Minister aware that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence is a consultant to that company? Although he may not be transgressing any of the House's arrangements, may I take it that every time the Select Committee has met since January, the Chairman has declared an interest in SGL Defence Ltd. to Front-Bench spokesmen and to the Department? If not, how should I take the letter sent to me today by the Minister in which he says that the public interest is being well served? If Ministers have not been aware of this association, how is the public interest being protected? Are Ministers being circumspect in the evidence that they give to the Select Committee and in the information that they give to the individual concerned?
    Mr. Clark: It is not for me to pass judgment on the conduct of the Chairman of the Committee or on the extent to which he is revealing or inadvertently concealing any interest. That is purely a matter for the House of Commons. All that I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House is that at no time in any of the meetings that I and my right hon. Friend have had with the Chairman of the Committee has he lobbied or proselytised for anyone.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the brochure for SGL Defence Ltd. says:
    "Our experience will greatly improve a company's capacity to influence operational requirements to win contracts in the face of national and international competition"?
    As it is wrong for a company that can make that statement to hire a Member of Parliament as a consultant, why does not the Minister condemn it now from the Dispatch Box?
    Mr. Clark: Such companies tend to overrate their ability to persuade Ministers. Decisions on defence procurement matters are taken primarily on the basis of value for money. I am always prepared to listen to hon. Members about their constituency interests, but I would not pay the slightest attention to an hon. Member, however distinguished and however distinguished his position in the House, in any other context.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As these questions are House of Commons matters, is not it a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests, of which I am Chairman?
    Mr. Speaker: Absolutely so. I hope that when attacks of this nature are made on hon. Members, they are given notice.
    Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
    Mr. Douglas: With great respect, you, Mr. Speaker, above all others are well aware that I have pursued this matter through letters to you, to the Select Committee on Members' Interests and to the Committee of Selection. I gave notice to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). The reason why he is not here is that he is spending £15,000 of public money on a trip abroad.

    FI5E Aircraft
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been taken on basing the FI5E aircraft in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: None, Sir.
    Mr. Flannery: Despite that monosyllabic, negative answer, is not it a fact that the United States has surveyed RAF Bentwaters between Sizewell and Bradwell and that work will begin in June? Is not the FI5E—a new nuclear strike bomber—being planned at a time when east-west tension is falling and defence cuts are occurring in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Why do we need another bomber of that nature after all this time and when tension is decreasing? Who is ordering it and why?
    Mr. Hamilton: The United States air force may have surveyed the site with the intention of putting a simulator there. No decision has been taken to build the simulator and work will not start in June. That report is incorrect. Consideration is being given to the deployment of FI5Es at that site because we are looking to reallocate our resources in the light of flexible response, which has served us well in the past and, I am sure, will continue to do so.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend notice a degree of hypocrisy in calls for value for money from well-known tax-dodgers in the Opposition?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Minister to answer, but such questions do not lead to good relations in the Chamber.
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not wish to follow that sentiment too far, but hypocrisy is a problem that we have always found with Opposition Members.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must withdraw that allegation.
    Mr. Hamilton: I withdraw it at once.

    German Unification
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions took place at the Anglo-German summit on 30 March on the effect of German reunification on British defence policy especially in terms of (a) land-based short-range nuclear missiles and (b) air-launched nuclear missiles.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King)rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down.
    Mr. King: Our discussions confirm that there was full agreement between the British and Federal German Governments on the following: that a united Germany should remain in NATO; that allied forces should remain in Germany; and that NATO nuclear weapons should continue to be based there. Chancellor Kohl made clear at the press conference his belief in the need for the full protection of NATO for the territory of Germany.
    Mr. Wigley: As the range of the Lance missile is 110 km and as, at its narrowest point, East Germany is 160 km wide, does the Secretary of State accept that those weapons, if they remained in West German territory,
    1020
    could be trained only on East Germany or Czechoslovakia? They would be of use further eastwards only if they were based in East German territory. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the report in The Guardian that the Government are now not insisting on renewing those weapons? Can he give an undertaking that they will be brought into the negotiations on removing nuclear missiles in Europe?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard the end of my reply. At the press conference following the Anglo-German summit Chancellor Kohl and the Prime Minister reaffirmed the need for nuclear weapons. In my answer I said that nuclear weapons should continue to be based in Germany. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter was covered by the comprehensive concept agreed by the alliance in May 1989. Those matters do not need to be reviewed until 1992 and that is a sensible arrangement. Obviously these things must be worked out, but Chancellor Kohl has made it absolutely clear that he does not want Germany to be singularised in this respect. I have already quoted his belief in the need for the
    "full protection of NATO for the territory of Germany."
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those weapons play a particularly important political stabilising role vis-a-vis the unease on the other side of the iron curtain? As long as those weapons exist it will never be in anyone's interest to start a conventional war. It is no accident that we have had 45 years of peace in Europe while they have been around.
    Mr. King: In one sense, we have had 45 years of confrontation, which looks as though it is coming to an end. It is hoped that there will be a much more sensible and constructive relationship between east and west. If that is achieved and the more evil aspects of communism are defeated, as they have been throughout east European countries, one must ask why that will have happened without a shot being fired and without the millions of casualties that marked the two previous world wars. It must be because we stood by the policy of nuclear deterrence and flexible response which have proved triumphantly successful.
    Mr. Foot: Talking of defence prospects generally, as I suppose Ministers did at the summit, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just achieved the astonishing feat, in 1990, of producing a defence White Paper which, as far as I can discover, does not make a single reference to the non-proliferation treaty and the Government's obligations under it? Does that mean that the Government have given up any duty to carry out the obligations that the country undertook when making that treaty?
    Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on what he has said and consider in particular the matters that we included in the White Paper, well before the events at Heathrow last week. We warned specifically of the current dangers posed by some signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, who appear to have embarked on an attempt to achieve nuclear technology, and of the dangers of expansion of missile capability among no fewer than 11 developing countries. The right hon. Gentleman's response to all such dangers is that we should give up our defences for a start.
    Mr. Conway: Where does my right hon. Friend suppose that the nuclear missiles situated in Warsaw pact countries are pointed?
    Mr. King: It is significant that in the past year—Mr. Gorbachev's fifth year of office—the Soviet Union has deployed 450 new nuclear missiles. Although I believe that that is not a new policy, but an old one which has not yet been corrected and stopped, the missile threat is greater than it has ever been. We hope and believe strongly that the intention to use them is the least that it has ever been, but those weapons are a powerful reminder of the dangers from the present hardware of the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister accept that the rationale for short-range nuclear weapons is that the west might be willing to indulge in nuclear war fighting? In the light of the changes in eastern Europe, will the Minister explain the circumstances in which he thinks that might be possible? Is not it time to recognise the political reality—that by 1992 there will be no political will to accept the deployment of a follow-on to Lance in Germany—and should not the Government's policy be based on that?
    Mr. King: As I tried to make clear to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), that is covered in the comprehensive concept and now needs to be worked out in conjunction with our allies in NATO. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will at least support me on that. That is what we shall now do. Contrary to all the press preamble that there would be a great breakdown and strong division of views, the press reports of the Anglo-German summit on Friday were correct: there was an understanding between the United Kingdon Government and the Federal Republic about the right way forward on defence and related issues.
    Mr. Dunn: Is not it time that Opposition Members were reminded that it is entirely because of the defence policies of this country and of our allies that changes in the east are occurring? But we should not make commitments to reduce our offensive and defensive capability until there is stability, political growth and freedom in the eastern bloc.
    Mr. King: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) fails to recognise that the position that he adopted, quite honourably, has been proved fundamentally wrong. We have been proved absolutely right in standing for strong defence, the nuclear deterrent and flexible response. The NATO Alliance policy has brought the chance of freedom and hope to millions of people. We should celebrate that fact today.

    Defence Procurement
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he is undertaking in defence procurement policy in the light of recent reports by the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office.
    Mr. Alan Clark: I am satisfied that the existing policy of competition and a taut commercial approach to contracting will continue to give us value for money.
    Mr. Duffy: Despite the Minister's satisfaction, will he confirm that the development of new weapons has brought about overspending of nearly £2 billion and that nine contracts worth £4 billion will be delivered up to five years'
    1022
    late? Yet the Secretary of State for Defence assured the House in paragraph 302 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" that the policy pursued in recent years to provide for defence procurement on a cost-effective basis will be continued.
    Mr. Clark: Many wild figures are circulating and the £2 billion which the hon. Gentleman quoted was the figure given in an article by a Mr. David Hencke in The Guardian. Mr. Hencke formerly styled himself as social affairs correspondent, so I suppose that we should make allowances for any difficulties he may get into when he treads in the more complex world of defence procurement. However, there is no justification for throwing around figures of that size which do not make allowance for inflation.
    The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General stated:
    "None of the projects entering the statement for the first time in 1988 showed a variation in projected spend of 10 per cent. or more … The detrimental effects of older contracts would continue to be felt for some time".
    However, the Comptroller and Auditor General said that he expected to see the benefits of the Department's current procurement practice clearly reflected in future major project statements.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes which the Government have introduced in defence procurement over many years have resulted in better equipment, better value for money and better export potential? In that context, will he confirm that Vickers has now submitted the details of the second milestone test for the Challenger 2 tank? When will he be able to make an announcement about that?
    Mr. Clark: I shall be going to Vickers in the near future, and I expect that we shall have all the data we need to bring it forward in September.
    Mr. Rogers: The Minister is grossly unfair in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). The newspaper reporter did not concoct the figures in the article—they came from information provided by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
    The Government have been in office for almost 11 years and they like to promote an image of efficiency and good management, yet one after another the procurement disasters continue to occur—Foxhunter, DROPS, ALARM, Tucano—with billions of pounds wasted. When will the Government acknowledge their incompetence and sack the chief of the Procurement Executive?
    Mr. Clark: I understand why the hon. Gentleman fails to mention any programmes that are effective and efficient and which run to time and to cost—Warrior and Skyguard are good examples. The hon. Gentleman will know, as will the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr Duffy), with his ministerial experience—that cost overruns are endemic to major weapons procurement, for the very good reason that throughout the development and production stages we have to take account of changes and progress in enemy systems and in counter-measures. It is not like a contract for a million pairs of boots; it is a race in which the parameters are constantly moving as technology advances.

    West Germany
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the enhancement of short-range nuclear missiles in West Germany.
    Mr. Tom King: The Government are committed to the comprehensive concept agreed last May, when NATO reaffirmed the continued need for an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces which need to be kept up to date as necessary.
    Mr. Townsend: Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I supported the concept of enhancement a year ago. Following the recent dramatic political events in eastern Europe, however, is it not perfectly obvious that such an approach is now finally and firmly finished? Would not my right hon. Friend be wise to take the advice of former Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Carrington, who said in November, "This chapter is over"?
    Mr. King: I do not think that I can add to what I have said in answer to earlier questions. My hon. Friend knows that the matter is well contained in the agreement with our allies in the comprehensive concept and agreed by Chancellor Kohl and the Prime Minister. The matter will have to be worked out in conjunction with our allies in NATO.
    Mr. John Evans: If the British Government insist that NATO should maintain short-range nuclear weapons in West Germany, what arguments will they use to deny the Soviet Union the right to have similar missiles in East Germany?
    Mr. King: One of the biggest mistakes is to compare the position of NATO, whose forces are in western Europe by the invitation of the sovereign nations concerned, with that of the Warsaw pact where the unwelcomeness of Soviet troops is becoming increasingly apparent in every one of the countries involved.

    Service Personnel
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to retain trained service personnel.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: We have introduced a wide range of measures to improve retention. We are looking particularly at ways in which disruption of family life can be reduced and at increasing job satisfaction through contracting out more mundane tasks. In addition, bonus schemes are to be introduced for certain groups of personnel from January 1991.
    Mr. Moss: Does the Minister agree that to retain trained personnel it is critically important to reassure them that they have a continuing and necessary role to play in the defence of our country? Would not their morale slump dramatically if we were ever to adopt the defence policy advocated by the Labour party?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I indicated in answer to earlier questions, there is a deep apprehension among the armed forces about the implications of Labour's defence policy—or what we have seen of it so far.
    Mr. Cryer: Would not it be a fillip for our armed forces if they were told that the Government's policy of mass extermination through the use of nuclear weapons was to be completely abandoned because, for once, Government had decided to support the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty by cancelling Trident and supporting the 137 non-nuclear nations which also support the treaty on the basis that nuclear powers such as the United Kingdom will be getting rid of their nuclear weapons—a promise which the Government have continually betrayed?
    Mr. Hamilton: I know that the hon. Gentleman has held that view for a long time, in the teeth of the opposition of an almost overwhelming majority of people. In general, our service men are mindful of the fact that the Soviet Union remains a major nuclear power, and they are glad that Britain also has a nuclear deterrent. I am sure that they share my alarm at the fact that, despite the successes of the non-proliferation treaty, some countries are developing a nuclear capability. They, like me, would hate to face a future in which certain Third world countries had nuclear weapons while Britain had none.
    Mr. Allason: Members of the defence study group yesterday attended a long meeting on board HMS Norfolk. Some of us were struck by the number of chief petty officers who intended to leave that ship, despite the fact that it is the newest contribution to our naval defence forces. What steps does my hon. Friend intend to take to retain those very experienced men, who have some 15 years' experience behind them and who are the backbone of the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Hamilton: I have had similar reactions from senior naval petty officers. We are addressing a number of issues—for example, the review of allowances did not go down very well with the Royal Navy, and some of the worst aspects are now being reconsidered. We are also considering a number of other measures. We are mindful of the whole question of overstretch and the fact that people are working very hard and we are considering whether that could be wound down also.

    Defence Review
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the additional resources required to undertake a defence review.
    Mr. Tom King: As I told the House last month, we are examining options for change in the structure and deployment of our armed forces which will enable us to support and preserve the key elements of our defence provision in the light of changing international circumstances.
    Mr. Thompson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the White Paper published this week gives no sign of any changes in defence policy? Does he agree that the Government need to catch up with a changing world in relation to defence issues and that the White Paper does nothing to restore confidence in the Government among military personnel and the defence industry?
    Mr. King: As I made clear in my main answer, we are considering options for change to determine where there may be opportunities for improvement and for adjusting

    1025
    to the new position. In my introduction to the White Paper, I said that it was a time of great hope but also of great uncertainty. As I stand here today, the Soviet Union has just closed the border between Lithuania and Poland. It is only a week since certain equipment, clearly intended for nuclear weapons, was removed from an aircraft at Heathrow. I do not think that the House needs any reminding of the dangers and uncertainties that still exist.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the defence White Paper and I welcome his announcement of an inquiry into the various options which might be open to us, depending on a number of difficult factors—notably the outcome of the CFE talks in Vienna. Is he aware that there is no mention in the White Paper of what we believe to be a growing need for helicopters in the Army? Can he reassure the House that the Ministry of Defence has not lost interest in that? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the White Paper's photographic embellishments, which we attribute to his skills.
    Mr. King: Obviously, the provision of helicopters is a matter which we are dealing with in our options for change. I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about our approach. We hope that there will be considerable scope for economies. We hope that there will also be an opportunity for what I would call a services dividend to help to improve the conditions and alleviate some of the problems of service personnel. I make no apology to the House for our approach, which is not to announce, as the Labour party did, a £5 billion slash in defence expenditure across the board, but seriously to consider our future commitments and the threats that we might face. We wish to ensure that the defence of Britain is properly secured at all times.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that if we are to give him any credit for his review of options we are surely entitled to know what options are being reviewed? Do they cover troop reductions and, if so, what form do these take? What is the status of forward defence when the right hon. Gentleman seems not to know what the forward orders ought to be? Can he tell us what he means by a review of options in respect of flexible response when there are virtually no longer any weapons below strategic nuclear weapons available for such a doctrine? Lastly, can he assure the House that when the review of options has been completed, there will be a supplementary White Paper to give us the true picture of the Government's intentions with regard to the defence of this country?
    Mr. King: I should make it clear that I do not associate the hon. Gentleman with the Labour party motion to cut defence expenditure. Although it was carried by a two to one majority by his party, I know that it was carried in the face of his opposition at that time. The points that the hon. Gentleman makes are perfectly fair. I wish to see how we can have a wider discussion of these options. I am giving thought to that, but I cannot say what the actual form or timing will be.
    Mr. Jack: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the policy and intention of his Department to purchase the European fighter aircraft for the RAF at the conclusion of the aircraft's development phase?
    Mr. King: I can confirm that to my hon. Friend—the German Defence Minister, Dr. Stoltenberg, and 1 issued precisely such a statement at our previous meeting before the Anglo-German summit on Friday.

    Maritime Measures
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has considered any proposals on maritime confidence-building measures.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The greatest threat to stability in Europe comes from land-based forces. NATO's substantial proposals, tabled in Vienna in March 1989, have therefore concentrated on those.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that this grudging response to the widespread concern about the lack of safety with regard to nuclear weapons at sea will concern the British public? Surely he realises that nuclear weapons at sea could cause a nuclear war, and when will he do something about it?
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Lady must realise that the Madrid mandate applied to maritime activities in terms which covered amphibious activities but did not cover other maritime activities.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recall that it had been argued by Ministers previously that the major obstacle to naval arms reduction talks was the growing Soviet submarine threat? To support that view, in the Defence Estimates 1988 we were told that the Soviets were producing a new submarine every six weeks; yet in yesterday's White Paper, at figure 2, we find that the number of Warsaw pact nuclear-powered submarines is now 85—four fewer than last year's estimate of 89. Now is undoubtedly an excellent time, in consultation with our NATO allies, to take up naval arms talks with a view to reducing naval forces, and the Secretary of State should press that view vigorously.
    Mr. Hamilton: The reduction in the number of Soviet submarines had more to do with the fact that redundant ones are being replaced by more modern ones in terms of capability. I doubt whether it means a reduction. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is not right to compare our naval forces with those of the Soviet Union because we depend on our naval forces in the Atlantic for reinforcements, while the Soviets can reinforce over land. So we are not comparing like with like.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Last Thursday the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) drew attention to discussions and undue noise just prior to Prime Minister's Question Time. This is very apparent today. I ask the House to listen to the Questions Time.

    East Germany
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the result of the East German election.
    Mr. Tom King: We warmly welcome the holding of democratic elections in East Germany and hope that the changes there will enhance the security of all European

    1027
    nations. The United Kingdom will continue to maintain its commitment to NATO, which provides the best guarantee of peace and security in Europe.
    Mr. Steinberg: As a result of the election in East Germany, does the Minister agree that it is inconceivable that Germans would nuke fellow Germans? In that respect, will he make certain that British policy is to reject the Lance and not to improve it any further?
    Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Member was in the Chamber for the earlier questions on precisely this issue. He may be totally ignorant of the fact that we had the Anglo-German summit, when we had the pleasure of welcoming Chancellor Kohl who played such a signal part in the success of the centre right in the elections in East Germany, and in which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor reached such a clear agreement with him on these issues.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the progress of the European fighter aircraft.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Development is proceeding satisfactorily. More than 85 per cent of the contracts for the development phase have already been let.
    Mr. Stern: Will the Minister take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's faith in this project, the engines for which are built in my constituency? Did he notice the start of a campaign of denigration against the project, which was apparent among the Opposition in the last Parliament, and has he noticed that a similar attempt to unsettle the work force is already starting?
    Mr. Clark: I deplore that. The Government are completely behind the project. That was confirmed as recently as last Friday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the German Defence Minister. We have no doubt whatever that the European fighter aircraft will be the dominant air superiority fighter in the year 2000.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr Viggers: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I 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 state banquet in honour of the President of India.
    Mr. Viggers: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. In the light of recent shocking acts of violence, does my right hon. Friend agree it is the duty of all responsible political leaders not only to express words but to take all actions open to them to influence others to obey the law in every respect?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. No one is above the law. We must all obey it. That is what
    1028
    the rule of law is. All responsible leaders should encourage every other person to obey the law and take the requisite action to do so.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not obvious to anyone who has observed the Prime Minister in recent days that she was rightly horrified by the injuries done to the public, the police and property last Saturday? Is it not equally clear, however, that she can barely conceal her delight at the diversion and uproar provided—[Interruption.] When it comes to extremists, the difference is that I fight them whereas the Prime Minister needs them.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense on both counts. Yes, I was deeply concerned at the scenes. I am deeply concerned that it is not the first time that the police have been injured in upholding the rights of ordinary citizens. During the coal dispute, 1,392 police were injured and at Wapping, 572 police were injured. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would remember, before he makes such accusations, the scenes outside Grunwick, at the Stockport Messenger, at Warwick, at Wapping and the scenes we saw last week and which we all condemn.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister exposes herself even more. By dredging through all those past acts, she demonstrates exactly the truth of what I said earlier. Those who affect to despise her policies most give the greatest comfort to the right hon. Lady, but she derides that comfort and encourages further uproar.
    The Prime Minister: Nonsense—the right hon. Gentleman is trying far too hard and not succeeding. Does he condemn the 28 or 30 Members on his own side who seek to break the law? What does he say to people who throughout the years in the Labour party have not always said that it was necessary to obey the law? The hon. member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), speaking about rate capping, said:
    "In the local authority situation do you obey the law or not obey the law? We don't have any firm principles in the party"—
    The Labour party—
    "of how we might deal with the problem".
    Mr. Soames: Would my right hon. Friend find time today to send a message to Mr. Mugabe to congratulate him on his re-election and on the considerable progress made in Zimbabwe in the past 10 years? Will she also express to Mr. Mugabe the great concern of a number of people in this country at the prospect of Zimbabwe sliding into a one-party state? Will she urge him to readopt the principles of the Lancaster house agreement which have so honourably served Zimbabwe in the past 10 years?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course we congratulate President Mugabe. As my hon. Friend points out, the principles on which the election were fought were very different from the principles in the Lancaster house constitutional agreement, but Mr. Mugabe upheld that during the appointed time for the entrenched clauses. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very different when one has a one-party state. Obviously, those are the things that he is thinking of. May I also point out we help considerably in Zimbabwe as our armed forces train the Zimbabwe armed forces and the Mozambique armed forces to fight terrorism in that country.
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patchett: We hope that the right hon. Lady is better briefed today than she was last Thursday. Can she now explain to the House why 42,000 student nurses on low incomes should be subject to the full rate of poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refers to 42,000 student nurses who are training and who receive a salary. Other student nurses who go on to Project 2000—which will very shortly be most student nurses—will receive a considerable bursary. Once they receive that bursary they will be treated as students and they will receive a rebate of 80 per cent. of the community charge. When nurses receive a salary during the course of their training they will be treated in exactly the same way as other young people who receive a salary in the course of their training. The hon. Gentleman might not like it, but that is the answer.
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Speller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the unexpected and unplanned size of the community charge throughout the country the most logical way to assist everyone of every type and class might be to transfer one large chunk of Government-sponsored money such as education or teachers' salaries from the community charge to the income tax budget?
    The Prime Minister: If we were to do that we might put a great deal of extra expenditure on to the taxpayer. Teachers' salaries might put 5p extra on to income tax without any guarantee of a reduction in the community charge because some local authorities would increase their expenditure and we would finish up with much higher income tax and the same community charge. First we must consider how to restrict extravagant spending by local authorities.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that on the crucial question of Britain's full membership of the European monetary system she now risks the same deadly uncertainty over Government policy which cost her a Chancellor of the Exchequer and Britain a plummeting pound and high inflation only a few months ago? Does she disagree with the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom have recently said that the only obstacle that prevents Britain joining the exchange rate mechanism will be removed once high inflation is curbed?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that we stand by the Madrid conditions—which the hon. Gentleman can read as they have been given in Parliament many times—that first, there is no hindrance to the free movement of capital around the Community—some hindrances still remain; Italy has not removed all controls—also that we should have clear freedom of movement for financial services and, further, that we carry out stage one of the Delors report and that we get inflation down to the
    1030
    middle of the European Community. When those conditions are fulfilled we shall join. Considerable progress has been made as other members of the Community are now following our example by getting rid of many of the controls on the movement of capital—a process which we completed years ago.
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the statement by Mr. Andy Murphy on BBC television that as leader of the punk anarchist group Class War he thought that those who attacked the police on Saturday were justified in so doing and that they are working class heroes? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Mr. Murphy is apparently employed by the London borough of Hackney as a finance officer? Does she not think that he should be dismissed?
    The Prime Minister: All decent people find any such remarks utterly repugnant and support the police in their arduous task in the front line. Anyone who makes such a remark should have nothing to do with the democratic process because they must be flatly against it.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1979 the cost to the taxpayer of running Downing street was £1¼ million and that 10 years later that cost has soared by more than 400 per cent.—a bigger percentage increase in expenditure than any local authority in Britain—and that that does not even include the cost of the gates? Is not the fortress of Madam Ceausescu therefore a suitable case for poll tax capping?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was better at mathematics. If he will make his comparisons on the same basis, he will find that our running costs compare very favourably both with central Government and with local authorities. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman would have preferred Downing street, which is an historic house, to be attacked and greatly damaged. Its repair would have cost much more than the gates.
    Mr. Atkinson: With regard to the situation in Lithuania, and now Estonia, does my right hon. Friend agree that the secret protocol of 1939 makes the Baltic states a very special case and that it would be both immoral and illegal to ignore their continued appeals for self-determination and independence? Will not the CSCE summit later this year be the appropriate forum in which to resolve that matter?
    The Prime Minister: I have indicated before in the House that this country never recognised the legality of the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union. Thus, we have never had any representation in those states and we do not recognise the legality of their annexation now. The Helsinki accord recognised the boundaries in fact but not in law. Two countries have made clear their views about self-determination.

    1031
    Nevertheless, it will be very wise to urge politicians in both Lithuania and Estonia, as well as in Moscow, to resolve their differences by dialogue and discussion. I am sure that that is in the interests of the countries concerned and ourselves.
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Prime Minister aware that one year's experience of the poll tax in Scotland makes it abundantly clear that no amount of time can heal the running sore of a tax which robs the poor to pay the rich? Does the right hon. Lady recall telling me in a parliamentary answer this time last year that I should
    1032
    donate my unwanted and ill-gotten poll tax gains to charity? What does the right hon. Lady intend to do with the £1,500 that she will gain at the expense of the long-suffering people of London?
    The Prime Minister: I now pay community charge in two places. The hon. Gentleman may take it from me that I shall continue to be generous with the money that I have—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to others in the House.
    The Prime Minister: Like the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I shall continue to be generous to the charities which I believe in and support with the moneys that I have, whether or not they are allowed for tax.

Community Charge Capping
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about community charge capping in England.
Local authorities have now set their budgets and charges for 1990–91. Authorities' budgets total £35·8 billion. This is a 16 per cent. increase on 1989–90 and 9 per cent. above the figure for total standard spending of £32·8 billion which we provided in our settlement. Overall, charge payers are being asked to contribute about 30 per cent. more than domestic ratepayers in 1989–90, despite the fact that we increased central support to local authorities by 8·5 per cent.
It is deplorable that local authorities have chosen to budget at these levels, putting an unacceptable burden on local people. There is no justification for the level of charges which many authorities have in practice set. The average charge is £363 in England, ranging from a horrendous £573 in Labour-controlled Haringey to £148 in Conservative-controlled Wandsworth. It is little wonder that strong feelings have been expressed up and down the country about the level of many charges, and I can understand the feelings of outrage of a number of my hon. Friends when faced with the burdens that some authorities have chosen to impose on local people.
The simple fact is that high charges are the direct result of authorities' own budget decisions over the years. In time, I believe that the ballot box will bring greater prudence and realism—[Interruption.]—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Patten:—to local spending decisions. That is the local accountability which is central to our new system of local government finance.
But Parliament has given me powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to cap those authorities whose budgets are excessive and to require them to reduce their excessive plans. We have always recognised that in the early years of the new system the new accountability pressures would not be fully effective, and there may be a greater need for capping. After having carefully examined all the information available to me about local authorities' budgets, I have to tell the House that I have decided to exercise my capping powers for 1990–91.
Under the 1988 Act I can select authorities for charge capping if, in my opinion, their budgets are either excessive or represent an excessive increase over the previous year. I am not empowered to select any authority whose budget is below the statutory threshold of £15 million. For 1990–91, I have decided to select authorities whose budgets are in my opinion excessive in absolute terms.
Selection of authorities for capping has to be on the basis of general principles—[Laughter.]
Mr Speaker: Order.
Mr. Patten: I cannot pick and choose. I can adopt different principles for different classes of authority, but the principles should apply equally to all authorities within the same class. I have decided for 1990–91 to apply the same principles to all the classes of authority in the Act,
1034
except that, for inner London boroughs, I have decided to make a special allowance for overspending inherited from the Inner London education authority.
The best measure of the excessiveness of an authority's budget is an assessment of its overspend against its standard spending assessment. That overspend represents the sum by which its budget exceeds the amount that we consider it appropriate for the authority to spend to provide a standard level of service consistent with total standard spending of £32·8 billion. That is similar to the approach that we adopted when selecting authorities for rate capping, when we used the benchmark of overspend against grant-related expenditure.
The principles that I am adopting are as follows. First, for the purposes of capping I judge an authority's budget to be excessive if it exceeds its SSA by at least 12·5 per cent. and by at least £75 per adult. Secondly, an authority is designated for capping only where its overspend per adult above the 12·5 per cent. £75 per adult benchmark for excessiveness is at least £26 per adult. That is a £26 per adult de minimis provision to avoid requiring authorities to reduce their budgets for the sake of only a small reduction in the burden on their charge payers.
The special allowance that I am making for inherited ILEA overspend means that for inner-London boroughs I have deducted from each borough's budget, for the purposes of comparison with the SSA, the amount of its inner London education grant entitlement as set out in the special grant report approved by the House on 18 January —[Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think this a matter for hilarity.
Mr. Patten: By applying those principles to authorities' budgets for 1990–91, I am designating 20 authorities for capping. These are, in alphabetical order: Avon, Barnsley, Basildon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Brent—Mort. MEMBERS: "Labour."] That is not very surprising—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a busy day ahead of us. This is a long statement with a great deal of detail. I ask the House to listen to it.
Mr. Patten: I will tell Opposition Members why it is not very surprising: I would have almost to reach No. 60 before I came to a Conservative authority. In alphabetical order, the authorities are: Avon, Barnsley, Basildon, Brent, Bristol, Calderdale, Camden—
Hon. Members: We cannot hear!
Mr. Speaker: Order. How can the House possibly hear what is going on—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Sit down, please. I ask the House to give the Secretary of State a hearing. When there is so much baying going on, how can anyone hear?
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Secretary of State read out the list for the first time, he did not read out the word Barnsley. When he read it the second time, Barnsley was included.
Mr. Speaker: Order. So much baying was going on that the list was difficult for any hon. Member to hear. I suggest

1035
that, for the good order of the House, the Secretary of State should read out the list of local authorities again. I ask the House to listen to him in silence.
Mr. Patten: I shall give the House the list again: Avon —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Barnsley—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Basildon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Brent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Bristol—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Calderdale—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Camden—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Derbyshire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Doncaster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Greenwich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Hammersmith and Fulham —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Haringey—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Hillingdon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Islington—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; North Tyneside— [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Rochdale [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Rotherham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; St. Helens—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Southwark—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; and Wigan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."].
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. I must say again that we are under a timetable today and this is a long statement.
Mr. Patten: All those authorities are budgeting significantly in excess of their SSAs, both relative to the SSAs themselves and in terms of pounds per adult. For the information of the House, I am laying in the Library tables showing for all authorities how their budgets compare with their SSAs. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
I am not today designating Lambeth. That must give a great deal of pleasure to the Opposition. That council set a budget of over £305 million early in March. I understand that last Thursday, about three weeks after making that budget, it changed its mind, and set a new lower budget and a charge of £548. Under the statute, the council has seven days from then to supply me with the information that I need to take my decisions in relation to that authority. To date, it has not done so. When I receive the information, I shall apply the principles that I have determined for inner London boroughs to Lambeth's budget. If its budget is more than £284·2 million, on this basis, Lambeth would be capped.
Some of the overspends are spectacular by any standards. For Basildon, for example, it is 194 per cent. and £154 per adult above SSA. For Greenwich, it is 32 per cent. and £314 per adult above SSA, even after allowing for inner London education grant.
For each of the 20 authorities designated on the basis of my general principles, I am also proposing caps—that is, the levels to which we propose authorities should reduce their budgets. I have made available in the Vote Office and shall be printing in the Official Report a table showing for each designated authority the cap that I am proposing and the budget cuts implied by it. In each case, I am satisfied on the basis of all the information available to me that my proposals are reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the individual authorities concerned. The reductions in the charge which would be implied by the caps range from around £100 in the case of Hammersmith and Fulham to about £30 in the case of St. Helens.
As required by statute, I am today notifying each authority that it has been designated for capping, the principles on the basis of which it has been designated and the amount of the cap that I propose. The authorities then
1036
have 28 days in which to tell me, if they wish, whether they accept the amount proposed. If they do not, they must suggest an alternative figure together with the reasons for it. In such circumstances, it is open to me to set the final cap at a higher, lower or, indeed, the same level as the one I proposed. If an authority does not accept my proposed cap, I have to set the cap by order, a draft of which must be approved by the House.
Once the final caps have been set, the authorities concerned have to set new, lower budgets reflecting their caps. These then feed through to new, lower charges for the charge payer. How long the process takes depends in part on how authorities react to the caps that I am proposing today, but I expect all authorities to have set new budgets by June or July, with new charges for charge payers following as soon as possible thereafter.
I must say this to the House: I would much rather not have had to use my capping powers. But Parliament has provided them to protect the charge payer against excessive spending, and it is clearly right that I should use them. I am satisfied that the authorities that I have selected are in this position and that their budgets should be reduced. My proposals will do just this to the benefit of over 4 million charge payers.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Secretary of State recognise that his statement is a final admission of the failure of the poll tax? Has he not fatally undermined and discredited the only virtues ever claimed for the poll tax—that it would somehow be simple and would improve accountability? If accountability is the key, why could he not wait for the voters to pass judgment on 3 May?
The right hon. Gentleman's statement means that accountability has gone out of the window; all that we are left with is a search for scapegoats. Is it not a remarkable achievement—not to say a suspect achievement—to have concocted a list that miraculously excludes every single Tory authority? Have not the criteria been carefully, not to say tortuously, selected to produce a predetermined political outcome?
If the object really was to relieve hard-pressed poll tax payers, why are Tory councils such as Dartford and Leominster, in which bills have risen by 73 per cent., not on the list, while Haringey, at only 6 per cent., is included? Why is Tory Windsor and Maidenhead, with a poll tax bill of £449, excluded while Calderdale, at only £297, is caught? Why, if increased spending is the criterion, is Tory Berkshire, with an increase of 20·6 per cent., left out, while Brent, at 1·4 per cent., is on the list?
If the Secretary of State is really concerned to reduce excessively high poll tax bills, why does he not accept that bills right across the country are, on average, £85 above Government estimates; that there is no significant difference between Tory and Labour councils on that score; and that the problem arises from the serious miscalculations made by the Secretary of State, to which charge capping can be only a marginal and partisan response?
What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the extra costs of sending out revised bills and recalculating rebates? What estimate has he made of the losses of income that charge-capped authorities will suffer through the impact on cash flow? What estimate has he made of the cuts that will be needed, not just to meet charge cap levels but to cover the extra costs and losses that charge capping will impose?

1037
How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that five authorities—Brent, Calderdale, Hammersmith, Haringey and Hillingdon—have been charge-capped to a point below their assumed charge? Why are councils that contribute to the safety net, such as Brent, Camden, Islington and Basildon, charge-capped, in some cases in circumstances in which they contribute more to the safety net than the margin by which they are charge-capped?
Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement and his charge capping will be universally regarded as a political fix, as a rigged list drawn up in a cynical and desperate last throw to salvage something from the wreckage? Is he not revealing just how disreputable the Government's current aims are? They have given up trying to make the poll tax work. They have given up trying to help the oppressed poll tax payers. Their sole and squalid aim now is to shift the blame for the whole poll tax fiasco for which they alone are responsible.
Mr. Patten: Perhaps in view of the stress that the hon. Gentleman placed on the selection of the criteria, I should take him and the House through the arguments for the criteria. I take it that the House will want me to do so reasonably patiently so that it knows exactly why we chose these criteria—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brian SedgemoreGet the fraud squad in.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State was asked detailed questions and he must have a chance to answer them.
Mr. Patten: First, we had to take account, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, of sections 100 to 102 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Secondly, we had to take account of legal precedents and the way in which rate capping was applied in the past. On that basis, we decided on the criteria that I announced. Just as in the past we used the grant distribution formula—the GRE—as the basis for rate capping, so it seemed perfectly reasonable to take the SSA as the basis for charge capping, since it is expenditure and bills above the SSA which represent excessive spending and charging.
There is a political point—[Laughter]—which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) would do well to take into account. Labour shire counties are setting precepts about £82 over SSA while Conservative shire counties are setting precepts £25 above SSA. Labour shire districts are setting charges £47 above SSA while Conservative districts are setting charges £8 above SSA. Labour metropolitan districts are setting charges £94 above SSA while Conservative metropolitan districts are setting charges £21 above SSA. Labour London boroughs are setting charges —216 a head above SSA while Conservative boroughs are setting charges £3 above SSA. If the hon. Gentleman seeks an explanation of why there are no Conservative authorities on the list, it is in those figures.
The hon. Gentleman referred to several specific authorities and in doing so showed that he is not very familiar with local government finance. Dartford and Leominster cannot be included in the criteria because they have budgets below £15 million and are specifically excluded by the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
1038
The hon. Gentleman also failed to take account of Conservative authorities that are making contributions into the safety net and Labour authorities that are taking money out of the safety net. That makes rather a lot of difference to the figures that the hon. Gentleman used.
Let me come to costs. We reckon that the costs per authority will be about £200,000 per charging authority and that the total costs will be between £6 million and £7 million for all the authorities that we are charge-capping. I wish that the local authorities that set excessive spending levels had thought about that disruption before they set out on a course that penalises their charge payers.
I shall deal with the principle of accountability, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. On the "Today" programme last week—I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition or his hon. Friends are aware of this—the hon. Gentleman said:
"There must always be in extremis a reserve power to cap."
In the hon. Gentleman's view, there is no argument about principle. It is right that there should be a reserve power to cap. What I ask the hon. Gentleman—
Hon. Members: You should be answering.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not carry on conversations or point, across the Chamber; that is very disorderly.
Mr. Patten: I take it that Opposition Members do not want me to make this point, because they have no answer to it.
What are the circumstances in which the reserve powers would be used? Would they be used in the case of Basildon which has spent 194 per cent. over SSA, or £154 per head? Is that in extremis? Would they be used in Greenwich, which has spent 31·8 per cent. over SSA, which is equivalent to £314 a head? Let the hon. Member for Dagenham tell us that those are circumstances in which he would use those reserve powers.
The hon. Member for Dagenham has once again forgotten that the purpose of my proposals is not to penalise councils, but to protect charge payers.
Mr. Robin Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread agreement that, in the circumstances of this year, the decision to cap a number of local authorities was inevitable and correct? Does he accept that the decision to limit that to a lower number of authorities than previously circulated is also wise? The response of the Labour party to my right hon. Friend's statement, its derision and humour, will be different from that of people living in the districts and council areas concerned. They will whole-heartedly welcome the relief that he has announced today to many community charge payers.
Mr. Patten: We hear a good deal about the alleged concern of Opposition Members about the impact on the charge payer. I imagine that they will be delighted that my proposals will, for example, help some pensioner households to the tune of £200 in some local authorities.
I accept what my hon. Friend said and I repeat the argument that I advanced earlier. If we had produced a list of nearly 60 local authorities, we might have caught a Conservative one, but the reason why Labour local authorities are on the list is that it is principally Labour local authorities which overspend and set excessive charges.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Bearing in mind the fact that the Government have always maintained that one of the major benefits of the community charge is an increase in local accountability, does the Secretary of State agree that his statement makes a mockery of that, particularly as many of the areas listed will hold elections in the near future when people can make their views known in the usual way?
Mr. Patten: I could not, as I am sure the hon. Lady will accept, have different criteria according to whether some local authorities had elections this year.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will have noticed that her borough of Greenwich is spending 31·8 per cent. over SSA, or £314 per adult. In circumstances in which the Association of London Authorities, a Labour organisation, is suggesting that Labour authorities should discuss whether they can get away with the highest possible charge, I believe that it is reasonable for us to use our powers this year.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement is very welcome in Derbyshire? I speak for my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) as well. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Derbyshire, school meals charges have not been increased since 1981 and home help services are completely free to everyone? Whether that is Labour party policy or not, it is sheer foolishness. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be possible to reduce net budgets in Derbyshire without damaging the central services?
Mr. Patten: I believe that my hon. Friend is entirely right in making that argument, and I have chosen the cap for Derbyshire with that very much in mind. I am aware, as is my hon. Friend, that Derbyshire is spending 25 per cent. over SSA or £157 per adult and that is causing considerable expense to my hon. Friend's constituents.
Mr. Martin Redmond: That statement was the most stupid, irresponsible one that we have ever heard. The Secretary of State may not be aware that the financial year for local authorities has already started. Will he confirm that he has had documentation from every authority on budgetary matters? Will he tell the authorities that he has capped, which schools, teachers and services they will lose?
Mr. Patten: I have no doubt that in the next few weeks there will be a parade of bleeding stumps in a number of local authorities. I believe strongly that the caps that I have proposed will enable local authorities to run their services at a reasonable level. I repeat the point which I made in my statement so that all local authorities and all hon. Members are aware of it: Labour or other authorities which disagree with the cap that I have proposed can, if they wish, make alternative suggestions. I then have to consider them, and we shall come back to the House to debate the issue here.
Mr. David Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread rejoicing in my constituency at his decision to cap our charge and give interim protection against the worst excesses of socialist overspending? He is the toast of Basildon. Does my right hon. Friend agree that with the local council being 194 per
1040
cent. over standard spending assessment it could easily make savings without affecting essential or sensible local services?
Mr. Patten: The whole House will be aware that Basildon's idea of prudent financing has meant that it has been capped in 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89. Last year, Basildon proposed an increase in local rates of 57 per cent. It is budgeting at 194·3 per cent. over SSA or £154 per adult, which is wholly deplorable.
Mr. Allen McKay: It would appear that £10 million is to be taken away From Barnsley. Does the Secretary of State realise that, of that £10 million, £1·8 million is the extra cost of running the poll tax, £3 million is the extra cost of the police and fire services which were not previously there, and £5 million is the extra cost of grants? The local authority now has the choice of sacking teachers or doing away with all non-statutory education facilities. Does the Secretary of State realise that he has stopped the council trying to regenerate an area with 14·1 per cent. unemployment? Does he realise that this despised tax should be disposed of, rather than the people of that area being penalised? Does he realise that not only are the people groaning in despair at the poll tax but that they will now have to suffer the further consequences as the Government try to justify something about which they have made a terrible mistake?
Mr. Patten: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that a large number of his constituents will be pleased that their community charge will be reduced by £60—that is, more than £2 per week—for a pensioner household. Even—
Mr. Kevin McNamara: That is wrong—the Secretary of State should do his arithmetic.
Mr. Patten: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet. I said that for a pensioner couple it would be more than £2 per week.
Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State did not say pensioner, he said household.
Mr. Patten: I have not changed what I said, and I think that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not help if we have a dialogue between the Front Bench and Ministers. The Secretary of State is answering questions from a Back-Bench Member.
Mr. Patten: Even with the proposals that I have made, the cap would still mean that Barnsley was spending 17·7 per cent., or £118 per adult, more than SSA. Its original plans would have meant a 19·2 per cent. increase over the resealed GRE—the former formula. It is worth bearing that in mind.
Mr. Michael Stern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today will be received with rapture by all my constituents, no matter what their party affiliation? To underline the extent of the relief that he has given to Bristol and Avon, since he has capped two councils that affect my constituency, will he tell the House how much reduction he proposes for the citizens of Bristol and other parts of Avon?
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's constituents will be pleased to know that, as a result of our capping the

1041
expenditure proposals of Avon and Bristol, they will save £64: that is—I emphasise the point for the sake of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)— over £120 for a pensioner couple.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Is it not a fact that because of this late announcement and the short time that they will have to produce the new billing caused by rate capping, many authorities will face a considerable extra cost on top of the poll tax itself? Many bills have already been drafted and will now have to be altered. Is it not also true that the Conservative Government have underestimated the power of the people and that the power of the people will come back to them at the next election?
Could not the Secretary of State have thought of a better system, such as local income tax based on the ability to pay—a system already proven in Sweden, Canada and other countries? Would not this have been a better system than the present shambles?
Mr. Patten: I think that I answered the question about costs fully in response to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) when I said that we reckoned that the cost for each charging authority would be about £200,000 and that the total cost for all those which had been capped would be between £6 million and £7 million. That has been taken account of in my proposals on caps.
As for the hon. Gentleman's proposals on local government finance, I applaud him because at least his party has proposals on the future of local government finance; the proposals seem not to have acted like a magnet in attracting people to the party, but I commend the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for their honesty. I note that we still await with interest and enthusiasm the proposals on local government finance from the official Opposition.
Mr. Bob Dunn: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement. Earlier, the House will have heard the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) refer to Dartford as a Conservative authority which in his view should be charge-capped. I resent his attack upon the people of Dartford. The only person who speaks for Dartford in this House is me. I also point out that there were wrong assumptions in the statement of the hon. Member for Dagenham: his figures are wrong and Dartford, because it falls below the threshold of £15 million, is ineligible for charge capping. I hope that the hon. Member for Dagenham will withdraw his slur on the people of Dartford.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has put the record straight. I tried to do so myself in responding to the hon. Member for Dagenham who was unaware, when he put the question, of the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will be £1,331 better off under the poll tax arrangements, even before the new capping arrangements come into force? This is a further windfall for her. Should we not have had something different—not the formula that we now have, which is gobbledegook, but a change in the original formula which messed up the grant in many areas, depending on their
1042
nature? If the area was mixed in class terms, if it was both a rural and an urban area, and if it had people moving in and out of it, it lost grant all along the line. That is what affected Derbyshire, not the nonsense talked by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South.
Mr. Patten: Since, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman has said that he will not pay the community charge, I am somewhat reluctant to answer his question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If he carries out his decision, it will mean that, as a militant freeloader, he will oblige his constituents to pay higher bills. That does not seem to me to be very egalitarian, but perhaps it is what passes for socialism these days.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the citizens of Hammersmith and Fulham will be extremely grateful for his protection from their gambling, grossly overspending and immensely inefficient council? My right hon. Friend knows that the council has already potentially lost some £200 million on the money markets through its inefficiency. However, he may not know that that has pushed up its expenditure by 80 per cent. since 1986, even allowing for education. It has employed 1,000 additional people in the town hall, and that is before it takes on responsibility for education services. We are extremely grateful for my right hon. Friend's protection, which I trust will continue through future years.
Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will be pleased that their individual charges will go down by about £100. Even in the Labour party, Hammersmith and Fulham borough council is not a by-word for fiscal prudence. As my hon. Friend suggested, its spending plans were intended to rise by more than 21 per cent. on top of SSA, or £239 per charge payer.
Mr. Roger Stott: Is the Secretary of State aware that the metropolitan borough of Wigan is not a profligate or irresponsible authority? That was acknowledged—it is on the record—by the Under-Secretary of State when I led a delegation to meet him a couple of months ago. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Wigan has already lost £22 million in grant this year and is having a difficult time trying to run its services. Will he acknowledge that the poll tax that it has had to levy is necessary to sustain the level of services for which the councillors were elected? Is he aware that more than 100,000 letters have already been sent, and that the borough treasurer estimates that it will cost at least £500,000 to re-bill poll tax payers in the borough? Will he say—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please—
Mr. Stott: Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are under a time pressure today.
Mr. Stott: I am aware of that.
Will the Secretary of State answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about authorities that are rate-capped and find it difficult to raise money on the money markets, but have to do so at very high interest rates? Can the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is unfair to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues as I shall not be able to call all of them.
Mr. Stott: I very rarely ask questions in the House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not matter. The hon. Gentleman is on equal footing with everyone else in the House. He must be fair to his colleagues.
Mr. Stott: I shall try to be fair to my colleagues, but I am raising an important matter.
What services in the metropolitan borough of Wigan will have to be cut when the budget is reduced by £10 million? How many teachers, how many housing associations, how many meals-on-wheels, how many social services will have to be cut?
Mr. Patten: I realise why the hon. Gentleman wants to put those points about his constituency so vigorously. However, I must point out to him that, as I understand it, Wigan council had reserves of almost £11·5 million at 1 April, of which it was planning to use £4 million in 1990–91. Against that background, and against some other figures that I shall give to the hon. Gentleman, I do not regard our proposed cap as unreasonable.
Wigan council was proposing to spend 13·1 per cent. over its 1989–90 budget. Our reduction in the charge of around £43 will, I think, be popular with his constituents. The total external finance which is going into Wigan in the coming year is £121·9 million. That represents £527 per adult. I repeat that, against that background, I have put forward proposals which are reasonable. But again I say that, if Wigan council wishes to make proposals for a different cap, we will listen to them and consider them and then we shall have to come back to the House and give it our views.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to all, I ask for single questions, please. That will be equally fair to hon. Members on all sides of the House.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hillingdon is not a Labour-controlled council, as Opposition Front-Bench Members seem to think, but a hung council? Will he tell the House by how much that council exceeds its SSA, what that means in terms of each individual and what the cap will be?
Mr. Patten: Hillingdon council was proposing to spend £151 million. That represented 20 per cent. over SSA, or £143 per adult over SSA. We are proposing a reduction of £9·3 million, with a cap, therefore, of £141·7 million. That would mean that charges would go down by around £53 a head.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, last May, the people of Derbyshire, who know a great deal more about their own needs that he does, overwhelmingly re-elected the Labour majority there?
Mrs. Currie: And now they are regretting it.
Mr. Benn: And the hon. Lady has benefited greatly by the poll tax, as has been said.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the poll tax, and now the capping, combined with the destruction of the Inner London education authority that began on the
1044
morning of 1 April, represent a far greater and more sustained threat to democracy in Britain than what occurred in Whitehall and the west end on Saturday?
Mr. Patten: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's observations and his casuistry on the question whether citizens should obey the law have gone well beyond even his own distant bounds. I think that many people in the House, observing the right hon. Gentleman's career, wish that he had followed the example that he so often suggests and chained himself to railings far distant long ago.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, while the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) may be well able to afford to pay the massive community charge levied by Derbyshire county council, many of my constituents who are above the rebate level are completely unable to pay the charge at the level at which it was to be levied, and that this announcement today that the council is to be charge-capped will give them at least some comfort? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the county council will not have to cut a single teacher or policeman in order to meet these new spending figures?
Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposals that I have made should enable the Derbyshire county council to run its services at a reasonable level without disruption, as I said earlier. Derbyshire county council was proposing a 19·5 per cent. increase over its 1989–90 budget. The cap that I have proposed will reduce the community charge by around £56 a head. I think that that will be welcomed by my hon. Friend's constituents and by many other people in Derbyshire.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will the Secretary of State concede that the whole of this capping exercise is on the basis that he got the SSAs correct? If he has made a mistake in that respect, is he prepared to admit that mistake subsequently and undo the damage that he has done today? Secondly, can he explain to the House why in St. Helens, where the overall expenditure this year has risen by only just over 7 per cent.—less than inflation—we should suddenly find that we are to be charge-capped to the tune of £30 a head? Could it just be that the SSAs are completely wrong in St. Helens, and that this whole matter is a complete disgrace?
Mr. Patten: The actual increase in spending in the coming year in St. Helens—
Mr. Bermingham: Answer the question.
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman does not have the figures quite right. The figures are substantially in excess of that—[Horn. MEMBERS: "What are they?"]—16·1 per cent.—[Interruption.] If the St. Helens council has different figures or wishes to appeal against the figures that we have proposed, there is provision in the law for it to do so.
Even if one took not SSAs but GREs, the former system, all the local authorities that we have capped today would have been spending, to take the mean figure for all of them, 26 per cent. above the resealed GREs.
Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that ordinary citizens and businesses and industrial and manufacturing companies will be delighted—[Interruption]—that for the first time, local authorities are having to put up with the same restraints

1045
and constraints that those people and businesses have had to put up with through the imposition year after year of rates and community charges well above inflation?
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is wholly correct. Calderdale was planning to spend 20·9 per cent., or £160 per adult, over SSA. It is receiving in total external finance next year £81·9 million, which is £570 per adult. As a result of the decision that I have made today, charges in Calderdale will be cut by £52 or thereabouts.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Is the Minister aware that the only true criterion by which to judge the expenditure of any local authority is whether it is providing a service that meets the needs of the people it represents? How can the right hon. Gentleman, sitting in his office in Marsham street and drooling over his SSAs, claim to know more about that than the people who have been elected to do the job? It is hypocritical for the right hon. Gentleman to talk in the same statement about the ballot box and accountability and then personally to destroy the most basic principle of democracy.
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has not taken on board the point that the Labour party has no objection in principle to charge capping—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said on the "Today" radio programme last week—and he repeated the statement—that the Labour party accepted that there was a case for charge capping. So the only issue is where one charge-caps, and I believe that for the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the other 19 authorities, we have taken a sensible decision, which in his constituency will save charge payers £39 each.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the euphoria of many of my hon. Friends whose authorities have been capped will not be reflected in Cleveland, where my long-suffering constituents in Middlesbrough do not meet the criteria—[Interruption.]—which is not surprising, because the whole basis of the SSA is flawed and without any meaning whatever? Until the Government get the SSA right, they will not get capping right. The answer must be not capping but annual elections, so that people vote for the money that is to be spent.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has a strong point. If there had been county elections this spring, I do not believe that some county budgets would have been as large as some of them are likely to be. On my hon. Friend's point about SSAs, even under the GREs—had we used the past criteria—I am not sure that we would have caught the overspending in his authority, but I shall let him have a detailed reply on that point.
Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware that the poll tax payers of Islington are being forced by him and by the Government to pay £42 each into the so-called safety net. That is more than he is proposing to remove by means of charge capping. What sort of crazy system is it that makes the Secretary of State charge-cap with one hand and force the poll tax up with the other?
Mr. Patten: The safety net contribution results from the fact that the hon. Gentleman's constituents each receive
1046
£1,150 in total external finance. That safety net contribution will end at the end of this year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will get that money back.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those local authorities which he has today announced will be charge-capped will have to make some cuts in their budgets? For instance, many of them will have to cut out women's committees; some will have to stop monitoring the police and interfering in what they are doing; many will have to cut the excessive number of staff that they employ; some will have to cut back on waste, and—what is perhaps worse for Opposition Members—some will have to stop giving grants to politically motivated local bodies. If local authorities choose to make cuts in services are they not making a political decision and not a decision in favour of local people?
Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and that it will have gratified him, as it did me, that many local authorities will have been able to reduce their budgets without harm to charge payers, thanks to the democratic decision taken in Nicaragua.
Mr. John Fraser: Is the Secretary of State not struck by the double irony that capping breaches the principle of accountability and that there is no evidence from capping in the past that there is any political advantage in it to the Conservative party? Is he aware that, in Lambeth, we already have great difficulties in working out and paying housing benefit and rebates, and that, if demands go up in June, many people will be disqualified from obtaining rebates because they will not realise that it is necessary to apply for them before it is too late? Therefore, will he amend the law to allow rebates to be backdated to 1 April this year?
Mr. Patten: If we had to amend the law to take account of the administrative capacity of Lambeth, we would have to do a lot of legislating. I put forward arguments about Lambeth in my statement. I hope that Lambeth will take advantage of the arguments that I put forward and will now propose a budget that does not require it to be charge-capped.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: While I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, does he not accept that there is one glaring omission—the Labour-controlled district council of Harlow, which happens to be the highest spending council per head in the whole of the United Kingdom? It has been spending ratepayers' money with the gay abandon of a drunken sailor. Is it not a fact that it has reduced the charge to a still staggering £425 by eating into reserves, and selling the family silver? [AN HON. MEMBER: It is not excessive.] Someone says that it is not excessive. It is to my constituents. Is it because Harlow is below the £15 million ceiling, and if that is so, is it not time that the ceiling was reformed so that we could help my constituents and my ratepayers?
Mr. Patten: In Harlow, the budget next year will represent a figure 115·4 per cent. above the SSA, which is £113 a head. I know that my hon. Friend understands and regrets that, since the Harlow budget is under £15 million, we cannot introduce any proposals. Under the Local

1047
Government Finance Act 1988, I can increase the threshold, but I understand why my hon. Friend wants me to move in the other direction.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Secretary of State accept that, over the past 11 years, Minister after Minister has visited Rotherham and acknowledged that it is an extremely efficient local authority? It has never been rate-capped or criticised, and despite facing enormous problems, its level of poll tax is about£below the national average. Given the problems confronting Rotherham, which the Secretary of State and many of his colleagues have witnessed over the past five or six years, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that reducing Rotherham's capacity to work its way out of the crisis in which it has been placed by the Government will put it in an impossible position and one which will be seen as preposterous, unfair and, malicious by virtually every reasonable and intelligent citizen of our borough?
Mr. Patten: No. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's observations. I repeat: we are prepared to consider alternative proposals from Rotherham. If Rotherham can make a convincing case, we will take account of it and bring it down to the House of Commons. Even with the proposals I have announced and with the application of the cap, Rotherham will still be spending 13·7 per cent., or £95 per adult, over SSA.
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Gorman.
Several Hon. Members: What about us?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady speaks as the Member of Parliament for a constituency in which an authority is being rate-capped.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on behalf—[Interruption.]
Mr. Martin Flannery: Three of them in a row.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Apart from anything else, let us have some chivalry.
Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of my constituency for cutting Basildon's expenditure. Among that authority's extravagances in a £27 million budget—[Interruption.]—is a recently built theatre costing £12 million, which will have to be subsidised to the extent of £1 million per year. My constituents will be endlessly grateful to my right hon. Friend for his sensible measures.
Mr. Patten: I am grateful for what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, although I could not hear very much of her remarks. She will be aware that Basildon proposes a 30 per cent. increase in the coming year over its 1989–90 budget. It intends to spend 194 per cent. over SSA, or £154 per adult. That is a powerful argument for the decisions I announced today.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that his reputation as an enlightened Minister has taken an enormous battering this afternoon? His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley), told the House last year, "We will have no more complicated formulae or muddled assessments. Everything will be straightforward, principled, and easy to understand." Can the Secretary of
1048
State pretend that that is the case? One week he sets standard spending assessments, the next he poll tax-caps at a different figure. One day he adopts local authority figures according to a principle used for setting rates last year, the next he changes them and implements total arbitrary figures for this year. Southwark's figure has been reduced by a greater amount than any other authority in the country, by £86 per person—even though many other authorities have considerably higher budgets.
Mr. Patten: My right hon. and hon. Friends—like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), no doubt—will be interested to learn that Southwark is receiving in external finance, in support through grant and contributions from the business rate, the sum of £173·9 million, which is equivalent to £1,053 per adult. That, put very simply—or in as enlightened a way as I can manage—is a lot of money. There is one very simple formula in Southwark which I think will please many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents: that is, that, thanks to the decisions which I have announced today, they will be saved £86 per head.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Although, under Labour control, Cleveland county council has always increased its rates considerably in excess of inflation, although for this year its Government grant has gone up by 21·7 per cent. and although it is now well over £75 per person in excess of the community charge which the Government forecast, Cleveland has not been capped. If the cap fits Labour-controlled Cleveland, why cannot Cleveland wear it?
Mr. Patten: The figures which my hon. Friend gave were correct. As he said, Cleveland has received a substantial amount of assistance from the Government. On the other hand, Cleveland does not come within the criteria which we set and which are very similar to those which were applied to rate capping, which we have had to take account of, because Cleveland's spending over SSA, large though it is, is only 10·4 per cent., or £85 per head. Both on percentage terms and because of the £26 de minimis provision, which is sensible, Cleveland has not come within the criteria. I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern about spending decisions taken by Cleveland and about the implications of those decisions for his constituents.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Will the Minister accept that it is absolute nonsense and a total myth to describe Wigan metropolitan borough as a high-spending authority? Its average spending is 5 per cent. less on more services, with the exception of secondary education, than every other metropolitan district. How does he reconcile the fact that spending in Wigan may be only £805 per head with the fact that it will be £1,436 for the Westminster woollies? Does he not realise that inadequate grants, inflation and Government decisions have put £170 per head on every Wigan poll tax payer? Does not he realise that the people of Wigan metropolitan district and Leigh will see this as another crude exercise in trickery and deception?
Mr. Patten: As I explained to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) earlier, there is an important point about reserves in Wigan which we have had to take account of in the decision on capping. Secondly, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that Wigan proposes next

1049
year to spend 13·1 per cent. over its adjusted 1989–90 budget. Thirdly, even with capping, spending will still be 15·1 per cent. or£108 per adult over SSA.
Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there will be considerable disappointment in Leeds that no rate capping will occur on a community charge of £348, which is substantially in excess of the £297 set in Calderdale district? What does he propose to do about it?
Mr. Patten: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern that the local authority to which he has referred does not come within the criteria that I mentioned earlier. One of the considerations that I have to take into account is not only the present law but precedent and what has happened in the past. I believe that the criteria that I have announced are the most robust legally. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Of course. That is an important point to take account of. We have taken account of it before and I am sure—[Interruption.]
Mr. Eric Illsley: The Secretary of State is already aware that Barnsley metropolitan district council has complained of the indicators that have been used to assess its standard spending assessment. We are due to meet members of that authority with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities in May. Therefore, it seems rather premature to announce a devastating cap on Barnsley now. Surely the Secretary of State realises that those indicators in an area such as Barnsley—which still suffers from high unemployment and industrial problems because of the decline of the mining industry—are having a devastating effect. Is he not aware that six of the authorities listed in his schedule are in mining areas? Will he reconsider the indicators that he has used for areas such as Barnsley, which has a low population and low rateable values, because the effect of that cap will be—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please be brief.
Mr. Patten: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are prepared to consider any alternative proposals from Barnsley or other local authorities. As the hon. Gentleman's question was primarily about the grant distribution formula, I should point out to him that Barnsley was proposing to spend, even under the old formula—the rescaled grant-related expenditure—19·2 per cent. above target.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard for the subsequent business. [Interruption.] Order. I know the importance of this statement to all hon. Members, but I must balance that against the business on the Order Paper. I will allow questions to continue until 5 pm. I hope to be able by then to call everyone in that time, but I cannot do so if we have—as it were—Adjournment debates rather than questions.
Mr. David Madel: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be perfectly possible to change the law between now and May 1991 to allow shire councils such as Bedfordshire to have elections for some of their county councillors? Otherwise—because
1050
we are a hung county council—there will be yet another year of overspending and a very high community charge. In order to give people the chance to use the ballot box, could we please have an early change in the law?
Mr. Patten: I understand my hon. Friend's argument. I know of his concern about spending decisions that have been taken in Bedfordshire, where the county is proposing to spend 9·1 per cent.—£64 per head—over standard spending assessment. It is also proposing a substantial year-on-year increase in its budget. That is of concern not only to my hon. Friend, but also to many of his constituents.
When examining the cyclical pattern of county council expenditure, many hon. Members will have seen the strong argument for annual elections. I am sure that that proposition will feature prominently in our subsequent debates on local government.
Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement today will cause chaos in the efficiently run metropolitan borough of St. Helens? Will he confirm that, when he met St. Helens councillors yesterday, he could not point to any item of overspending in their budget? Will he now accept that St. Helens councillors should be allowed to come to London to put their case to him? Can he point out to me now any item of excessive spending in their budget that he has discovered in the past 24 hours?
Mr. Patten: I did have a civil meeting with councillors in the hon. Gentleman's borough yesterday. It was mostly to discuss urban programme expenditure and other developments, such as the application for city grant for one project in St. Helens. At the end of my discussion, as we were examining the proposals for a technology park, the councillors gave me some figures for St. Helens, which I considered before my statement today. It will of course be entirely appropriate for St. Helens to make proposals, if it wishes to propose a different cap or a different level of expenditure.
Mr. Evans: Will you meet them?
Mr. Patten: They will certainly be met by one of the Department of the Environment Ministers.
Let me make another point that is relevant to the consideration of St. Helens' financial position: the council had financial reserves of £11 million at 1 April 1990, of which it plans to use £3 million in 1991. Therefore, there is £8 million still available. I was proposing a reduction of £3·9 million against that £8 million.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will be consternation in Labour-controlled Ealing that Ealing council has not been rate-capped, bearing in mind the historic rates increases and community charge increases in recent years? There was a 65 per cent. rate increase in 1987, a 32 per cent. increase last year and now what amounts in some cases to an equivalent of a 55 per cent. increase in rates this year. Will he re-examine his list to see if he cannot put Ealing council in it?
Mr. Patten: I am glad, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, that I am not a charge payer or still a resident in Ealing, because I understand the financial implications of Ealing's own distinctive management style for those who live in that borough. Ealing will spend 11·9

1051
per cent. over SSA in the coming year—£115 over SSA per head. I am afraid that that means that the authority does not come within the criteria that I have announced, which I believe are reasonable and legally robust. I am afraid that on this occasion I must disappoint my hon. Friend.
Mr. Kevin Barron: The Secretary of State has told my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), who represents Rotherham borough council, that he is prepared to consider alternative proposals. Rotherham borough council has never had its expenditure capped before by the Government. The decision to limit its expenditure programmes and to cut on non-statutory services already represents alternative proposals—alternatives to what the council really wanted to do.
To take £7·9 million from that authority—as the right hon. Gentleman has done by his decision this afternoon —is to attack an already impoverished area that has no alternative but to rely for much of the time on non-statutory services from the local authority. For months, the Government have argued that the point of the tax was that the people who would have to pay it would decide whether a local authority was providing the services or not. Why are we not listening to the people?
Mr. Patten: As I was not able to point out earlier in response to another question about Rotherham, Rotherham is proposing to spend 12·9 per cent. over its adjusted 1989–90 budget. That is a substantial figure, and is one of the arguments for limiting its expenditure in the coming year. Even with the cap, it will still be spending l3·7 per cent.—£95 per adult—over SSA.
Let me add—not in response to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—that it is extraordinary that, after all the fury and fuss from the hon. Member for Dagenham, he has not had the courtesy to stay here until the end of these exchanges.
Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend talked about deplorably high expenditure and unjustified charges, but that does not apply only to authorities whose spending is massively higher than the SSA? It also applies to a number of authorities that have spent well over 12·5 per cent. more than last year. In my area, the charge is about £90 over the recommended Government figure. Will he appeal to county councils of that nature to re-examine their expenditure and see whether they could give a rebate —which they can do legally—halfway through the year to those hard-pressed community charge payers?
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's suggestion is extremely sensible. His county is seeking to increase its spending in the coming year by almost 15 per cent., and is seeking to raise its total income by more than 18 per cent. Those are figures that it will have to justify to its voters and charge payers in due course. I would have the greatest difficulty in justifying figures of that size.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State recently admitted that Wigan gave better value for money in services, pound for pound, than Wandsworth borough council? Is it not a disgrace that Wigan's spending this year has increased by 6 per cent. when inflation is at 8 per cent., yet the Government have decided to poll-cap Wigan and to reduce an already beleaguered
1052
budget by £10 million? The Secretary of State owes it to Wigan council to offer it a meeting to advise it in which areas of services it is overspending and in which areas cuts should be made. It is outrageous that the Secretary of State should have made this crooked statement today. All the Secretary of State has been doing is part of a smear campaign against caring Labour local authorities which provide services for the people.
Mr. Patten: I have already referred to the position of Wigan's reserves and to the increase in spending that it has proposed for the coming year over the last year. The hon. Gentleman's constituents could do with much of the financial competence and prudence which have ensured that, in Wandsworth, the community charge is as low as it is.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: All sensible people will rejoice that my right hon. Friend has capped most of the robber barons who are in charge of Labour local authorities. Unfortunately, he has failed to cap the robber barons of Lancashire, who are spending £123 million more this year, which is 11·4 per cent. more than they should be spending and the equivalent of an additional £80·92 per person. Why do we not get them out of the woodwork and cap them to curb their expenditure?
Mr. Patten: Lancashire county council has decided to spend 11·4 per cent. over its SSA and £81 per adult. Lancashire falls—I can understand my hon. Friend's concern about this point—just outside the criteria. Nevertheless, I am sure that local people will wish to ask the county why it has chosen to spend at those high figures. Lancashire's spending is extremely high, and puts a substantial burden on community charge payers. In other districts, the local councils are sensible and more prudent. Lancashire county council has a great deal to answer for.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the SSAs he has announced are in utterly cynical manipulation designed to allow him to punish inner-city authorities which are desperately trying to provide services? How would he justify to the people of my borough of Islington that on top of all the cuts in central Government spending towards that borough in the past 10 years, there should now be a further cut of £3·7 million? Will he tell me, so that I can pass on the information to Islington, exactly which element of social services, education or housing he would personally propose to take away from the people of a hard-pressed inner-city area?
Mrs. Gorman: Tell that to Wandsworth.
Mr. Patten: What is particularly cynical is affecting concern about the impact on charge payers of spending decisions while declining to say that one will pay the community charge, and therefore putting a larger bill on charge payers. That is really cynical. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will be receiving total external support of £1,150 a head. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that £108 of the charge in Islington can be attributed to the unwinding of past creative accounting devices.
Mr. Tim Janman: In his statement, my right hon. Friend made great play of the atrocious overspending by Basildon district council. Is he aware that, in the

1053
neighbouring socialist republic of Thurrock, the Labour-controlled council is overspending by 85·4 per cent. and is overcharging my constituents by more than 350 per cent.? Does he agree that the £15 million floor level for council revenue budgets should be removed and that the excellent principles which my right hon. Friend has put into practice today in his statement should apply to local authorities with a revenue budget of less than £15 million? My local council could then come in for the same treatment that he has correctly administered to those councils he has announced today.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's constituents are having to pay large bills. The charge set is £417, which is a result of the council spending 85·4 per cent. over SSA or £75. As my hon. Friend said, the council does not come within our criteria because its budget is less than £15 million. That threshold was set because the House felt that to have a lower threshold would mean that very small sums were involved in extra contributions per head. The House had obviously not thought very much about the impact of councils such as Thurrock on the charge payers' pockets. I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to return to this issue on a future occasion.
Miss Kate Hoey: I know that the Secretary of State is deeply unhappy today because he has been unable to poll-cap Lambeth council. I know that he is also unhappy that Lambeth's budget is well below the wild figures thrown around by him and by the Prime Minister. Is the Secretary of State aware that just yesterday, the London borough of Lambeth was given leave to appeal for a judicial review on the £7 million extra which it will have to bear for the revaluation of county hall, which has nothing to do with the individual poll tax payers who live in the borough? Will he tell us today that he will not consider Lambeth for any poll capping until we have had the result of that judicial review?
Mr. Patten: I know that a delegation from Lambeth council came to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and that he made the position on that issue perfectly clear. The point came up in a debate a couple of months ago in the House. I have observed that, as we have talked about charge capping in the past few weeks, Lambeth's budget has come down and down, and as the media have pointed to the difference between the original proposals in Lambeth and what other local authorities in London have been able to do, the figure in Lambeth has come down and down. I very much hope that, now that Lambeth knows what it has to do to avoid my criteria, it will do that and come in with a budget that does not involve charge capping.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that rate increases of up to 57 per cent. over the past 10 years and a present excessive community charge figure of £418, which is £150 over the Government's assessment for Wolverhampton, is the figure with which my long-suffering constituents have had to live? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the bitter disappointment that will be felt by my constituents today that he has not managed to come to their rescue—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Hicks: The answers will be in the ballot box in time, but meanwhile, the bills drop through the doors and my constituents must find the money. Who will protect them?
Mr. Patten: I do understand the sense of bitterness that many of my hon. Friend's constituents will feel about the decisions taken by Wolverhampton council. Wolverhampton has increased its budget by 19·5 per cent. above the equivalent figure for 1989–90. The result is that there will be a charge of £395, which is the third highest increase of all the metropolitan districts. It is an outrageously high figure. I am sorry that, because of the criteria that we felt were most sensible, we have not been able to come to the help of my hon. Friend's constituents in the way that she would have liked. I very much hope that they will take the appropriate measure through the ballot bax.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Does the Secretary of State realise that the cuts in jobs and services —in schools, in old people's homes, in meals on wheels and in home helps—which are the real targets of today's announcement will drive hundreds of thousands of trade unionists who provide those services and local people who rely on them towards active opposition to the poll tax? Is he finally aware that given his acceptance of the poisoned chalice of his present job, he is living proof of the old adage, that those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad?
Mr. Patten: I had not imagined that the hon. Gentleman would descend to cliché—or "clitch" as Ernie Bevin called it—in quite such a spectacular way. If the services to which he referred are so important, I am rather shocked that he has decided not to help pay for them.
Mr. Chris Butler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that scandalous overspending means that, in Warrington, we face a community charge that translates into a 52 per cent. increase in rates? There are no county council elections in Cheshire until 1993. What protection will my right hon. Friend afford the citizens of Warrington?
Mr. Patten: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely upset about the consequences of spending decisions taken by his county council. I understand his concern, and I know that he has made vigorous representations on behalf of his constituents. No one could have argued more strongly for a reasonable deal for his constituents than my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I am sorry that we have had to disappoint him today and that the criteria do not cover his local authority, or take account of its considerable overspending. I hope that, in due course, my hon. Friend's constituents will vote for Conservative councillors, who will make more sensible spending decisions.
Mr. David Blunkett: I should like to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to withdraw a remark that he made earlier this afternoon. Replying to questions about the impact on children's education and the care of the elderly, he said that in the next few weeks there would be
"a parade of bleeding stumps."
Not only those in the hard-pressed coalfield communities of south Yorkshire but people across the country will object to language and imagery of that sort.

1055
The right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party have all accepted that the basis of this afternoon's statement—the standard spending assessments—are wholly discredited. He knows that they are flawed and he said so, and he promised his own Back Benchers, as he did in the House on 18 January, that they would be changed.
As a result of these spending assessments, however, councils are facing capping and cuts and, ridiculously, Calderdale is having enforced on it a poll tax of £242, £100 below the poll tax in the Prime Minister's Barnet constituency, £150 below that in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), and £200 below the poll tax in Epsom and Ewell and in Windsor and Maidenhead. Anyone with the slightest intelligence can see that all that has come out of this shoddy completion of 11 years of central muddle and interference are increased administrative chaos, increased costs, increased cuts and a total capitulation by an honourable man to the Prime Minister's will.
Mr. Patten: I should tell the hon. Gentleman, who has stayed until the end of these exchanges—
Mr. Clive Soley: That is cheap. My hon. Friend told you, Mr. Speaker, that he had to go.
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman might know why, but if the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) had to go, he was not able to convey that information to me—[Interruption.] It is actually known that one can get messages to people on the Front Bench. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dagenham could not stay.
The point that I made earlier, and I repeat it now, is that I believe that it should be perfectly possible for local authorities to run a reasonable level of effective services under the proposals that I have made this afternoon. But I anticipate a lot of scare stories; they have already started in my constituency, thus predating this afternoon's statement. They have nothing to do with sensible local government finance and everything to do with political scare tactics, of which we shall see a good deal in the coming weeks.
On the question of SSAs and GREs and the distribution formula, I have made it clear—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would have criticised me strongly had I not—that we are prepared to consider fresh evidence on SSAs and the formula. But, even in the context of the GREs and the spending proposals made by the local authorities that I have decided to cap, the mean figure for the increase over resealed GREs among the authorities that I have mentioned was 26 per cent., so by any standards those authorities have been substantial overspenders.
When referring to a number of local authorities, the hon. Member for Brightside knows perfectly well—because he knows and understands a good deal about local government finance—[HON. MEMBERS: "More than you do."] It just goes to show that one should never try to be courteous or civil in the Chamber on an afternoon like this. As I was saying, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are a number of authorities that are making substantial contributions to the safety net and to areas in which there are low rateable values, and other local authorities are taking money out of the safety net—
Mr. Tony Banks: Like Wandsworth.
Mr. Patten: That is why absolute levels of charge would have been an inadequate way of deciding on charge capping and would have led to considerable criticism by the Opposition—
Mr. Banks: It is a fiddle and you know it.
Mr. Patten: The hon. Member, from whom I am sorry not to have been able to hear this afternoon—
Mr. Banks: So am I.
Mr. Patten: —refers to Wandsworth, about which he has something of an obsession. He will therefore know that Wandsworth receives one of the lowest levels of grant in inner London, yet can still set a charge of £148.
Lastly, I must tell the hon. Member for Brightside, who understands the provisions of the law and what the process amounts to, that if local authorities do not accept the charge caps we have proposed, they can make their own proposals, which we must then statutorily consider. We shall carefully consider any alternative proposals put to us by local authorities.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry not to have been able to call all hon. Members who want to ask a question. I shall certainly bear them in mind when we next debate this matter or have questions on it.
Following is the table:
Local Authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs
Notes
The attached table shows the comparison between the demands and precepts set by local authorities in 1990–91 and their Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs). For charging authorities, the comparison is with the demand on the collection fund, ie it does not include parish precepts. For the precepting authorities shown, the comparison is with the aggregate of precepts issued by the authority.
Column 1: shows the SSA for each authority for 1990–91, calculated in accordance with the Distribution Report.
Column 2: shows the percentage by which the demand or the aggregate of precepts exceeds the SSA (column 1).
Column 3: shows the amount by which the demand or the aggregate of precepts exceeds the SSA (column 1) in £s per adult (using relevant population, as calculated in accordance with the Population Report).
No adjustment has been made in this table to budgets reported to the Department where the Secretary of State believes that they have not been calculated in accordance with section 95(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The figures for demands and precepts used in this table are the latest reported by the authorities to the Secretary of State.

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

SHIRE COUNTIES

Avon

450·7

18·4

117

Bedfordshire

277·3

9·1

64

Berkshire

376·8

9·1

62

Buckinghamshire

325·0

5·7

39

Cambridgeshire

317·8

3·2

21

Cheshire

474·7

12·5

83

Cleveland

337·0

10·4

85

1057

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Cornwall

235·4

6·2

42

Cumbria

246·5

16·0

103

Derbyshire

448·6

25·0

157

Devon

486·1

7·8

50

Dorset

290·3

4·0

23

Durham

303·7

6·9

46

East Sussex

325·1

3·7

22

Essex

761·2

2·1

13

Gloucestershire

251·6

8·9

56

Hampshire

755·5

2·0

13

Hereford and Worcester

317·8

0·8

5

Hertfordshire

477·5

6·2

40

Humberside

465·8

11·7

83

Isle of Wight

63·0

11·9

76

Kent

769·1

-1·2

-8

Lancashire

743·0

11·4

81

Leicestershire

458·8

7·9

55

Lincolnshire

295·2

0·0

0

Norfolk

352·7

4·8

30

North Yorkshire

332·9

3·8

24

Northamptonshire

297·0

5·7

40

Northumberland

142·0

16·5

102

Nottinghamshire

514·9

11·5

78

Oxfordshire

252·0

15·5

96

Shropshire

208·7

5·4

37

Somerset

224·7

11·2

72

Staffordshire

498·5

5·5

35

Suffolk

295·5

7·8

49

Surrey

446·6

7·9

45

Warwickshire

226·4

10·3

64

West Sussex

323·5

-3·3

-20

Wiltshire

268·7

5·0

32

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

SHIRE DISTRICTS

Avon

Bath

6·6

0·0

0

Bristol

32·7

96·3

108

Kingswood

5·1

-1·1

-1

Northavon

7·4

3·0

2

Wansdyke

4·2

-0·3

0

Woodspring

10·9

0·8

1

Bedfordshire

Luton

17·1

-7·4

-10

Mid Bedfordshire

6·1

-13·2

-10

North Bedfordshire

10·4

-4·2

-4

South Bedfordshire

6·6

-2·3

-2

Berkshire

Bracknell

6·2

-6·3

-6

Newbury

8·2

-20·8

-16

Reading

12·3

37·4

45

Slough

12·3

-43·3

-69

Windsor and Maidenhead

7·8

37·1

29

Wokingham

7·3

9·1

7

Buckinghamshire

Aylesbury Vale

9·6

-34·5

-30

Chiltern

4·2

-2·6

-2

Milton Keynes

13·9

37·8

42

South Bucks

3·1

-20·9

-14

Wycombe

9·5

19·2

15

Cambridgeshire

1058

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Cambridge

8·3

50·0

56

East Cambridgeshire

3·7

-15·5

-13

Fenland

5·3

-5·7

-5

Huntingdonshire

9·0

-55·5

-49

Peterborough

11·2

33·5

34

South Cambridgeshire

6·7

-47·4

-36

Cheshire

Chester

8·2

4·5

4

Congleton

4·2

14·1

10

Crewe and Nantwich

6·9

39·1

35

Ellesmere Port and Neston

5·5

30·3

28

Halton

8·7

17·4

17

Macclesfield

8·4

0·0

0

Vale Royal

6·4

10·0

8

Warrington

11·9

15·0

13

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Cleveland

Hartlepool

7·8

46·9

55

Langbaurgh-on-Tees

9·4

85·6

72

Middlesborough

13·6

63·6

84

Stockton-on-Tees

12·2

53·9

50

Cornwall

Caradon

4·4

3·8

3

Carrick

5·5

9·8

9

Kerrier

6·0

9·3

8

North Cornwall

5·0

-10·4

-9

Penwith

4·5

-15·0

-14

Restormel

5·5

-4·1

-3

Cumbria

Allerdale

6·2

2·4

2

Barrow in Furness

4·9

83·6

71

Carlisle

7·7

17·1

17

Copeland

4·5

55·2

45

Eden

3·1

-18·7

-17

South Lakeland

6·2

-3·3

-3

Derbyshire

Amber Valley

5·9

5·4

4

Bolsover

3·8

22·9

16

Chesterfield

5·9

37·1

28

Derby

19·0

-1·6

-2

Derbyshire Dales

4·2

-0·6

0

Erewash

6·3

22·0

17

High Peak

5·2

7·6

6

North East Derbyshire

4·5

36·5

22

South Derbyshire

4·1

9·9

7

Devon

East Devon

6·9

-1·9

-1

Exeter

7·7

10·9

11

Mid Devon

4·2

20·6

18

North Devon

5·8

4·0

4

Plymouth

23·0

0·0

0

South Hams

4·8

-8·1

-7

Teignbridge

6·8

31·4

26

Torbay

8·1

85·1

74

Torridge

3·5

9·0

8

West Devon

2·9

-5·4

-5

1059

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Dorset

Bournemouth

13·9

19·5

23

Christchurch

2·3

9·9

7

East Dorset

3·5

25·4

14

North Dorset

3·4

-37·0

-32

Poole

7·4

0·0

0

Purbeck

2·8

-30·0

-26

West Dorset

5·4

-6·0

-5

Weymouth and Portland

4·2

42·5

38

Durham

Chester-le-Street

2·7

69·4

45

Darlington

7·8

39·5

41

Derwentside

5·2

140·4

111

Durham

5·1

54·7

45

Easington

6·0

45·2

36

Sedgefield

5·4

56·2

45

Teesdale

1·8

-12·5

-11

Wear Valley

4·6

102·2

96

East Sussex

Brighton

14·4

39·3

52

Eastbourne

6·2

62·1

57

Hastings

7·9

42·4

54

Hove

9·3

-7·5

-10

Lewes

4·8

0·9

1

Rother

5·4

17·2

14

Wealden

7·6

3·8

3

Essex

Basildon

9·5

194·3

154

Braintree

7·0

13·6

11

Brentwood

3·6

108·5

72

Castle Point

4·6

54·6

38

Chelmsford

8·6

41·8

32

Colchester

9·4

0·0

0

Epping Forest

6·7

10·1

7

Harlow

5·5

115·4

113

Maldon

3·1

-4·1

-3

Rochford

3·8

38·7

26

Southend-on-Sea

14·0

39·3

45

Tendring

8·3

26·0

22

Thurrock

8·1

85·4

75

Uttlesford

3·8

-15·8

-12

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Gloucestershire

Cheltenham

6·7

10·7

10

Cotswold

4·7

17·7

15

Forest of Dean

4·7

-9·8

-3

Gloucester

7·1

8·6

9

—Stroud

6·1

46·5

35

Tewkesbury

4·7

-29·6

-21

Hampshire

Basingstoke and Deane

8·9

-10·7

-9

East Hampshire

5·7

22·2

17

Eastleigh

5·0

47·3

31

Fareham

5·1

17·6

12

Gosport

5·0

20·8

18

Hart

4·3

38·8

27

Havant

8·0

5·5

5

New Forest

9·9

-0·7

-1

Portsmouth

19·1

4·1

6

Rushmoor

5·7

6·6

7

1060

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Southampton

18·1

14·2

16

Test Valley

5·8

-11·2

-8

Winchester

5·7

7·3

6

Hereford and Worcester

Bromsgrove

4·5

7·4

5

Hereford

3·2

-7·4

-6

Leominister

3·0

-15·4

-15

Malvern Hills

5·3

21·2

17

Redditch

5·1

46·4

42

South Herefordshire

3·5

-30·3

-28

Worcester

5·4

29·0

26

Wychavon

5·7

0·6

0

Wyre Forest

5·5

45·6

35

Hertfordshire

Broxbourne

4·8

8·5

6

Dacorum

8·3

0·0

0

East Hertfordshire

6·5

9·0

7

Hertsmere

5·3

51·1

42

North Hertfordshire

7·0

13·4

11

St Albans

7·8

-2·3

-2

Stevenage

4·8

94·1

79

Three Rivers

4·3

26·7

20

Watford

6·9

22·7

28

Welwyn Hatfield

5·6

81·9

65

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Humberside

Beverley

5·6

9·9

6

Boothferry

4·7

-6·6

-6

Cleethorpes

4·6

50·4

45

East Yorkshire

5·1

43·0

33

Glanford

4·9

15·7

14

Great Grimsby

7·0

49·2

52

Holderness

3·0

33·3

25

Kingston upon Hull

25·1

26·8

35

Scunthorpe

4·4

58·3

56

Isle of Wight

Medina

5·4

-15·0

-14

South Wight

3·7

14·1

12

Kent

Ashford

6·3

2·1

2

Canterbury

8·8

26·7

25

Dartford

5·3

64·8

54

Dover

7·4

25·7

24

Gillingham

7·0

2·1

2

Gravesham

6·4

-5·2

-5

Maidstone

9·1

31·2

27

Rochester upon Medway

11·7

-42·6

-45

Sevenoaks

6·0

9·5

7

Shepway

6·5

65·1

61

Swale

7·7

41·9

38

Thanet

10·2

12·2

13

Tonbridge and Malling

5·8

50·1

38

Tunbridge Wells

6·6

10·8

9

Lancashire

Blackburn

15·2

24·9

40

Blackpool

13·4

36·3

41

Burnley

8·0

29·9

35

Chorley

5·5

-0·8

-1

Fylde

4·3

9·1

7

Hyndburn

6·3

29·3

31

1061

[]

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Lancaster

9·4

31·5

31

Pendle

6·7

40·7

44

Preston

13·2

8·1

11

Ribble Valley

2·8

6·6

5

Rossendale

4·3

66·3

59

South Ribble

5·2

16·1

11

West Lancashire

6·4

-0·1

0

Wyre

6·4

10·7

9

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Leicestershire

Blaby

4·0

-44·1

-28

Charnwood

7·9

-12·8

-10

Harborough

3·4

-5·3

-4

Hinckley and Bosworth

4·8

-6·0

-4

Leicester

36·6

38·3

69

Melton

2·4

-6·8

-5

North West Leicestershire

4·5

24·2

18

Oadby and Wigston

2·7

18·9

13

Rutland

2·1

-8·3

-7

Lincolnshire

Boston

3·9

2·0

2

East Lindsey

9·7

-5·6

-6

Lincoln

6·7

0·0

0

North Kesteven

4·8

-8·3

-6

South Holland

4·9

16·8

16

South Kesteven

6·9

-3·9

3

West Lindsey

5·0

0·4

0

Norfolk

Breckland

6·5

-14·1

-11

Broadland

5·2

-16·9

-11

Great Yarmouth

6·6

45·4

43

King's Lynn and West Norfolk

9·7

-19·1

-19

North Norfolk

6·6

-9·1

-8

Norwich

10·3

45·5

50

South Norfolk

5·6

-15·1

-11

Northamptonshire

Corby

4·0

16·3

16

Daventry

3·7

-10·6

-9

East Northamptonshire

4·0

-29·7

-24

Kettering

5·1

-4·0

-4

Northampton

13·9

14·0

15

South Northamptonshire

3·6

-33·0

-24

Wellingborough

4·5

-48·6

-44

Northumberland

Alnwick

2·1

11·1

10

Berwick-upon-Tweed

1·7

17·3

14

Blyth Valley

4·5

104·1

79

Castle Morpeth

2·9

30·1

23

Tynedale

3·4

25·2

20

Wansbeck

3·7

94·6

74

1062

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

North Yorkshire

Craven

3·1

-3·5

-3

Hambleton

4·6

-3·7

-3

Harrogate

3·7

69·0

56

Richmondshire

3·3

-14·2

-14

Ryedale

4·9

10·5

7

Scarborough

7·4

31·2

29

Selby

6·0

-8·7

-8

York

8·0

24·0

24

Nottinghamshire

Ashfield

5·6

18·6

13

Bassetlaw

6·7

18·9

16

Broxtowe

5·8

3·8

3

Gedling

6·5

-0·4

0

Mansfield

6·0

55·2

43

Newark and Sherwood

7·1

-9·3

-8

Nottingham

29·4

11·1

16

Rushcliffe

5·4

-11·0

-8

Oxfordshire

Cherwell

7·6

-45·2

-41

Oxford

11·7

14·7

23

South Oxfordshire

7·4

-2·8

-2

Vale of White Horse

6·0

-47·3

-35

West Oxfordshire

5·8

-36·0

-31

Shropshire

Bridgnorth

3·1

-22·7

-18

North Shropshire

3·5

-11·8

-10

Oswestry

2·0

24·2

19

Shrewsbury and Atcham

5·3

9·7

7

South Shropshire

2·8

-7·2

-7

Wrekin

8·8

50·1

45

Somerset

Mendip

5·8

-3·2

-3

Sedgemoor

6·1

-0·3

0

South Somerset

8·7

5·3

4

Taunton Deane

5·9

-15·2

-12

West Somerset

2·3

-6·2

-6

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Staffordshire

Cannock Chase

5·6

39·3

33

East Staffordshire

7·2

5·0

5

Lichfield

5·0

-26·5

-19

Newcastle-under-Lyme

6·7

42·1

30

South Staffordshire

5·5

-38·5

-27

Stafford

7·1

-3·2

-3

Staffordshire Moorlands

5·7

7·6

6

Stoke-on-Trent

19·3

24·4

25

Tamworth

3·9

3·6

3

Suffolk

Babergh

4·9

-11·7

-10

Forest Heath

3·4

-12·7

-13

Ipswich

9·1

96·3

97

Mid Suffolk

5·0

-2·7

-2

St. Edmundsbury

5·6

-12·0

-10

Suffolk Coastal

6·8

31·8

28

Waveney

7·1

21·3

19

Surrey

Elmbridge

5·8

56·9

39

1063

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Epsom and Ewell

4·0

81·6

64

Guildford

8·1

-5·6

-5

Mole Valley

3·9

28·9

19

Reigate and Banstead

6·7

80·4

56

Runnymede

5·6

-67·7

-67

Spelthorne

5·2

13·5

10

Surrey Heath

4·5

10·8

8

Tandridge

4·3

37·4

28

Waverley

6·2

13·8

10

Woking

5·8

-17·3

-15

Warwickshire

North Warwickshire

3·3

66·7

48

Nuneaton and Bedworth

6·9

57·4

45

Rugby

5·8

-1·6

-1

Stratford on Avon

6·1

-3·7

-3

Warwick

7·5

-3·5

-3

West Sussex

Adur

3·1

106·4

72

Arun

8·0

30·3

25

Chichester

6·6

-0·1

0

Crawley

6·0

87·2

78

Horsham

6·4

-0·8

-1

Mid Sussex

6·3

17·9

12

Worthing

7·1

22·4

20

Wiltshire

Kennet

4·2

-26·9

-22

North Wiltshire

6·8

-9·3

-8

Salisbury

6·5

-17·7

-15

Thamesdown

11·8

18·8

17

West Wiltshire

5·9

22·6

17

Isles of Scilly

Isles of Scilly

2·0

-4·6

-60

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

Police and Fire Authorities

Metropolitan Police

632·1

-1·0

-1

London Fire and CD Authority

191·7

4·5

2

Greater Manchester PA

114·1

5·5

3

Merseyside PA

76·8

5·7

4

South Yorkshire PA

48·9

2·6

1

Northumbria PA

58·1

6·6

4

West Midlands PA

112·3

2·4

1

West Yorkshire PA

86·5

9·9

6

Greater Manchester FCDA

54·3

2·3

1

Merseyside FCDA

36·5

3·5

1

South Yorkshire FCDA

22·6

23·7

5

Tyne and Wear FCDA

24·7

10·0

3

West Midlands FCDA

53·5

2·0

1

West Yorkshire FCDA

37·8

25·6

6

1064

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

LONDON

Inner London

City of London

41·6

63·1

10,130

Camden

151·3

19·9

232

Greenwich

153·0

39·2

387

Hackney

205·5

14·8

233

Hammersmith and Fulham

132·4

26·6

297

Islington

158·2

19·8

251

Kensington and Chelsea

98·6

11·1

132

Lambeth

240·2

27·0

376

Lewisham

174·3

19·2

196

Southwark

193·2

24·8

290

Tower Hamlets

179·6

16·5

262

Wandsworth

202·7

3·8

38

Westminster

172·2

-7·4

-94

Outer London

Barking and Dagenham

89·1

11·6

95

Barnet

160·0

-1·9

-14

Bexley

116·3

1·6

11

Brent

214·8

16·1

178

Bromley

141·6

0·2

1

Croydon

190·1

-6·0

-48

Ealing

202·5

11·9

115

Enfield

159·7

2·5

21

Haringey

166·9

29·8

351

Harrow

115·8

-0·5

-4

Havering

117·3

8·9

59

Hillingdon

125·9

20·0

143

Hounslow

124·9

13·3

108

Kingston-upon-Thames

72·9

8·8

63

Merton

97·6

-4·0

-30

Newham

195·3

10·6

130

Redbridge

129·1

1·7

13

Richmond-upon-Thames

76·0

8·8

54

Sutton

88·2

12·4

85

Waltham Forest

160·7

11·5

115

Note: Arrangements to reflect the status of the City of London as a special authority mean that only part of the difference between its SSA and demand falls on chargepayers. No adjustment has been made to the demands of the City of London and Inner London boroughs for the overspend inherited from ILEA.

Local authority demands and precepts 1990–91 compared with SSAs

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS

Greater Manchester

Bolton

157·9

5·9

48

Bury

91·7

12·4

85

Manchester

340·6

3·9

46

Oldham

139·2

9·2

81

Rochdale

128·0

18·8

152

Salford

146·7

9·3

80

Stockport

148·2

13·7

93

Tameside

124·8

13·8

101

Trafford

121·9

-2·6

-20

Wigan

165·6

21·1

151

Merseyside

Knowsley

113·0

5·0

51

Liverpool

349·6

10·0

107

Sefton

158·0

11·4

82

St. Helens

109·1

16·2

130

Wirral

197·1

4·1

33

1065

[]

Authority

Standard spending assessment

Overspend on SSA

Overspend on SSA

£ million

Percentage

£/adult

1

2

3

South Yorkshire

Barnsley

112·1

26·6

178

Doncaster

158·6

19·9

144

Rotherham

138·5

19·5

134

Sheffield

289·5

12·4

85

Tyne and Wear

Gateshead

117·8

12·2

92

Newcastle upon Tyne

173·3

12·4

107

North Tyneside

109·2

18·8

136

South Tyneside

97·2

9·9

81

Sunderland

176·8

9·1

75

West Midlands

Birmingham

724·1

6·4

67

Coventry

190·1

11·2

97

Dudley

156·9

11·7

77

Sandwell

192·0

13·0

113

Solihull

103·7

6·3

43

Walsall

156·9

13·8

113

Wolverhampton

172·8

7·7

72

West Yorkshire

Bradford

315·7

3·0

30

Calderdale

109·9

20·9

160

Kirklees

219·0

14·9

117

Leeds

389·6

7·3

55

Wakefield

161·7

14·3

97

Community Charge Capping 1990–91

The table below shows the authorities which the Secretary of State is today designating for community charge limitation and the maximum amounts (ie "caps") which he is proposing.

Budget

Proposed

Reduction

£ million

cap

£ million

£ per adult

Avon

533·7

507·1

26·6

37

Barnsley

142·0

132·0

10·0

59

Basildon

27·9

23·7

4·2

35

Brent

249·3

241·7

7·6

39

Bristol

64·2

56·6

7·6

26

Calderdale

132·9

125·4

7·5

52

Camden

181·4

177·0

4·4

34

Derbyshire

560·6

520·6

40·0

56

Doncaster

190·1

178·5

11·6

53

Greenwich

213·0

203·0

10·0

65

Hammersmith and Fulham

167·5

155·8

11·7

99

Haringey

216·5

206·5

10·0

71

Hillingdon

151·0

141·7

9·3

53

Islington

189·5

185·8

3·7

30

North Tyneside

129·7

122·9

6·8

45

Rochdale

152·0

144·0

8·0

51

Rotherham

165·4

157·5

7·9

39

St. Helens

126·7

122·8

3·9

29

Southwark

241·0

226·9

14·1

86

Wigan

200·6

190·6

10·0

43

Note:
1. Reductions shown as £ per head of relevant population.

Business of the House
5.8 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the rearrangement of business for tomorrow.
I am proposing that the business already announced for Wednesday 4 April—consideration of Lords amendments to the Education (Student Loans) Bill—should now be preceded by a timetable motion on the same business.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: That perfunctory statement means that, with their characteristic insensitivity, the Government are introducing another guillotine motion on a day when we are to hold a guillotined debate—necessarily delayed by the first statement—on the Social Security Bill.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that, far from being exceptional motions used to deal with particularly complicated legislation, guillotines are now a normal method of conducting Government business? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to bring in a guillotine motion on a Bill of only four clauses and five pages, guillotines will obviously become the order of the day for all Government legislation, which we would find wholly unacceptable. Why did the Leader of the House intend to bring in a guillotine on the Education (Student Loans) Bill in the middle of last week but then change his mind? Why has he chosen instead to bring it in at the last possible minute? This is not Government business management: it is crisis management.
Is not the real reason for the motion the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is scared of his own Back Benchers and of the strength of the Lords amendments—especially those on housing benefit—and scared of allowing all these matters a full debate in the House? This is government by shambles.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has a total misconception of the position. Considering the nature of the business for tomorrow, it seems to be in the interests of both sides of the House—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Only the Tories.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is sensible, as the Bill is to be considered for the last time, to have a reasonable amount of time allotted to consideration of the timetable motion and the amendments that the House will consider tomorrow afternoon. There should be ample time for that.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Leader of the House should have thought again before introducing a guillotine motion on this measure. There are 17 Lords amendments. A significant number were moved by his noble Friends in the other place. There are only three matters of controversy, on one of which the Government have made a substantial concession—students who are disabled. That leaves two matters of controversy. Are the Government so frightened of the democratic decisions of this Parliament and so unable to argue their case persuasively that they cannot in a whole day use the proper procedures to debate two important matters, on which, across the parties, the other House defeated the Government—and rightly so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for so plainly making the case for the timetable motion that I propose. As he says, the overwhelming majority of the amendments are Government amendments produced in response to representations. He says that there are two matters of controversy. The timetable should allow ample time for their discussion.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the House of Lords spent three long days debating these matters at great length and with great knowledge? One wonders sometimes whether the Government believe in the House of Lords. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the Lords produced three amendments which are necessarily controversial. Surely they should be debated at considerable length. None of us wishes to delay the proceedings of the House. In organising the timetable motion, will my right hon. and learned Friend recollect that some of us care deeply about the future of higher education, and that he cannot guillotine that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that the intention of the legislation is to sustain higher education. For the reasons given by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), my hon. Friend will find that the time allotted for consideration will be quite sufficient for the matters of controversy.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House reflect that there might be a case for a statement tomorrow on a matter that bothered Mr. Speaker greatly today? It was the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—the position of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee in relation to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a different matter. I am worried about lots of things.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The leader of the House made a statement on guillotining the Bill tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman must find another opportunity to raise the other matter.
Mr. Dalyell: I am asking for a statement tomorrow on information from the Americans about the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a statement about the business tomorrow and the guillotine motion on the Students' Loan Bill. The hon. Gentleman must confine his questions to that.
Mr. Tony Banks: This is a business statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a statement about tomorrow's business. My hon. Friend was raising an issue connected with tomorrow's business.
Mr. Speaker: Was he? I thought that he was raising a completely different matter.
Mr. Dalyell: Tomorrow's business should be preceded by a factual statement from a senior Minister on what the
1068
United States defence authorities and the Pentagon had to say about the activities of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates)—they were raised today, so I do it as a matter of urgency—in the Pentagon in connection with public relations firms on whose behalf he has been acting. There is a wide understanding that the Americans have complained bitterly to our Ministry of Defence about the pressuring and lobbying activities of the Chairman of a Select Committee of the House. Before we leave for the Easter recess, the matter should be cleared up one way or the other. It is a matter of the honour of the House.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The timetable motion that I announced earlier will in no sense inhibit the time available for the discussion of other matters tomorrow. There was no reason for the hon. Gentleman to raise under cover of privilege the wide-ranging allegations that he has just made in his characteristic fashion.
Mr. John Marshall: In view of the widespread filibustering on Report, the guillotine will be widely welcomed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, under the system of student loans, the level of student support in the United Kingdom will be more generous than that in any other country in the western world?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend can make that valuable point tomorrow.
Mr. Banks: Is not this guillotine motion further evidence of the authoritarian nature of the Government, starting at No. 10 Downing street and now pervading the Benches opposite? As the guillotine motion is about saving time—which I assume the Government want to do, as well as killing debate—why does the Leader of the House not consider postponing the Easter recess so that we can debate the matter properly? The Easter recess already seems to me over-generous.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Easter recess was authorised by the House last week with some enthusiasm.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: When did we first start to guillotine Lords amendments? Is it not inappropriate to say to the second Chamber of a bicameral system that we do not want fully to list or understand the arguments adduced in the Lords' amendments?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am saying no such thing. The time available will suffice for the work in hand.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the statement that he made this afternoon? As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) has already said, this is a four-clause Bill with a fairly short schedule. In effect it simply says that a student loans scheme will be introduced. In Committee we did not cause any problems in dealing with the matter so I should have thought that it would be appropriate to allow full discussion of the Lords' amendments. There is no way that a full discussion can be allowed when, for example, on the housing benefit issue both my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and I have not had information about the number of students whose loss of housing benefit will be greater than the loan available to them under the scheme. It is pathetic that we have such a timetable for such a small Bill.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman also makes my case. As he says, it is a small Bill. It has been considered in both Houses for 86 hours so far. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, the time available tomorrow should suffice for the two or three outstanding issues.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that we have a guillotined Bill today? The first Division takes place at 7 pm. Questions must be confined to this matter, please.
Sir Peter Emery: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, rather than have a filibuster on one amendment which could take the House perhaps six, seven or eight hours, we shall have a reasonable time for all the amendments to be debated? Surely that is what the House would wish.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There has never been any problem with the Bill in the House. It went through Committee in an orderly fashion without a timetable. The same occurred on Report and Third Reading before the Bill went to another place. Now that it has returned with some amendments to be discussed—only two minor technical amendments came out of Committee and were adopted—and we have a chance to discuss the Bill reasonably, why is it to be cut short?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There will be reasonable time for the amendments to be discussed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the business statement, will it release enough time for the Prime Minister to tell us what action she will take against those Tory Members and Ministers who are supporting the law-breaking Fayed brothers and inciting others to break the law in the City of London?
Mr. Speaker: That is a mile wide of the statement.
Mr. Dick Douglas: May I, with great respect, ask the Leader of the House to remember his responsibilities to the House in general and not just his responsibilities to the Tory party? Notwithstanding the way in which he has organised business for tomorrow, as suggested by the timetable motion, why have we not had time before the Easter recess to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about capital offsets? We have been promised that statement again and again. With great respect, we have been extremely patient and peaceful in Scotland, although we are characterised as law-breakers. When will the Secretary of State for Scotland come here to make a statement to clear up the mess that the Government have got into?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

Points of Order
5.20 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to raise a point of order concerning the proper conduct of Commons business and Members' rights. You
1070
will recall, Mr. Speaker, that, in the business statement last Thursday, the Leader of the House announced that the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill would have its Second Reading on Thursday 19 April. That Bill has not yet been published. It is available for publication, and I am advised that the printing is complete, but the Home Office tells me that it will not be published until, at the earliest, the beginning of public business tomorrow. At best, therefore, the Government will have withheld publication of the Bill until so late a date that only two sitting days, the last day of this Session and the first day of the next, are available for discussion and consultation between Members.
I understand very well that the Government do not want their own Back Benchers to discuss with each other the tactics by which they will oppose the Bill, but to provide the House with so little opportunity, two sitting days, to consider the content of so important a Bill is a denial of the basic rights of the House.
I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any pressure that you can bring to bear on the Government to require the Bill to be made available to the House today? I emphasise that it is available: all that is necessary is for the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip or one of their satraps to make the necessary application to you. The Bill would then be at our disposal. I believe that that is not so much right as essential for the proper conduct of our affairs.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I am glad to be able to confirm that arrangements have been made for the Bill to be published tomorrow. It will be available for more than two full weeks before it comes back for debate in the House. I hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will find it ample to fill his holiday reading.
Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise—
Mr. Hattersley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Adley first.
Mr. Adley: I wish to raise a point of order that relates directly to your responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, which refers to one of the Sessional Orders passed by the House that you placed before it on 21 November. That order read:
"That the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House".
It concluded:
"that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioner aforesaid".
I assume that the Serjeant at Arms is ultimately responsible to you, Mr. Speaker, and carries out your instructions.
It is a fact, attested to by all hon. Members, that on many occasions—I am not talking about just today and it has nothing to do with demonstrations—an increasing number of coaches proliferate around Parliament square blocking the streets and preventing parking in and access to the House. That causes a serious disincentive to hon. Members in their attempts to reach this place on time. The powers of the traffic commissioners, emasculated under recent legislation, are partly responsible for the problem.

1071
Those coaches are not all foreign; most of them are British. It appears to me that coach operators demonstrate an arrogant disregard not only for other road users, but the Sessional Order. Surely the parked coaches are an abuse of the ruling of the House and such rule breaking is either being done in ignorance or deliberately. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to request the Serjeant at Arms to invite the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to tell us what action he would like the House to take to deal with the problem.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that a substantial number of coaches convey visitors to Westminster. I believe that the Services Committee is looking into the question of traffic in Parliament square. The hon. Gentleman should ask that Committee to consider the parking of coaches as well.
Mr. Tony Banks: It is a matter for you.
Mr. Speaker: No, it is a matter for the Services Committee.
Mr. Adley: The order is in the name of the Serjeant at Arms. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Serjeant at Arms to inquire what response he has received from the Commissioner of Police.
Mr. Speaker: This is a question for the police, but I shall look into it.
Mr. Tony Banks: Good man.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask you to reflect further on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)? The British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill is extremely contentious and controversial legislation. The Bill was promised for today, but clearly it will not be available until tomorrow afternoon.
Originally, we were warned that Second Reading would take place during the week of 23 April. In last week's business statement, we were told that its Second Reading would take place on Thursday 19 April, the day after our return from the Easter recess. That means that there is inadequate time for all parties in this House to have collective consideration of the legislation.
I ask the Leader of the House to consider reverting to the original plan so that we can have its Second Reading during the week of 23 April. That would give reasonable additional time for all parties in the House to consider this important Bill.
Mr. Speaker: That is for the Leader of the House to decide, but the Bill has not yet been presented to the House, so it would not be possible to make it available today.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I must point out that we have a guillotine motion at 7 pm.
Mr. Holt: I am aware of that, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is equally aware of it.
My point of order relates to a matter directly under your control, Mr. Speaker, and as you intend to have a word with the Serjeant at Arms about another issue, I want to raise it now. Half an hour ago, when I went to my office, I found that members of the public were going to meetings on that Corridor. People are standing outside our Committee Rooms selling copies of Socialist Worker to those going in and out of them. Surely it is wrong and against all the rules of the House that such pamphlets are being sold inside this building.
Mr. Speaker: That is of course absolutely out of order, and I shall certainly get the Serjeant at Arms to look into that matter.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be pedantic, but could you reflect on the whole question of business statements and come to some ruling tomorrow? For greater accuracy, it is important to note that the Leader of the House said:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the re-arrangement of business for tomorrow"
If we are now not to be allowed to make other points pressing for statements is that not yet another erosion, unwitting in your case, Mr. Speaker, of Back Benchers' rights? We must be vigilant on that.
Before tomorrow, will you consider, Mr. Speaker, the issue that arose from Question 4—that is, the anger of the Americans towards one of our senior colleagues at his behaviour in the Pentagon? The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee should make a statement to the House, possibly a personal one, on the allegations now being widely made to the effect that he misused his position in pressing matters in relation to contracts in the Pentagon. It is bad enough that that is done in Whitehall, but to start doing it in other countries, in the Ministries of Defence of our allies, raises serious questions.
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, when the hon. Gentleman first raised this point of order, I stopped him, because I did not have the relevant extract from Erskine May to hand, but now a blinding light has struck me. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 297 where it states:
"The Speaker has ruled that when a narrow business statement is made, changing only one item of business, supplementary questions are confined to that item."
That is why I sought to stop the hon. Gentleman.

Leasehold Reform (Residents' Associations)
5.31 pm
Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give residents' associations the right to appoint managing agents.
This is the second time in the 18 months that I have been in this House that I have sought to bring in a Bill on leasehold reform—I have had two skirmishes in a long campaign, which was spearheaded by my distinguished predecessor Sir Brandon Rhys Williams and which numbers among its battalions many hon. Members, building societies, the Law Commission and hundreds and thousands of leaseholders in London and elsewhere, who find the present state of the law bedraggled, shot through with anomalies and in need of reform.
The selling of residential flats on leasehold, the method by which London was developed in the 19th century, provides a singularly unsatisfactory form of home ownership for the tail end of the 20th century, let alone for the middle of the 21st century, when many of the leases, which are now being written, will finally lapse. No other country in Europe has such a system. Those countries that inherited English leasehold law—for example, the United States, Australia and Canada—have long since reformed or abandoned the practice.
Two reforms are necessary. First, we must be allowed to own individual flats on freehold. At present, the law does not permit it. Flat A, flat B, flat C in a residential block cannot each carry their own independent freehold ownership. By English law, each has to be on a lease, a diminishing asset that opens up a host of problems between leaseholder and freeholder. That is wrong. The Lord Chancellor is currently considering a system by which leaseholders could buy, with no compulsion—willing buyer meets willing seller at market price—their flats in perpetuity. For the first time, a flat could carry the same security as a freehold house. That was the substance of my first reforming Bill, last April. The system, called "commonhold", is well established in other countries. It was first floated in this country, interestingly enough, by the Grosvenor estate.
The essential problem with leasehold is not that it is just one way of providing residential blocks of flats, but that it is the only way under English law. Although someone might buy a 99-year lease on a property, the freeholder, whose residual interest is tiny, still maintains, in law, a disproportionately large amount of clout over the person whose home it actually is. That clout is being used in an increasingly disreputable way.
The problem is not with London's large traditional landlords. They are here to stay. They are a part of London's heritage, and think in terms of generations. Through huge swathes of London, however, there has grown up recently a different kind of landlord, whose time horizon is not 99 years, but rather the scope for profit in 99 weeks.
Few leaseholders will ever see, or know, their freeholders, who in my part of London are often either overseas investors or companies that are forever churning among themselves the legal documents of freehold.
1074
What leaseholders see, by contrast, are the often unreasonable demands and dictatorial behaviour of the managing agents. That is where my second reform, which I seek to introduce this afternoon, comes in.
I propose that residents associations, as recognised in the Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1985 and 1987, be allowed to appoint their own managing agents. The legal cog to permit that is to be found in part V, section 44 of the 1987 Act. There, the provision that landlords appoint managing agents after consulting leaseholders, should be, quite simply, reversed. Leaseholders should appoint them, after consulting the landlords. It is, after all, the resident leaseholders who pay the managing agents for their work and their fee. It is an old principle that he who pays the piper should call the tune—residents' power to residents associations.
Let us consider two recent cases from my post bag. The first is a block of flats on long leases off Kensington high street, where the freehold changes hands under the residents. A new management agent is appointed who, instead of charging the traditional fee of 15 per cent. on the work done, charges one of 77 per cent., which, after an outcry, has now come down—if that is the right word—to 42 per cent. The leaseholders are powerless, short of going to law.
Go to law is exactly what the residents of another block of flats—Oakwood court in the heart of Kensington—have had to do. This huge block has 182 flats on long leases—long, but not long enough. A property company, which does not own the freehold, controls under-leases that run for a few days longer than those of the residents. This allows the property company control over the service charges for the block, which amount to about £1 million a year. Who have they chosen as their managing agents? After an exhaustive assessment of the many such companies offering managing services in London, they have chosen, by chance, one that they just happen to own. That is because the law, as it now unsatisfactorily stands, allows the landlord to choose the managing agent, and does not give the residents a right of veto.
To a good freeholder—there are many—a managing agent's job is strictly neutral. The agent oversees the work that is a legal condition of the lease, and no financial advantage accrues to either side. That being the case, good freeholders mind little who appoints the managing agents. Legitimate work needs to be done, and is being paid for by the residents. This reform is about having the job done not on the cheap, but by those who must pay the bill, realise they must do so and live with the consequences.
The Department of the Environment is about to undertake what it calls a detailed evaluation study of the working of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. It will find that, where leaseholders are involved—rather than straight tenancies, which are a different matter not considered here—the law is in need of those two reforms. We should allow commonhold, through which leaseholders can buy their own individual flats on freehold, and permit leaseholders to name their own managing agents. Those are two reforms that this Government, who have done so much for home owners, need to undertake, and soon. Those are two reforms that have the added advantage of being both popular and, as far as Her Majesty's Treasury is concerned, free.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Chris Butler, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Gerald Bowden and Sir George Young.

Leasehold Reform (Residents' Associations)
  LEASEHOLD REFORM (RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATIONS)
  Mr. Dudley Fishburn accordingly presented a Bill to give residents' associations the right to appoint managing agents: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended, further considered.

  Social Security Bill
    New Clause 10

      REINSTATEMENT OF SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE ENTITLEMENT
      'Regulations shall provide that in any case where a person was in receipt of a Severe Disablement Allowance immediately before the commencement of a course of youth training and on ceasing that course fails to secure gainful employment the entitlement of that person to a Severe Disablement Allowance shall be automatically reinstated.'.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.38 pm
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Time is now both very strictly and scandalously rationed, due to a guillotine made sharper by the timing of this afternoon's statement on the poll tax, even for a debate about severely disabled young people whose brave attempts to win the independence of gainful employment can result in reducing their incomes.
      The new clause is a particularly important one for young people who, while they have severe disabilities, also have abilities. It is strongly backed by the organisations that work to help them, including Barnardo's, Mencap and the Spastics Society. Those are all organisations for which there is high regard on both sides of the House and they insist that the new clause must be added to the Bill. Their concern is not with imagined difficulties which may occur if the Bill becomes law, but with the acute difficulties now of severely disabled young people who strive with exceptional effort, but often unsuccessfully through no fault of their own, to exchange the dependence of social security payments for the independence which goes with having a job and paying taxes.
      Barnardo's, in a letter to me yesterday about the new clause, underlines the importance of its purpose and describes it as removing a disincentive which actively discourages
      "young people with disabilities from entering YTS".
      Hon. Members of all parties who went to the recent "parents' forum" arranged here by Barnardo's will recall the very moving statements made by the mothers of young people with severe disabilities. They told us that, although they passionately want the opportunity to work, their sons and daughters have to face the loss of their severe disablement allowance if they enter youth training and then fail to find work. I am sure that they left all the hon. Members who heard them with the feeling that to withdraw SDA from young people who try so hard to triumph over severe handicap is a form of refined cruelty which Ministers must now urgently stop.
      The savings made by the Government from withdrawing SDA in cases where young people cannot find work when their training ends are very small compared with the £1·9 billion given in a single Budget to the richest 1 per cent. of taxpayers. The new clause is about removing a tax

      1077
      on hope, that of young people most of whom, due to lack of employment opportunities, today go from school to scrap heap. All that severely disabled youngsters who receive training, and succeed as trainees, can possibly have today is hope.
      As the Minister knows, unemployment among disabled job seekers is more than twice as high as the current rate among able-bodied people. They are pushed to the back of the dole queue, which is still the longest queue in Britain and, as I have demonstrated to him in correspondence, are often made to sit up and beg from the social fund. The Government's own recent survey showed that only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age are actually working compared with 69 per cent. of the population as a whole. The ratio for males was even worse: 33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent. Those findings shout of discrimination against disabled workers. Moreover, the earnings of disabled people who found work were substantially lower than those of non-disabled employees, and the same is true of parents of disabled children.
      Those are the bleak facts, known only too well by most disabled people, which face those for whom even trying to train and find work can invite the penalty of losing their severe disablement allowance. At a time when they often need more help, as we heard from parents at the meeting here at Westminster, they lose their SDA. Their reaction, as I know from speaking to many of the young people of whom I speak in this debate, is that their efforts to achieve financial independence are mocked by a system which piles handicap on handicap.
      They and their parents know full well that they can lose financially if any attempt at training or employment does not meet with immediate success. They will not automatically requalify for SDA, as provided for in the new clause, and the family is likely to be left substantially worse off. Under the present system, they have to undergo the complex procedure of reassessment and, even then, may lose a benefit of crucial importance to them. Faced with this, many parents and young people feel that attempting a youth training programme is too much to risk.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in treating disabled young people in this way the Government appear to be going in a different direction from that which was implicit in the White Paper "The Way Ahead", which appeared to encourage people to go on training and then to come back, and not to lose benefits as a result? Surely this is the opposite. That is why we need the new clause—to make sure that there is no discrimination against disabled people.
      Mr. Morris: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). His point is one to which I shall return after referring to some particular cases.
      Pat Nelson is a foster parent of twins, Nicky and Jackie, aged 18. Both have Down's syndrome and will soon leave school. In describing her fears, their foster parent writes:
      "The way the regulations stand at the moment, if Nicky and Jackie go on to a YTS or take a job, they cease to be eligible for their disability benefit. If that job or scheme fails, the benefit would not automatically be restored because they would have proved that they could work or take part in YTS."
      1078
      Elspeth McLean, leader of the Barnardo's project aimed at providing youth training opportunities for young people with severe mental handicaps, has also come across this deterrent effect in her work. She tells me:
      "When I recruit young people for my scheme, parents often say to me 'of course we'd like our son or daughter to have the chance of a job or go on a scheme, but what if it goes wrong? Will they lose their disability benefit?' For many, especially those from low income families, this proves just too much."
      Noting that the cost of the new clause would be very small, the Spastics Society, in a message to right hon. and hon. Members timed for today's debate, says that my proposal is one of "rational change" and totally consistent with the Government's own proposals in their document "The Way Ahead", which was the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon. That being so, the rational change that we are seeking can be made by the House today by approving the new clause.
      The Spastics Society's statement to hon. Members goes on:
      "Current regulations impose a risk and act as a disincentive to young people who might otherwise take up training. This new clause ensures a safety net which would give them added confidence and encouragement to do so. Some of these young people may, as a result of their training, find paid employment which would enable them to come off social security benefits altogether."
      The Minister knows as well as I do that the Spastics Society is right. He knows, too, that the case work of Barnardo's, Mencap and the Spastics Society fully demonstrates the urgent need for the change. Their endorsement of the new clause is not inspired by any political motive. Their only concern is to help severely disabled young people who feel that today the odds are very heavily stacked against them, notwithstanding the enormous efforts they make to normalise their lives and to make the contribution of which they are capable to industry and to society. They are worthy not of unfair treatment, but of our admiration.
      I must warn the Government that disabled young people's insistence on better treatment will not go away. It will be pursued for as long as it takes to satisfy them and their parents that they are being fairly dealt with and that their efforts to gain more independence are no longer mocked by the social security system. The new clause will correct a cruel anomaly and I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It is a universal desire throughout the House that young people with disabilities be encouraged, if they are able, to take part in youth training schemes and to get themselves into employment. Perhaps I can make some general remarks at the outset before I come to deal with the new clause. There are a number of things which I believe are moving in the direction of encouraging precisely that development.
      When we are able to introduce the disability employment credit in 1992, it will be a very big encouragement for people suffering from a disability to take up work, knowing that if they eventually have to give up the work they will retain their underlying entitlement to the longer-term benefits, such as invalidity benefit, when they leave work, and the benefit itself will encourage and make it easier for them to get into employment.
      Secondly, I have no doubt that the impact of technology in the workplace, as well as in the domestic

      1079
      environment, will make it possible for many people with disabilities, including youngsters, to get into employment and to hold down important jobs. The third factor is the simple movement of demography. Employers, in both the public and the private sectors, will need the skills of disabled people in the coming decades. They will have to learn to look behind the disabilities to find the abilities. That is important.
      The fourth factor that has impressed me during the time that I have held responsibility for the disabled is the sheer determination of increasing numbers of them, especially youngsters, to get into employment and to acquire the independence that that brings.
      In speaking to the new clause, I must first remind the House that severe disablement allowance is a benefit for people who are incapable of work. That is the basic definition. As I am sure all hon. Members appreciate, it is the non-contributory equivalent of invalidity benefit for people who have not paid the necessary national insurance contributions. Therefore, the primary medical qualifying condition—this is fundamental—is that the person must be incapable of work.
      As I understand the proposals in the new clause, SDA would become payable to people who were capable of work, on the ground that they had failed to find suitable employment. That would be an entirely new principle in the conditions for the benefit and would cut across the basic principles of the SDA scheme.
      Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that, on all occasions, we should try to avoid typecasting people as incapable of work for ever more? People may have been incapable of work, and therefore rightly secured SDA, but nevertheless feel that there may be an opportunity to break out. If the opportunity arises for new training, and if that would benefit the person, surely the system should not militate against that by imposing a financial penalty on those trying to break out of typecasting.
      Mr. Scott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My next few points will, I hope, show that the scheme is not quite so cut and dried as might be imagined from reading the new clause. There are existing arrangements to help former recipients of SDA. who are incapable of work at the time when they finish a YTS course or shortly thereafter, to acquire the right to benefit again. That comes under the so-called linking rules for this benefit and, indeed, for other benefits.
      If a person who was receiving SDA before starting a course of youth training is incapable of work at the end of that course, SDA can be reinstated immediately, because the claim links with earlier entitlement. I suppose that it is right to say that, if someone had successfully completed a YTS course, that would be prima facie evidence that they should be capable of work at the end of that course. However, it would still be open to an adjudication officer to decide that, despite the successful completion of that course, the person was incapable of work and immediately to reinstate the SDA to which the person was earlier entitled.
      Periods when a person is registered as unemployed count in the same way in linking claims. For example, if a former SDA recipient was registered as unemployed between the end of training and the time when incapacity for work began—someone might leave YTS, be unemployed and eventually be determined as incapable of
      1080
      work—SDA could be reinstated immediately. There is also the provision which allows gaps when those conditions do not apply, perhaps when a person has been working. If such a gap is no longer than eight weeks, entitlement to SDA is not affected. There could be any number of such gaps, provided that none exceeded the eight-week period. For example, someone could try a series of jobs in an attempt to find something suitable, but provided that they decided that they were not suitable within the eight-week period, they would be entitled to SDA immediately. The effect of those arrangements is that a person who becomes incapable of work either at the end of youth training or, in some circumstances, some time afterwards, can have SDA reinstated without waiting for the usual 28 weeks.
      It would be a fundamental change to remove the principle of entitlement to SDA—namely, that somebody should be incapable of work. The scheme is more flexible than was suggested by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I hope that, in the light of what I have said, he will withdraw the new clause. If he does not, I shall have to advise the House to resist it.
      Mr. Morris: I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted what is widely believed to be a compelling case. There is no time now even to press such an important new clause to a Division, but I hope that it will be raised again in another place and carried.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 15

      INDEPENDENT LIVING FUND
      'In section 32 of the 1986 Act—
      (a) after subsection (2A) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2B) A payment of £30 million shall be made out of hat fund to the Independent Living Fund in the year ending on 31st March 1991 for the purpose of helping people with severe disabilities to live independently in their own homes.".
      (b) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(6A) The Secretary of State shall make a payment of £30 million into the Social Fund to enable the payment specified in subsection (2B) above to be made without reducing the amount of money available for the other purposes of the fund.".'—[Ms. Short.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is an attempt to ease the serious financial crisis of the independent living fund—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I beg the pardon of the House. The new clause must be moved by one of the hon. Members whose names appear on the amendment paper.
      Ms. Clare Short: I move formally.
      Mr. Morris: As I said, the new clause attempts to ease the current serious financial crisis of the independent living fund. Again the time available to debate the new clause has been strictly rationed by the Government, but I must try both to explain its purpose and strongly to emphasise its importance to severely disabled people.

      1081
      As its name implies, the independent living fund works to help disabled people, even those with the most severe disabilities, to live their lives independently in their homes wherever that can be achieved. Many severely disabled people dread having to go into institutional care, which is fortunate for the taxpayer because the costs of such care are often much higher than for community care. The House needs no reminding that forcing people into institutions, against their will and against their best interests, can be self-defeating for the Government as well as inhumane.
      The independent living fund was created as a safety net after shocking disclosures about the effects on severely disabled people of the social security changes in April 1988. But the safety net is now holed and the hole will grow wider and deeper if the Government do not act urgently to make more resources available to the independent living fund. The present level of funding clearly does not meet the demands that have been revealed. Unless much more substantial and secure funding is provided, the independent living fund will shortly be unable to make any further awards. The result will be that institutional care becomes the only option for disabled people who, with appropriate help, are perfectly capable of living at home.
      At the launch of the independent living fund, the Minister said that additional money would be found for the fund if it became oversubscribed. As David Brindle of The Guardian first disclosed publicly, that manifestly is now the case, and I ask the Minister to accept the new clause and to do as he promised when the fund began its work. David Brindle wrote that, by the end of March:
      "the fund will be paying 4,500 people—three times the maximum number originally anticipated—at an annual cost of £15·2 million.
      There are an additional 1,500 cases approved and pending, representing an additional annual cost of almost £5·1 million, and 600 approvals a month are being added to this at a further annual cost of £2 million."
      6 pm
      As the Minister knows, the Disablement Income Group, which has done so much to sustain the Fund's work since its inception, is calling for the ILF to be fully funded by the Government in 1990–91. It is doing so because, until the new arrangements for community care start in April 1991, there is nowhere else that disabled people can go for help in covering their expenditure on personal care.
      I understand that applications for financial support are currently reaching the fund at a rate of 1,800 per month. Normally, one in three people meet the fund's strict criteria. Thus, a Government cash freeze will mean that, in every month of the next financial year, the fund will have to turn away 600 severely disabled people in need of vital assistance.
      Peter Large of DIG states:
      "We are dismayed by the threat to the Fund's existence because it has, until now, been such a success … The Fund's careful assessment of each applicant's individual requirements has revealed the true cost of community care for severely disabled people. And it is the extent of need that has [now] put the Fund's existence in jeopardy."
      Payments from the fund have kept families together, enabled severely disabled people living alone to stay in their own homes, made it possible for others to leave institutional care and provided essential cover for
      1082
      hard-pressed relatives. The fund has made sound financial sense as well. For many severely disabled people, small amounts of cash have stood between them and an unwelcome move to institutional care, which is far more expensive to the taxpayer than the cost of maintaining the ILF.
      Peter Large also states:
      "When the Fund started we knew of severely disabled people existing on beans on toast in order to scrape together enough money to pay for the help they needed. We believed those days were over and that never again would it be necessary to put anyone in the position of having to choose between such basic necessities of life as food and personal support. Unfortunately, we were mistaken."
      What he is saying is that very soon the ILF will have to turn away some 650 to 700 "successful" applicants for help every month.
      Yet to tighten the fund's eligibility criteria, as the Minister must know, would involve rewriting the trust deeds. He knows as well. from the letter sent to him by Elizabeth Hoodless of Community Service Volunteers on 29 March in what very high regard the fund is held by her organisation as by many others who know of its work. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could respond to that important letter when he speaks in this debate.
      Will the Minister also explain why Peter Large's letter for DIG to the Secretary of State for Health, although it was sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 17 September last, has since been only acknowledged? When will the Secretary of State reply? As the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) may know, the letter sent by DIG to his right hon. and learned Friend was of considerable importance in terms of trying to vouchsafe adequate community care for severely disabled people. Surely it deserves the courtesy of a considered reply.
      I give just one case, among scores of which I have details, with regard to the importance of the ILF's work. It is that of Jenny, aged 47, who has been cared for by her sister since her mother died 11 years ago. Jenny suffered severe brain damage in a road accident when she was 15, resulting in a high degree of mental handicap, and she needs constant supervision as well as help in all personal care. Her actual communication is limited to the most basic needs but she talks and demands attention incessantly. The strain of caring for her contributed to the break-up of her sister's marriage and probably to the latter's deteriorating health. Her sister now suffers from angina.
      Respite care for Jenny has not been an option since a disastrous experience two years ago which made her terrified of ever leaving home again and left her incontinent. Her sister would not countenance sending her away again, but she has been desperate for some sort of break from the responsibility. She would love to go back to her old part-time work and may well make use of some of the 25 hours a week care now paid for by the independent living fund to do so.
      That is the kind of case for which no further help may be available if the Minister is not prepared to accept our proposal in new clause 15. I most strongly urge him to do so at a time when, as he is fully aware, the poll tax is making life even more difficult for severely disabled people and their carers. He will recall that I gave details in the House on 24 January of cases in which families which include a severely disabled person will have to find as much as £756 a year more in poll tax than their current rates.

      1083
      It would be very helpful to have some sort of response from the Government to the figures I was given by the Spinal Injuries Association. It and many other organisations of and for disabled people are deeply disquieted about the added problems that arise for disabled people from a tax which they regard as hideously unfair.
      There will be Tory Members who share my deep concern about the people who face further hardship if the ILF is not given the financial support that it now most urgently needs. I hope that they will not only make their concern clear to the Minister, but will support the new clause which I now commend to the House.
      Mr. Scott: The whole Government, of course, take the view that, where it is possible or appropriate, not just disabled people but the elderly and others who need help should have the opportunity to be supported within the community rather than have to go into institutional care. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is currently taking through proposals to enable that to happen increasingly from 1991 and for packages of care to be produced by local authorities to achieve that aim.
      I am sure that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) did not mean to imply, although he mentioned a letter to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health might not have replied, that the Government have not maintained constant and regular contact with the trustees of the ILF and, in particular, the trustees appointed by DIG and DIG Scotland. On a number of occasions, both formal and informal, I have met Mr. Peter Large and Miss Pauline Thompson and discussed these matters with them, and I have, of course, kept in regular contact with the chairman of the trustees of the ILF.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I referred to the letter from Peter Large to the Secretary of State for Health in the debate today. He is very anxious to have a considered reply to a letter which, after all, was sent last September.
      Mr. Scott: I cannot recall seeing a copy of that letter but, since it was sent in September, that may not be surprising. Certainly I have had a number of conversations with Peter Large, Pauline Thompson and, obviously, Mrs. Tumim in the interim to discuss not just the matters that we are discussing tonight but other matters affecting the ILF.
      The new clause seeks a payment of £30 million for the ILF from the social fund. I recognise at the outset that this is a device—I do not use the word in a pejorative sense—to enable us to discuss an important matter. Obviously, this would not in practice be a sensible way of handling the flows of public money, and for that reason if for no other I would ask the House to reject the clause were it to be pressed to a Division. I appreciate the sentiment behind the proposal, and I hope that my remarks will go some way towards meeting the concern which the clause addresses.
      But first I wish to remind the House of the origins of the independent living fund and to pay the warmest tribute to the trustees—those appointed by the Secretary of State and those appointed by the disablement income group and DIG Scotland—who have operated the fund successfully. They have worked much harder than any of them envisaged when they took on the responsibilities of trustees of the ILF, and I pay them the warmest possible tribute.
      1084
      The House will recall that the fund was established in 1988 with a five-year life following the abolition of the additional payments for domestic assistance which had been available to disabled people under supplementary benefit. We recognised that that left a very small group of the most severely disabled people whose needs might not be fully addressed by the disability premiums available under the new income support scheme.
      A separate fund, with cases examined individually by independent trustees, seemed to offer a way of directing help towards that group with a flexibility and sensitivity that would not be possible within the regulated social security system. As I said at the outset, many people—including perhaps Opposition Members—were sceptical when it was set up, but it has done a useful job in the intervening period.
      Our original provision for the independent living fund in 1989–90 was £5 million. That was more than doubled, to over £10 million, last year and has been more than doubled again, to £24 million, for the year just starting. There is no doubt that the fund has met its original objective of providing a way of directing individual help to those most in need. But I am afraid that it is also providing money in a wide variety of cases that were never contemplated when it was established. That is rapidly making it impossible for it to function in the way that was originally envisaged.
      It is proving not to be possible to provide detailed and individual consideration in a centralised scheme handling as many cases as the fund now handles. As a result, there is a growing danger that the fund will no longer be able to provide the necessary attention to the needs of the original target group. Indeed, handling the current volume of applications is already placing a burden on the trustees which it is unreasonable to ask them to carry.
      Because of the developing situation, I have been discussing the matter with the trustees, as I mentioned earlier, in an endeavour to find ways of reorganising the work of the fund so that those for whom the fund was established can receive the help they need.
      It is obviously necessary for those discussions to be placed in the context of the new arrangements for community care to be introduced from April 1991. Under those arrangements, local authorities will be devising care packages on an individual basis and in a way that clearly overlaps with the present role of the independent living fund.
      6.15 pm
      Once the new arrangements are in place, people seeking help should generally be able to look to local authorities, but we recognise that authorities will need time to develop the detailed assessments and complex care packages that will be required. We therefore could not expect them to take on the entire case load of the ILF in April 1991. There will have to be some phasing, with local authorities gradually taking on such cases. There will also need to be some limited short-term arrangements for new cases that arise during the evolutionary stage.
      The details will have to be discussed with the local authorities, but we shall obviously have to build in safeguards to prevent irresponsible authorities from placing an unwanted burden on the ILF. So we envisage some form of joint approach to these cases, with a revamped ILF, so to speak, providing only supplemental help from a clearly specified budget during the transitional phase.

      1085
      The way ahead now for me is to discuss with the trustees how the resources available to the fund can most effectively be used in the current year in a way which enables the fund to meet its original objectives and which provides a smooth transition to the appropriate arrangement after April 1991.
      Unfortunately—the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe alluded to this—the rapid growth in claims to which I referred means that provision in the fund for 1990–91 is already heavily committed to current beneficiaries and to those to whom offers of help have already been made. That leaves little scope for the implementation of the suggested changes to which I referred.
      I hope that we can reach agreement with the trustees on a sensible limiting of the scope of the fund, and in that case we shall be prepared to find the resources within our existing public expenditure programme to make a further £8 million available for the current year. That is an increase of a third in the current year allocation and a more than sixfold increase in the resources originally envisaged for the fund. I hope that the House will welcome that as an appropriate response to the concerns that have been voiced and, were the clause to be pressed to a Division, which I hope it will not, to reject it.
      Sir David Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, although a few problems remain outstanding. There is concern about the increase in the burden of cases placed on the fund. My right hon. Friend said that some of those cases were of a nature not envisaged when the fund was established. It would be helpful if he would explain how he thinks they should be handled. If they should not be handled by the fund, who should handle them, certainly in the interim?
      Who will handle the cases in the early days of the build-up of responsibility of the local authorities? It is not unfair to local authorities to say that some of them will be able to handle such cases more quickly and better than others. The professionalism needed to handle cases of this nature—many of which are extremely complicated and need much sensitivity and experience to handle—is not universal. It would be strange if it were. It is inevitable that there will be uneven provision in the early days. It is important that something like the fund should remain available in the carry-over period as a longstop. The fund was established in the first instance so that somewhere in the scheme of things there would be a longstop arrangement for really severe cases.
      I agree with my right hon. Friend that that should not be an excuse for reluctant local authorities putting an increased burden on the fund. It would be reassuring for all concerned if the fund remained in place for as long as is needed, and I beg my right hon. Friend in his discussions with the Treasury not to agree a terminal date yet, but to see how matters progress.
      Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) for raising those two points. The answer to the first—about the type of cases that the fund has accepted and for which it has been paying—is that I am not betraying any confidences when I say that the fund has become aware that, as it has become more widely known, a number of local authorities which already have responsibility in this area to cope with the needs of disabled people, instead of meeting those responsibilities,
      1086
      have sent people to the ILF, suggesting that they apply to that area simply to protect their own budgets. That has been a significant factor in the growth that has occurred in the case load of the ILF.
      My hon. Friend's second point was that, as we moved into the period after April 1991, with the new community care arrangements in place, inevitably some local authorities would do better than others and there would be, as he put it, an uneven implementation of the new arrangements. That is why I could not envisage the fund coming to an end in April 1991. I assure my hon. Friend that no terminal date has been agreed and that we shall have to see how implementation goes after April 1991.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: I hope that the Minister for Social Security will meet the trustees very soon. Meanwhile, I note his announcement of a further £8 million for the independent living fund, and I will not be pressing the new clause to a Division.
      Ms. Short: I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 16

      ACTIVELY SEEKING EMPLOYMENT
      'Sections 10 and 13 of the 1989 Act shall cease to have effect.'.—[Ms. Short.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms. Short: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The intention of the new clause is to abolish the actively seeking work test introduced in the Social Security Act 1989.
      The way in which we have to proceed at great haste through the enormously important issues that we are debating tonight is a consequence of the undemocratic guillotine that the Government have imposed on the Bill. It brings the procedures of the House into disrepute and means that important issues cannot be properly debated and that hon. Members who wish to contribute cannot do so.
      The provision that individuals must prove, on a weekly basis, that they are actively seeking work or face the possibility of having their benefit taken away is deeply objectionable. It is part of the Government's long-term strategy to encourage low pay in our economy.
      Hon. Members should realise that, in the post-second world war benefit system, it has always been obligatory to take a job if one was available; no one has any argument with that. We agree that that is the right structure. However, what the Government did in the Social Security Act was intended to force people to accept jobs that are so low-paid that they might even be paid less than they previously received in benefit. We moved an amendment in Committee to ask that no one should be forced to accept a job which paid less than their benefit. The Government refused the amendment, so that is not the current provision.
      In 1979, the Government set out to positively encourage low-paid employment in our economy. They have taken a series of measures to remove protection from low-paid workers and measures that prevented employers from competing for tenders—particularly in the public sector—by cutting wages.

      1087
      The Government have been enormously successful—regrettably—in that strategy. There has been a massive growth in low-paid work in Britain since 1979. It is a truly shocking and alarming statistic, but 49 per cent. of people at work in Britain are now paid less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold—a standard laid down by the Council of Europe to measure low pay in member states.
      The overwhelming majority of low-paid workers in Britain are women. The Minister for Social Security, who has now left the Chamber, made it clear in debates on a previous Social Security Bill that the Government are not concerned about low pay for women. He said that that was not a worry, because many women were part of a two-income household. That is very interesting, and it says something about the Government's underlying attitude to women's work and to how women should be valued. Many women are not in two-income households. Some men and many women head single-parent families. They are trying to work and trying not to be dependent on benefits. They have to struggle to survive on low rates of pay.
      The low-pay economy that the Government have so successfully developed during the past 10 years is obviously bad for the individuals concerned. It is bad to have to work, to be creative and to try to be productive while struggling week by week to make ends meet. It is bad for our benefits system, because it means that an ever-growing number of people are claiming family credit, which means that the system is subsidising some of the worst employers—employers who pay bad wages. Lack of training, poor health and safety standards, lack of investment, poor quality jobs and a poor contributions to the economy go hand in hand with low pay.
      The positive encouragement of low pay means that the benefits system subsidises some of the worst, least economically efficient employers. The policy is also bad for the British economy, because an economy that seeks to go forward by encouraging low pay will not be successful. Employers who seek to compete by cutting wages and paying low wages do not train, do not invest, do not embrace new technology and are inefficient, and they cannot help the British economy to compete internationally.
      The actively seeking work provisions require individuals to show each week that they have been looking for a job. A constituent came to my last advice bureau a week ago. He worked for 20 years for a large manufacturing concern in Birmingham—so one can tell that he was a reliable, hard-working employee. He was thrown out of work in the massive recession that the Government generated in 1980–81, and he has been desperately seeking work ever since. He has been on a whole series of Government training schemes. There are many such men in the west midlands. They are in their fifties, and having worked all their lives, were thrown out of work in the recession and have lived between schemes and bits of low-paid work ever since.
      My constituent so desperately wanted work that he went on an employment training scheme, where he was not trained—he was ripped off. He had to work in dirty, bad conditions. He came to see me during the scheme and said that it was a rip-off but he would stay on in case there was a job at the end of it. He did not get a job, and someone else has been taken on, under the employment training scheme, to do the non-paid job that he so badly wanted. he came off ET and now he has been given a form. All such workers will he given a similar form. He has to fill out the
      1088
      form and prove each week that he is actively seeking work. He feels angry and humiliated, and there are a large number of people like him.
      Some 700 unemployment claimants each week have been given written warnings about their job-seeking activities in the first seven weeks after the implementation of the Social Security Act 1989. Nearly 600 of those people subsequently had their benefit suspended when their claims were referred to adjudication officers. Then there is an enormous gap in time when the individual concerned has no money, and the adjudication officers do not uphold all the cases that have been referred to them. My constituent is desperate, and is often forced to take appalling employment at appalling rates of pay, and that is the Government's intention.
      The Government's strategy is deeply wrong for the individuals affected by it. It is wrong positively to encourage low pay in the economy, which is what the Government are all about and what the Bill is all about. On top of that, it is an outrage to humiliate people by forcing them to show each week that they are seeking work. Many of them write letters but employers do not reply and so it is difficult to produce evidence.
      The actively seeking employment provision should never have been made. The clause seeks to withdraw it from the statute book.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that it is extremely bad for an economy to be a low-wage economy. The hon. Lady is right to say that one characteristic of a company which sets out to pay the lowest possible wages is that it tries to avoid its training and investment responsibilities.
      However, I part company sharply with the hon. Lady when she says that it is Government policy to set up a low-wage economy. That is absolute nonsense. The Government's objective is and always has been an economy in which unit labour costs are falling because productivity is rising. Productivity rises on the back of investment, and investment last year was at a record level. The threat to those unit labour costs and to investment comes from inflation. It is essential that inflation is squeezed out or we shall be in real difficulties.
      Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not the Government's aim to increase the number of low-paid workers. As their numbers have increased over the past 11 years, are we to conclude that that is another Government success or failure?
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Rowe: That is something of a Morton's fork, but I feel that I can, with one bound, be free. It is much easier to find better employment when one is already employed. That is a characteristic of the labour market. The large number of part-time and full-time jobs available to people with few qualifications provides them with an entry into the labour market which, in an increasingly technological society, they would otherwise find it exceedingly difficult to find.
      Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman's argument would hold good if the number of low-paid workers was falling, but as it is increasing every year, it seems that people are not able

      1089
      to use a low-paid job as a springboard into higher-paid employment but instead find themselves trapped in low-paid jobs.
      Mr. Rowe: One needs greater analysis of the number of people in low-paid jobs who stay in those jobs and of the other opportunities that they have to better themselves by training. Hitherto, training has always been seen as uniquely the employer's responsibility. It gives me hope for the future to detect a growing interest among employees in training in their own time, for their own improvement. That will secure a more prosperous future for us all.
      As to the availability for work test, I make the point that individuals working voluntarily for voluntary organisations are often relied upon to turn up on time to bathe an elderly person, take a child to school, or perform some other task. I believe that such people are still subject to the requirement to make themselves immediately available for work. There have been exchanges in the House about that in the past. I am a trustee of Community Service Volunteers, which is one of many organisations making use of volunteers for such work. Although the availability for work rule is accepted by volunteers working with organisations less structured than CSV, I should like an assurance that that requirement will be interpreted flexibly so that a client will not be left in the lurch by the need for his or her carer to turn up for work the very next day.
      How is availability for work defined? It is appropriate, particularly in cases such as that of the gentleman cited by the hon. Member for Ladywood, that it should be relatively streamlined and straightforward, but unemployment benefit offices are merging with jobcentres, so will the point be reached where arriving to collect unemployment benefit becomes, ipso facto, sufficient to meet the requirement to be available for work?
      We would do better to move eventually to a system of guaranteed minimum income, whereby benefit would not automatically be cut the moment one starts making a certain amount of money. At present, that is done on the side, but I should like that earning capacity to be made the subject of a declaration, when it would not have a stark knock-on effect on benefits.
      Ms. Short: One knows the hon. Gentleman to be a very honourable Member of this House. Will he say whether he has been invited by his Whip to filibuster so that we cannot debate child benefits properly?
      Mr. Rowe: I apologise if I have given the impression of filibustering. I thought that every one of my points was fresh. I believe that there has been a substantial fall in the number of households in which it is not worth members of the household going to work because they would receive less than they would from social benefits. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that? If so, it is a strong measure of the success of the Government's policies.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I make the point briefly that it is difficult in an area such as mine, with unemployment at 14·1 per cent., to obtain even a low-paid job in the hope of eventually securing better paid employment.
      I ask the Minister to consider the problems in the mining industry, which have been the subject of attention
      1090
      from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, (Mr. Morris), the Department of Employment, and others, in relation to workers who left the industry on the understanding that they had retired but who have now been caught up in the requirements of the restart scheme. Most cases have been admirably dealt with, but a small number of people receiving superannuated earnings do not fall within the same ambit of rulings. After 30 years in the mining industry, they find it rather distasteful, at their age, to be caught up in the restart scheme.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is a shame that more people do not want to speak on new clause 16, which is revealing of the Labour party's attitude.
      Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: Presumably the hon. Gentleman's intervention relates to the vast amount that I have already said.
      Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that there can be a fair and open debate on new clause 16, but we are governed by the clock. I should have liked to address the House on new clauses 15 and 16, but I have been unable to do so because of the guillotine.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has the right to make his speech. He has only just begun.
      Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will restrain himself from making pointless interventions, he may have an opportunity to contribute. The more he intervenes, the longer I shall take. I have several points to make, and I intend to make them.
      The Opposition's new clause would send entirely the wrong signal to people looking for work. A minority—who can say how many?—will be beguiled by the words of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen into believing that there is no need for them to seek work. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) suggested that people seeking work would only obtain jobs producing an income below the level of their existing benefits. That might occasionally be true, but it is not for responsible politicians to tell people, "If you are dissatisfied with your pay or working conditions, or find it too difficult to obtain employment, you can rely on state benefits—we do not want you to put yourself out."
      I am reminded by the hon. Lady of some of the experiences that one hears from people in the employment service. I wonder sometimes what sort of country I am living in when, for example, it is suggested that it is unreasonable for people in Tottenham, an unemployment black spot in London, to get on a bus and go to Hornsey to look for work. That is not an unreasonable distance, but the suggestion was described by an officer in Tottenham as fascist. It is an extraordinary contention that people should not be asked to travel a short distance to look for work.
      It is a measure of the irresponsibility of the Opposition that at a time when we are experiencing record growth—the number of people in work had increased to more than 26 million by September last year, an increase of 3·1 per cent. over the previous year—and demographic factors are contributing to the demand for labour, they should

      1091
      choose to send out such a negative and depressing message to the unemployed. The Opposition are saying, "Go home and wait for a job to materialise—we will call you if anything turns up."
      When I speak to employers in my constituency and in north London, I find that their difficulty is not sorting out applicants but finding anyone at all to fill the jobs. Whether they want skilled or unskilled workers, secretaries, cleaners, accountants or clerks, they cannot get staff. Although unemployment is low in my constituency, it is still significant. I find it difficult to accept that people who come to me for help cannot get jobs. Those people would be encouraged by the Opposition's proposal not to seek work.
      It is extraordinary that the Opposition should want to return to the position before October 1989, when the mere fact of a visit to a jobcentre was deemed sufficient to prove that a person was actively seeking work. We are entitled to ask for more than that. People should not only make themselves available at times when jobs are available, but should look at newspapers, attend interviews and, if necessary, attend training courses on how to fill job applications, how to conduct themselves at interview, and so on.
      The hon. Member for Ladywood spoke of jobs which paid less than benefit. Surely anyone who has ever been in employment or who has worked in a lower-paid job, as some of us on both sides of the House have at different times—
      Mr. Paul Flynn: You will soon be back selling double glazing.
      Mr. Hughes: It is interesting to note that the Labour party expects to win my constituency. I wish it the best of luck. I hope that it will concentrate its resources on my constituency, because it will do it no good.
      Everyone knows that the path to better wages in any job is by building up a record of employment. When people have a record of employment, sometimes they can move to better-paid jobs in the same organisation or to other organisations which are keen to obtain their skills. That is the essence of a skill shortage. Having done a job, however menial, and acquired skill, people can sell that skill to other employers.
      I wish to put two important questions to my hon. Friend the Minister. Is it right that the Opposition's proposal would add £100 million to unemployment benefit?
      Ms. Short: No, it is wrong.
      Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend will confirm the figure; I would rather take my hon. Friend's word than the usually inaccurate estimates of the Opposition. If that figure is correct, it is surely not a responsible use of public money. The Opposition are always bleating about what public money should be spent on, but they have very little idea of what they would devote to certain areas.
      6.45 pm
      At the beginning of my speech I mentioned the signals being sent out. It would surely be irresponsible for people to follow the advice of the Opposition and for 50,000 to be added to the unemployed total. The Opposition are trying to build up unemployment as an issue when plainly it is
      1092
      not. They are attempting to add 50,000 to the unemployed total merely to make the case that they have been trying to make for so long.
      The Opposition proposal is highly irresponsible. They want to return to the position where people do not actively have to seek work. I do not believe that that would find favour outside the House. I do not think that: my constituents would regard it as a responsible way for the Government to act. They would not wish my hon. Friend to have any truck with that nonsense.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The provision about actively seeking work was debated at length in the Committee that considered the Social Security Bill in 1989. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) agreed that the Minister for Social Security was "right to say that most people believe that the unemployed should seek work actively". The effect of the new clause would be to return to the position before October 1989 which absolved claimants from any clear responsibility to look for work.
      It is true that the requirement to be available for work would remain in the Social Security Act 1975 and a claimant would have to take some active steps to draw attention to his availability. But we would be back to the position where one simple step, such as attending a jobcentre, would be enough. There would be no requirement to make any further effort by looking in the newspapers, following up openings and seeking information from employers. The Government believe that that cannot be right for the taxpayer, employers and, indeed, for unemployed people themselves.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made much of the point of the provision. She tried to accuse the Government of forcing people on to low pay. That is not its point; I must underline that.
      Mr. Battle: Since we debated last year's legislation, unemployment has risen in my constituency, and wages are going down from the figures that I quoted for the jobcentre in Bramley last year. That very jobcentre closed yesterday.
      Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman always makes strong points about his constituency interest.
      I hope to cover some of the points the hon. Gentleman made. The Government wish to motivate and encourage people to take positive steps back into the world of work. Of course, we recognise that we must help people as well. That goes some way to meeting the concerns felt by the hon. Gentleman. That is why we have introduced the biggest ever training programme—employment training—to equip the unemployed, in partnership with employers in the new training and enterprise councils, for the jobs that are available now and are crying out to be done. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) that at a time of record growth in employment, with the number of people in work increasing to 26·4 million in September last year—demographic factors are contributing to the demand For labour—it is extraordinary that the Opposition should choose to send out such a negative and depressing message.
      During the passage of the Bill last year, the Opposition could at least plead that they wished to preserve their attitude until they had seen the regulations and been convinced that the new provisions would, as we assured

      1093
      the Committee, be applied flexibly and fairly. We now have the regulations: it is clear that they allow adjudication officers to take into account all the circumstances of a case in deciding whether a claimant has taken reasonable steps to find work.
      The evidence available to us is that people are being treated flexibly and fairly. From 9 October 1989 to 26 January 1990, 11,400 claimants were issued with warning letters for failing to seek work actively, and there is a rising trend in the number of claimants warned about inadequate job search. Most claimants have reacted positively; the employment service reports that an increased rate of entry into job clubs has been maintained, and it has had a number of reports attributing improvements in the number of people entering other training or employment programmes to the new provisions. About 15 per cent. of the claimants warned need to be referred to adjudication officers for consideration of disallowance, but early feedback suggests that there has been little criticism of the operation of the new arrangements. In short, the early signs are that the changes seem to have delivered the changes that we sought within the fair and flexible framework that the legislation provides.
      Obviously, we recognise that the skills and abilities and the physical or mental limitations of an unemployed person play an important part in his ability to find work. We want adjudication officers to take local labour market conditions and a person's work experience fully into account in deciding whether a claimant has taken reasonable steps to find work. That was stressed during the Bill's Committee stage last year. The workings of the regulations bear out the Government's emphasis on that point.
      We understand that the unemployed want to spend their time usefully by studying or by undertaking voluntary work. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). If he examines the regulations, he will see the arrangements to allow voluntary work to be taken into account by adjudication officers. The current legislation takes account of all those factors, and also enables the unemployed to engage in other socially desirable activities—for example, as lifeboat men or firemen—or, in the case of the blind, to attend a course of training in the use of guide dogs. Clearly, the Government have not forgotten people with special problems. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is currently reviewing his Department's services for people with disabilities.
      The Government continue to believe that participating in socially useful activities for the benefit of oneself or others and actively seeking work are not mutually exclusive. It is right that the law should allow us to warn the small but significant minority of people who have previously given up looking for work that, unless they take reasonable steps to find it, they will no longer qualify for benefit. Obviously, we will continue to monitor the implementation of all the October 1989 changes. To put the matter into context, only 0·1 per cent. of all unemployed people have been referred to adjudication officers under the provisions since October 1989.
      The Government are encouraged that many people warned about inadequate job search have accepted the challenge, and that fuller use is being made of the services
      1094
      provided by the employment service to get more people back into work. The underlying strength of the economy has led to the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs; we want the unemployed to be encouraged and helped by the Government and by employers to take the initiative, and to seek out the job opportunities that are opening up.
      The changes that we made last October have been accepted by the vast majority of people, including the unemployed, as simply common sense. I have no hesitation in asking the House to reject the new clause.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 20

      CHILD BENEFIT
      'In section 1 of the Child Benefit Act 1975, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(2A) Child benefit shall continue to be paid as in May 1987, and direct to the mother.
      (2B) In subsection (2A) above, 'as in May 1987' means at rates which have at least the same value as in May 1987 in relation to the general level of prices obtaining in Great Britain.".'.
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms. Short: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the new clause is to maintain child benefit in its current form, paid directly to the main carer—usually the mother—but to make good the amount lost in the freeze between April 1988–89 and April 1989–90 and to index-link the benefit thereafter.
      It is obvious that what we have just heard represented a deliberate attempt to prevent serious debate on child benefit. It illustrates the disgraceful way in which the Government have treated the Bill and the major issues that we sought to raise in the House. The Government are ashamed of their position on child benefit, and rightly so, because they are cutting the value of support for children throughout the country and enlarging the poverty trap for the low paid and for lone mothers.
      We know that the Ministers are not in charge of their Department and have to do as the Treasury tells them. We know that in the past, along with some of the more decent elements of their party, they have been great supporters of child benefit, but such is their lust to hang on to office in a collapsing Government that they now attempt to justify the outrageous policy of cutting child benefit and then cutting it again to bring the benefit into disrepute and allow it to wither away. That, clearly, is the strategy which underpins the Government's actions, and it is entirely in breach of the manifesto on which they fought the last election.
      It is impossible to place a different interpretation on the words on which each and every one of those Ministers fought the election. They said that child benefit would be paid "as now", and directly to the mother. "As now" must imply its value—it would be a joke to say that a benefit whose value had been reduced to almost nothing was being paid "as now". In cutting the benefit, the Government are breaking their faith with the electorate. They have been forced to guillotine the debate and to filibuster because they are so ashamed of what they have to say that they are not willing to say it to the House.

      1095
      If there were time, I should like to go into some of the details of the Secretary of State's justification for the last freeze in child benefit. It does not bear scrutiny. He said:
      "take-home pay for those on average male earnings has already increased on the past year by some £16 a week, and will have been further increased by up to £3 a week for the great majority of families as a result of this month's reduction in national insurance contributions—indeed, more where both partners are working. The introduction of independent taxation next April will bring further improvements for many".—(Official Report, 25 October 1989, Vol. 158, c. 842.]
      None of that stands up. First, independent taxation will not affect the majority of families with children. Secondly, increased male earnings do not necessarily go to mothers and their children, as a survey has shown. Thirdly, two-earner couples gain more from a general increase in gross earnings levels and reductions in national insurance contributions than do one-earner couples.
      The Government's position is indefensible. All the rhetoric from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about their new-found concern for lone parents in need of assistance to avoid the poverty trap is flatly contradicted by what they are doing to child benefit. Child benefit is the one benefit which helps low-paid workers —and, in particular, lone parents—to get off benefit and into work, because they take the benefit with them. The vast majority of lone parents live in poverty, as do their children. They are trapped in that condition because there are no jobs available which pay enough, because the Government have desperately, urgently and thoroughly encouraged low pay in the economy. The erosion of child benefit will increase the already rising proportion of lone-parent families trapped on benefit.
      I am sorry that a number of hon. Members have been deprived of the opportunity to speak—not least by the ignorant, stupid and ill-informed speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on the previous new clause. He was obviously dragged into the Chamber by the Whips to talk about something about which he knew nothing and to prevent serious debate by filibustering.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Short: Certainly not—the hon. Gentleman would not do so—and I will not withdraw what I said either.
      Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not expect civility from the hon. Lady. However, I make speeches when I choose and not when anyone else asks me to, so her suggestion is outrageous.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a point for debate, not a point of order.
      The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) should realise two things. First, had we wished to prevent her from raising the matter, it would have been easy. The fact that she has been able to raise the matter is a sign that her suggestions about my hon. Friends are unfounded. The House must have thought that what she just said about my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was outside the conventions of this place. Secondly, I have manifestly not had the opportunity, despite having a substantial set of remarks, to make the speech that I would have wished to make in
      1096
      response to the hon. Lady. It seems sensible, therefore, for us to proceed to the Division that the hon. Lady evidently wishes to have.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State agree with the analysis of child benefit offered by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), in the Friday debate a few weeks ago—
      It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [29 March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 305.

      Division No. 154]

      [7.00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Allen, Graham

      Eastham, Ken

      Alton, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Fatchett, Derek

      Ashton, Joe

      Fearn, Ronald

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fisher, Mark

      Barron, Kevin

      Flannery, Martin

      Battle, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Beckett, Margaret

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Foster, Derek

      Beith, A. J.

      Foulkes, George

      Bell, Stuart

      Fraser, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Fyfe, Maria

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

      Galloway, George

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Blunkett, David

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Boateng, Paul

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Boyes, Roland

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bradley, Keith

      Gordon, Mildred

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Gould, Bryan

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Buchan, Norman

      Grocott, Bruce

      Buckley, George J.

      Hardy, Peter

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Henderson, Doug

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hinchliffe, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clay, Bob

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clelland, David

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howells, Geraint

      Cohen, Harry

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Crowther, Stan

      Ingram, Adam

      Cryer, Bob

      Janner, Greville

      Cummings, John

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kennedy, Charles

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

      Kilfedder, James

      Dixon, Don

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Dobson, Frank

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Doran, Frank

      Lambie, David

      Douglas, Dick

      Lamond, James

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Leighton, Ron

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      1097

      Litherland, Robert

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      McAllion, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCartney, Ian

      Salmond, Alex

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKelvey, William

      Sheerman, Barry

      McLeish, Henry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maclennan, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McNamara, Kevin

      Short, Clare

      Madden, Max

      Sillars, Jim

      Marek, Dr John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

      Smith J.P. (Vale of Glam)

      Meacher, Michael

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Meale, Alan

      Snape, Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stott, Roger

      Morley, Elliot

      Strang, Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Straw, Jack

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mullin, Chris

      Turner, Dennis

      Murphy, Paul

      Vaz, Keith

      Nellist, Dave

      Walkler, A Cecil (Belfast N)

      O'Brien, William

      Walley, Joan

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Patchett, Terry

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Pike, Peter L.

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Prescott, John

      Wilson, Brian

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Winnick, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Radice, Giles

      Wray, Jimmy

      Randall, Stuart

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Redmond, Martin

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Reid, Dr John

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Richardson, Jo

      Mr. Martyn Jones

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bowis, John

      Alexander, Richard

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Allason, Rupert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Brazier, Julian

      Amess, David

      Bright, Graham

      Amos, Alan

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

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Ashby, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Burns, Simon

      Atkinson, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Butcher, John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Butler, Chris

      Baldry, Tony

      Butterfill, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Cash, William

      Benyon, W.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Chope, Christopher

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Conway, Derek

      Bottomley, Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      1098

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Curry, David

      Irvine, Michael

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

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      Janman, Tim

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jessel, Toby

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dover, Den

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dunn, Bob

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Key, Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Eggar, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knapman, Roger

      Evennett, David

      Knignt, Greg (Derby North)

      Fallon, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Favell, Tony

      Knowles, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lang, Ian

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Latham, Michael

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Forman, Nigel

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Forth, Eric

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Work

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lightbown, David

      Franks, Cecil

      Lilley, Peter

      Freeman, Roger

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      French, Douglas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fry, Peter

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Gale, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Gardiner, George

      Macfarlane, sir Neil

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gill, Christopher

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Maclean, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      McNair-Wilson, sir Michael

      Gow, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, sir Patrick

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Madel, David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gregory, Conal

      Mans, Keith

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      marland, Paul

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Grist, Ian

      MarShall, John (Hendon S)

      Ground, Patrick

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grylls, Michael

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hague, William

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mellor, David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mills, Iain

      Hannam, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Harris, David

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hayes, Jerry

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Mudd, David

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Neubert, Michael

      Hill, James

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Holt, Richard

      Norris, Steve

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

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

      Page, Richard

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Paice, James

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      1099

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Pawsey, James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Portillo, Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Price, Sir David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Raffan, Keith

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Redwood, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Tracey, Richard

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tredinnick, David

      Rost, Peter

      Trippier, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Trotter, Neville

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ryder, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Waller, Gary

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Ward, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sims, Roger

      Warren, Kenneth

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Watts, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wells, Bowen

      Speed, Keith

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Speller, Tony

      Whitney, Ray

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Squire, Robin

      Wilshire, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Stevens, Lewis

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stokes, Sir John

      Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Sumberg, David

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      REDUCED EARNINGS ALLOWANCE AND RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE
      Mr. Flynn: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 20, leave out clause 3.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 64.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Flynn: Clause 3 is at the heart of the Bill and seeks to extinguish entitlement to reduced earnings allowance. The amendment, by contrast, seeks to extinguish the clause.
      The clause represents an obvious cut in benefit. To introduce some of the Government's promised reforms —the disablement employment credit and the disablement allowances—the Government must first cut. They are robbing Peter to pay Peter. This follows the Treasury's edict, which has dominated the 11 years of Thatcher's misrule in social security—that any apparent improvement must be self-financing. To reward the disabled with long overdue benefits, they must first be robbed of existing benefits.
      Even on the Government's own figures, the abolition of reduced earnings allowance will reduce benefits paid to the
      1100
      victims of industrial accidents and diseases by £41 million in 1992–93, rising to £130 million in the year 2001–2 and to £150 million in the year 2025–26. These figures are almost certainly a gross underestimate because they are based on unrealistic assumptions of the rate of increase in earnings, but even if they are correct they represent a ferocious cut in the incomes of disabled people.
      Reduced earnings allowance is an important benefit in terms of the considerable numbers of people affected, of its great value and of the reason for which it is paid. It is received by 146,000 disabled people—a number that has scarcely changed in the past 20 years—so the Government are not obliterating a minor, arcane, anachronistic benefit payable only to a handful of people. It is important to remember that for more than half of those who receive it, it is their only compensation from the industrial injuries scheme.
      What is the value of the benefit? In theory, it varies with a loss of earning capacity, but as the maximum allowance for 1990–91 in £30·54, and the loss of earnings generally is far more than that, the maximum is payable in most cases. At least 120,000 people will lose more than £30 per week from the abolition of the REA.
      What is the purpose of the benefit? In 1948, our predecessors in this place wisely introduced the allowance, and their reasons for so doing are as compelling today as they were then. Loss of earnings is still specifically excluded from the factors taken into account in assessing entitlement to basic industrial disablement pensions. Since 1986, no disablement pension has been paid at all if a disability is less than 14 per cent., but even a relatively minor disability which does not qualify a person for disablement pension can result in a critical loss of earnings. The REA provides a modest but entirely justified level of compensation for that loss.
      In Committee, the Minister produced some eccentric counterfeit arguments to pretend that REA was both unnecessary and a duplication of other provision. He cited the extreme case of a man whose earnings had dropped from £350 per week to £300 per week, as though it was self-evident that such a person did not need REA. But if such a man is sufficiently disabled not to be able to return to a previous job and his earnings have fallen by £50 per week, REA of £30 is probably the only compensation to which he is entitled, so how can it possibly be argued that he does not need it?
      What about a man whose income was slashed not from £350 to £300, but from £250 to £200, or a woman whose earnings dropped from £200 to £150, or a man or a woman whose earnings may have dropped not by £50 per week but by £100 a week or even more? There are many such cases. Can it really be the Government's view that such people do not need the £30 allowance?
      The Minister also claimed that most REA recipients who cannot work receive invalidity benefits, which he described as an anomalous overlap—a phrase which occurs in the White Paper. If it is an overlap, it has not been regarded as one of any insignificance by anyone in the past 40 years. Is it an overlap? Invalidity benefit, including the highest rate of invalidity allowance, is only £56·90 a week in the current year. Even when allowances for a non-earning spouse and children are added to the total, it is still far below the average take-home pay of the average

      1101
      manual worker. There is no question of overcompensation for the loss of earnings. In the vast majority of cases, there is immense under-compensation. The £30 allowance fills only a small part of the gap.
      The only component of invalidity benefit which could conceivably be regarded as overlapping with REA is the earnings-related addition payable under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, but that is to be abolished under clause 4. The argument that two benefits overlap may justify abolishing one of them, but it can never justify abolishing both. That would be an act of unbridled meanness, but that is what the Bill appears to do.
      Very little is left. The clause is a malign, crude attempt to save money by picking the pockets of those who have suffered the afflictions of industrial accidents and diseases. The defence that the cut is part of a package of measures to improve the lot of disabled people is false. The Government claim that it will increase spending on disability benefits up to the turn of the century, but that claim is almost certainly unjustified because of the Government's unrealistic assumptions about the increase in average earnings.
      Some disabled people will gain from some of the changes proposed in the White Paper when they come, but only a minority of those entitled to REA will qualify for the proposed new benefits. Those who cannot work will lose both REA and earnings-related invalidity benefit. Among those who can work, some may qualify for the means-tested disability employment credit, but that benefit is expected to reach only about 50,000 people in total. If as many as half those who now qualify for REA are reached, which is most unlikely, that would account for only one sixth of the present total of REA recipients.
      The unfairness of discriminating in this way against the victims of industrial injuries is all the greater because, until now, industrial injuries benefits have always been part of the national insurance scheme, financed out of contributions to the scheme and paid for by employers and employees. In Committee, the Minister invented a convenient theory that the benefits were non-contributory, so no breach of contract was involved in their abolition. He wrote to me on that subject and there is no point in re-running the argument, but if the Minister still adheres to the same view, he should have a quiet word with his statisticians. In their annual publication, "Social Security Statistics", they list industrial disablement benefit clearly under the heading "Contributory Benefits".
      The abolition of REA is almost the last stage in the process of dismantling the industrial injury benefit scheme. There might be some justification for that if the benefits were to be replaced by equally generous provision for all disabled people, regardless of the cause of disability, but that is not what the Government propose. On the contrary, they are engaged in a massive cost-cutting, cost-juggling exercise in recycling money, in which the victims of industrial accidents and diseases will be among the greatest losers.
      Mr. Scott: My first point was touched on by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). The provision that we have included in the Bill needs to be seen in the wider context of the Government's overall provision. What we have tried to do is to produce a package of measures that will significantly alter the balance of
      1102
      provision for disabled people within the overall provision. By 1992, when disability employment credit and disability allowance are in place, we shall have addressed the needs of the disabled population as a whole much more effectively. We shall be addressing in particular the needs of those among the disabled who suffer the most disabling of incapacities, particularly people who are disabled from birth or early in life who do not have the capacity to build up entitlement to contributory benefits.
      I make no secret of the fact that some of our proposals are specifically designed to redress the balance and direct resources to areas of greater need. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that that was the approach that I took in Committee. The ending of entitlement to reduced earnings allowance for new claimants is a sensible measure which forms part of the overall strategy. I stress that the change relates to new entitlements. All existing REA entitlements will be preserved and uprated in future under the rules that apply now.
      The hon. Gentleman suggested that we were trying to abolish the industrial preference altogether. He is jumping the gun substantially. I have no intention of doing that. I cannot say that there will not be further changes in the industrial injuries benefit system or amendments to the industrial preference, but the clause is not part of a long-term strategy to remove that preference. Sensibly, we are adjusting the balance between different aspects of provision for disabled people.
      It is true that the preferences available to the industrially disabled are at present significant and go some way beyond the provisions available to other disabled people. What is more, the benefits are tax-free, non-contributory and generally payable in addition to other benefits, unless they are means-tested, in which case they would be partially disregarded. Furthermore, the benefits are payable whether or not the beneficiary is working. In consequence, someone who receives maximum industrial injuries benefits, along with invalidity benefit and mobility allowance, could have a net weekly income of over £250. That compares with take-home pay of £156 a week for a married man on average manual earnings.
      It is not surprising that industrial injuries benefit recipients are not only better off than comparable benefit recipients but, when looking at the population as a whole, are more likely to be found in the middle or upper parts of income distribution.
      Within the overall framework of industrial injuries provision, reduced earnings allowance may be paid where a person's earning capacity suffers as a direct result of an industrial accident or disease. However, a person does not have to be severely disabled to receive the allowance. Only 1 per cent. disablement is required to qualify. In the majority of cases, the least disabled benefit from that provision.
      I conclude by emphasising two points. First, I reiterate that present beneficiaries and new entitlements established before the Bill becomes law are protected. They will continue to receive REA as long as they fulfil the qualifying conditions and the benefit will be uprated on the same basis as now. I emphasise again that this is part of a wider consideration of the balance of provision among disabled people generally. All hon. Members who consider the matter fairly will look forward to 1992, when the disability allowance and disability employment credit are available. They will represent significant steps in meeting the needs of disabled people that have long been

      1103
      campaigned on but which we have not been able to meet. The clause is part of the way in which we shall introduce those two new benefits.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I wish to ask the Minister several specific questions about the reduced earnings allowance and other matters that I have raised before. I accept that existing beneficiaries will continue to qualify. That means that new claimants will not be able to receive reduced earnings allowance.
      Many people in industry, particularly my industry of mining, have, over the years, relied upon the reduced earnings allowance. I have persuaded people who were obviously unfit to continue their present work to take on lighter duties either on the surface of the colliery or underground. The availability of REA encouraged those people to leave the work of which they were no longer capable. Previously, many had attempted to carry on because they were worried about a reduction in their earnings. The onset of an industrial disease or the suffering of an industrial accident had a traumatic effect on households with on-going commitments as they realised that their earnings would be reduced. Sometimes such families fell into debt. Until that time, the worker felt that, to all intents and purposes, his working life would continue until he was 65.
      7.30 pm
      The Bill will take us back to the days before REA was available and it will encourage people to stay in work for which they are unfit. As a result, their injuries or industrial disease will worsen. The Bill is a step backwards. We do not know what 1992 will bring, but I know what the Bill will bring. The person injured or suffering from an industrial disease will henceforth ask himself whether he can afford to leave his work, given that that could cause problems at home. He will have to decide whether to continue in his present work in the certainty that his industrial disease or the injury that he sustained will worsen. If that happened, the cost to the social fund and to the welfare fund would he greater than REA in the long run as the need for care would be so much greater.
      A person in low-paid work does not pay so much towards his retirement as he would were he in high-technology work. The fact that REA carried on in retirement until the age of 70 compensated for the loss of superannuation and works pension as a result of injury or disease. That allowance encouraged people to leave work for which they were unfit and to have a better, and probably longer life. It also ensured that the effect of the loss of earnings was cushioned until the age of 70. It is important to reconsider the Bill in the light of those arguments.
      It is one thing to look to the future and another to say that existing beneficiaries will not be affected. There is a gap that could cover a lot of people in and out of work. We should fill that gap.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: I have to make a contribution now, because it is obvious that the Government are taking us back to the 1930s. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. I listened to what the Minister had to say and he knows how far my age group goes back. I well remember the bad old days in the mining industry to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and
      1104
      Penistone (Mr. McKay) referred. I remember the serious injuries and diseases from which miners suffered. My hon. Friend was also right to talk about a reduction in earnings.
      Who do the Government think they are kidding? We have been around a long time. It was under a Conservative Government that all the problems first occurred in the mining industry. That happened when I was young. The Minister is not helping to make things any better.
      Many people will be shoved on to the scrap heap because they cannot carry out their normal work. The Government are not helping people who suffer an industrial accident or from an industrial disease. They are clobbering such people. I know that the Minister is trying to kid me; he has done it before and is doing it again tonight. I warn him that the workers out there will not like it. The Minister and the Prime Minister have told us that many such workers voted Conservative last time. They will have second thoughts because of the Bill, never mind the poll tax.
      I am not satisfied with what the Minister had to say. Never mind the benefits the Minister described, which he believes will encourage workers to leave unsuitable work. Those workers will be chucked on the scrap heap and they will be unable to find another job anywhere else, because no one will be prepared to take them on. People who have suffered an industrial accident or caught a serious industrial disease should be properly looked after by us. It is a high time that the Government rethought their policy on this. We shall do that for them when we are over there on the Government Benches. After the next election we will put things right, make no mistake about it. Perhaps the Minister will not be here to see it happen.
      Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman will not be here.
      Mr. Haynes: That is true; I am retiring at the next election. The Parliamentary Private Secretary is opening his mouth behind the Minister when he should be keeping quiet. He is making snide remarks at me, but I have already announced my retirement. I note that the hon. Gentleman has just nipped off to get some advice for the Minister.
      I shall not be here after the next election because I belong to a particular age group, but I shall keep my eye on this place, there is no doubt about that. I shall keep my eye on how these Tories react in Opposition when the Labour Government do all kinds of marvellous things.
      Mr. Marshall indicated dissent.
      Mr. Haynes: I note the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Does he want to make an intervention? Apparently not. The hon. Gentleman is busy shaking his head and making snide remarks to the Minister instead of getting up and being honest with himself and the House.
      The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has heard how I feel about the Bill, following what the Minister said. I am not pleased with what he said, nor am I pleased with him. He should have used a different tone and said different things. Most of my colleagues now in the Chamber were employed at one time in heavy industry. We know what it is all about. I bet the Minister has never had a shovel in his hand.
      Mr. Scott: I have.
      Mr. Haynes: He probably used it to make a fire, but I am talking about real work and a No. 10 shovel. That shovel is as big as a table top.
      Some of the poor lads in the mining industry all those years ago suffered under the coal owners and the Minister and the Government are trying to take the mining industry back to those times with all their legislation. We do not accept the Bill.
      If the Minister is on the Opposition Benches after the next election he will see what we will do in the interests of poor people who cannot help themselves, particularly those who have given a lifetime to industry and who are seriously hurt or who catch a serious industrial disease as a result. We will help those people and we shall not scratch round for a copper or two like the Government. We will treat them properly and pay them what they are entitled to receive. Those people have made their contribution to our economy so that we might enjoy the benefits. They must be looked after properly, but the Minister has not offered such help tonight. I felt that I had to tell him that.
      Mr. Scott: I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for his journey down memory lane. We are all disappointed that he will not be here after the next election. I do not know whether he saw Black Adder last night, or was it the night before—
      Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the Minister has just said is not true. If I were to stand at the next election he would want me to lose my seat. He should be honest about it.
      Mr. Scott: Obviously, I retain my partisan approach to the political struggle, but in terms of personal affection and admiration, I shall be sorry to see the hon. Gentleman go. I wonder whether his ghost will come back to haunt us and his vibrant tones resound across the Chamber. Certainly, he will be with us in our imagination.
      The hon. Gentleman caricatured the Government's approach to these problems. He knows as well as I do that while this Government have been in office, benefits for the long-term sick and disabled have almost doubled in real terms—£4 billion extra has been put into provision for them—and that we are continuing to provide £500 million a year for the industrially injured under the special scheme designed for them. Therefore, nobody is neglecting them, but, as I tried to say in my earlier intervention, we are trying to adjust the scheme to make better provision across the range of people who suffer from disabilities.
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asked me two specific questions, one of which involved retirement allowance. People may be entitled to invalidity allowance on top of invalidity pension. Those who do not receive invalidity benefit, but qualify for severe disablement allowance, will be entitled to the new age-related addition, included in the Social Security Bill, which increases payments to them. Any provision in retirement must be seen against the general improvement in the standard of living of pensioners overall during the past 10 years.
      The total net income of pensioners has increased by 31 per cent. during this Government. Anyone who goes out and about knows that there has been, on average—I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that we acknowledge that this is an average— significant improvement in the standard of living and net income of pensioners while we have been in office. We
      1106
      want that to continue and particularly wish to address the needs of pensioners who have been unable to gain access to that increase in their standard of living or net income. We have done that by producing special packages to meet their needs.
      Mr. Kennedy: I wish to make a small point, one that has often been made in this place. When the Minister talks about real net increases in pensioners' income, he must remember that it has to be set in the context of the break in the link with earnings and the massive difficulties that that has caused over the years. He talked about us going round the country and listening to what pensioners were saying. I am sure that they would not deny any of the increases that they have been given, but they were rightly riled about the fundamental break which has devalued all the other additions that the Government have made.
      Mr. Scott: I do not want to drift out of order by entering a more general debate on the standard of living of those in retirement.
      Mr. Kennedy: The Minister introduced the issue.
      Mr. Scott: Indeed I did. The point of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone should be seen against the background of the general improvement in living standards which nobody can deny. The standard of living should not be seen just against the state retirement pension, which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye mentioned. It should be seen against the spread of occupational pensions and the increased income for pensioners from savings in recent years. All those factors have contributed to the overall increase in pensioners' living standards. We should not forget that when we discuss this issue.
      Mr. Allen McKay: There are a number of flaws in the Minister's argument. We could disagree about the real level of pensions, but that is another argument. My argument was that reduced earnings allowance also made up for the loss of earning capacity and pension benefits. Irrespective of whether the Minister argues that living standards should be seen against that background, those people's incomes have been reduced. Occupational pensions are based on a person's last 12 months' earnings, which will be reduced if reduced earnings allowance is abolished. The occupational pensions will be based on a reduced earning capacity and will not take into account the addition of hardship allowance or reduced earnings allowance, as the Government prefer to call it. They need increased benefits to make up for the loss of earnings.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Scott: I acknowledge that new cases will be unable to receive reduced earnings allowance, but a casual reading of the hon. Gentleman's contribution might suggest that we are taking away present entitlements from those entitled to reduced earnings allowance. As I said earlier, not only entitlements gained up to the present, but those gained before the Bill receives Royal Assent, will be preserved.
      I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's other point, but I hope that I can persuade him that it is not as relevant as he suggested. I appreciate the argument. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which represents the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry

      1107
      and other experts, the point was made that somebody in a particular job might contract a condition which, if he continued in that occupation, would endanger his long-term health. In that case, he could be moved to another job in the company and receive REA to top up his income. When we pressed for evidence that that was a problem, the only evidence that we received was anecdotal. There was no real evidence to show that that was a major problem.
      The vast majority of REA recipients are not in work in the first place and therefore would not be covered by that provision. There may be the odd case, but I do not think that the provision of REA is likely to be a decisive factor when an employee decides whether to leave his job and find something less arduous which does not leave him open to the conditions that led to his contracting a particular disease.
      Even with high earnings, if disability is assessed at 14 per cent. or more, disablement benefit is payable. The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about the mining industry and I highly respect his knowledge. For the three major respiratory diseases common in the mining industry, and one or two others, disablement benefit does not have the 14 per cent. cut-off point, but is payable right down to the 1 per cent. scale. Notwithstanding the fact that disablement benefit is paid as a form of compensation, it is surely right to recognise that, in comparisons of pre and post-accident earnings, disablement benefit makes a contribution to people's income.
      Therefore, I still stand by the Government's decision that clause 3 is an important part of a package of measures that will enable us, once we have introduced the two new benefits, to make much better provision and tilt the balance towards those who in recent years have been neglected by the provision —for example, those disabled from birth or early in life. This is a necessary part of that package.
      Mr. Flynn: Traditionally, for the purposes of paying this benefit, a distinction was made between those suffering industrial injuries or diseases, and those suffering problems from birth—who had been short-changed by nature—because for so long those who suffered industrial disease were normally the breadwinners in the family. We now know that there is an equally compelling case to provide similar benefits for others who have never worked. That is accepted as a normal, civilising advance which can be seen in almost every country in Europe which try to help disabled people in that way. Sadly, the Government believe that the only way of achieving this is to give to the severely disabled by cutting the allowances to those who are slightly disabled.
      While my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) reminded us of the past—we are all aware of the crippling diseases contracted as an unwanted bonus by many people in mining and other industries—it is not reasonable to suggest that this is over or done with; in the new industries, even more crippling and sinister diseases are emerging. We heard recently of the 500 cases of radiation exposure, unknown and unsuspected in workers in the nuclear industry. There was a programme on "Scottish Eye" about the silicon industry, where again unsuspected problems are arising and unexpected diseases appearing.
      I can remember vividly when I started out on my career in laboratories how many of the reagents that we used
      1108
      were regarded as benign, such as benzine and carbon tetrachloride; we splashed them about and used them for degreasants and so on. We now know that these reagents are viciously carcinogenic and that in consequence there is a short life for those who work in laboratories.
      The justification for this REA continues. It is a bleak indictment of the Government that, after this long period of trying to introduce proper allowances for the disabled —the five years of waiting for the reports to start and the five years waiting for them to be published—the Government have promised that they will help the disabled, they have trailed the news, they have announced it and re-announced it, and now we find that it is only to come in at the expense of other disabled people.
      We would like to press this tonight, but we are aware of the other problems. On second thoughts, another bolt of lightning has struck me and, because of the force of the arguments, we would like to press this to a division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 262.

      Division No. 155]

      [7.51 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Eadie, Alexander

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Eastham, Ken

      Allen, Graham

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Ashton, Joe

      Fatchett, Derek

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barron, Kevin

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

      Beckett, Margaret

      Fisher, Mark

      Beggs, Roy

      Flannery, Martin

      Bell, Stuart

      Flynn, Paul

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

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Derek

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foulkes, George

      Blunkett, David

      Fraser, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bradley, Keith

      Galloway, George

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Buchan, Norman

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Buckley, George J.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gould, Bryan

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hardy, Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Clay, Bob

      Home Robertson, John

      Clelland, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howells, Geraint

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Crowther, Stan

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cummings, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kennedy, Charles

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

      Kilfedder, James

      Dixon, Don

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Doran, Frank

      Lambie, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lamond, James

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Leighton, Ron

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Litherland, Robert

      1109

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Reid, Dr John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Richardson, Jo

      McAllion, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCartney, Ian

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Rowlands, Ted

      McKelvey, William

      Ruddock, Joan

      McLeish, Henry

      Salmond, Alex

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheerman, Barry

      Madden, Max

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marek, Dr John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Short, clare

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Maxton, John

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Smith, J.P. (Vale of Glam)

      Meale, Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Michael, Alun

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Stott, Roger

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Gavin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morley, Elliot

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Turner, Dennis

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Vaz, Keith

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Walley, Joan

      Nellist, Dave

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      O'Brien, William

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Patchett, Terry

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wilson, Brian

      Pike, Peter L.

      Winnick, David

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Prescott, John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Radice, Giles

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Randall, Stuart

      Mr. Frank Hayes and

      Redmond, Martin

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bright, Graham

      Aitken, Jonathan

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

      Alexander, Richard

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Allason, Rupert

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Amess, David

      Burns, Simon

      Amos, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Arbuthnot, James

      Butcher, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Butler, Chris

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Butterfill, John

      Ashby, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Carrington, Matthew

      Atkinson, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Chapman, Sydney

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Chope, Christopher

      Batiste, Spencer

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

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Conway, Derek

      Benyon, W.

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cran, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Curry, David

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Day, Stephen

      Bowis, John

      Devlin, Tim

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      1110

      Dover, Den

      McCrindle, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Eggar, Tim

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Maclean, David

      Evennett, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Favell, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Madel, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Mans, Keith

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Marland, Paul

      Forman, Nigel

      Marlow, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Forth, Eric

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Freeman, Roger

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      French, Douglas

      Mayhew, Rt Hon sir Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Mellor, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gill, Christopher

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Mills, Iain

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gow, Ian

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Neubert, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Ground, Patrick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Grylls, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hague, William

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Paice, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Pawsey, James

      Hannam, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Harris, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Price, Sir David

      Hayes, Jerry

      Raffan, Keith

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hill, James

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Rost, Peter

      Holt, Richard

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

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

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Shersby, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Janman, Tim

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jessel, Toby

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Speed, Keith

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Squire, Robin

      Key, Robert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Stevens, Lewis

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lang, Ian

      Stokes, Sir John

      Latham, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sumberg, David

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      1111

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Warren, Kenneth

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Watts, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wells, Bowen

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Whitney, Ray

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tracey, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilshire, David

      Trippier, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Trotter, Neville

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wolfson, Mark

      Viggers, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Waller, Gary

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ward, John

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mr. Nicholas Baker.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 64, in page 5, line 28, leave out "'and' and insert "'or'.—[Mr. Scott.]

    Clause 4

      COMPUTATION OF ADDITIONAL PENSION FOR PURPOSES OF INVALIDITY PENSION ETC.
      Mr. Flynn: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 33, leave out clause 4.
      Clause 4 proposes to abolish the earnings-related invalidity pension provided under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. The White Paper "The Way Ahead" deliberately concealed the true extent of the losses that the long-term sick will suffer. It admits that by the end of the century, 10 years from now, they will be losing £350 million a year—money that the White Paper claims will be spent on other benefits for the sick and the disabled. However, it says nothing about the enormously greater losses that will build up over 20 or 30 years—and those are legitimate advance periods for the consideration of social security.
      The truth about those losses emerged only in reply to parliamentary questions. The Minister was forced to admit that, by the year 2025–26, the long-term sick would be losing not only £350 million a year but £1,825 million —more than five times as much. Some of that will be replaced by means-tested benefits, but the net loss will be £1,300 million. According to the Government's figures, only a quarter of that additional sum will be used to pay for the other changes in disability benefits. The other quarters will be a straight cut in spending on the long-term sick and disabled.
      It is hard to know how the Government can possibly justify that cut. Exposed before us is the gulf between reality and rhetoric. Even Ministers have not had the gall to suggest that invalidity benefit is too generous in relation to the needs of the long-term sick. The basic rate for the coming year is only £46·90, to which is added an age-related allowance varying from nil to a maximum of £10 a week. The earnings-related pension scheme, when it is fully mature, will add less than 20 per cent. of an individual's earnings, so that, even in the next century, very few people will receive more than half their previous earnings during long-term sickness.
      It should be remembered that those benefit levels were not inherited, in the mythology of the Conservative party, from a profligate Labour Government. What is being cut now is a system that has already suffered a great deal. It is all that is left after the savage cuts already inflicted by the
      1112
      Government. The basic benefit has been frozen since 1980, when the link with average earnings was broken. The earnings-related addition was cut by more than one third by the Social Security Act 1986. The Opposition tabled an amendment to that aimed specifically at mitigating its effects on the value of earnings-related invalidity benefit. The then Under-Secretary, who now rejoices in the role of Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave the reply:
      "The proposals that we have put forward are reasonable, affordable and fair as between pensioner, taxpayer and national insurance payer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 25 February 1986, c. 401.]
      The Minister was asked in Committee why, if they were affordable then, they are not affordable now. If they were fair between pensioner, taxpayer and national insurance payer three years ago, why has the position changed? There was no answer from the Minister, but the change is the fact that the Minister is looking for money and is scratching around everywhere to fund the Government's much-vaunted new scheme to help the disabled. That is what has suddenly transformed the position.
      The Government have produced another argument for the massive reduction in benefits for the long-term sick —the growth of long-term occupational sick pay schemes. The evidence on which they base that is a weighty report by IFF Research Ltd. and published by the Department in 1988.
      The report contains a great deal of information, from which the Government have selected one figure to support their case. It is that the coverage of long-term occupational sick pay schemes has risen to nearly 60 per cent. In Committee I quoted, I believe, nearly every conclusion in that report. I was rather unfairly accused by the Minister of quoting selectively because, having re-read the report, I still can find no other conclusions. I will not repeat them all tonight.
      The 60 per cent. coverage does not mean that six out of 10 people suffering from long-term illness receive sick pay from their employers—far from it. The IFF Research report shows that only 4 per cent. of private sector firms in hazardous industries—construction, mining and quarrying—have a long-term sick pay scheme, and another 3 per cent. say that they might make discretionary payments if the employees are lucky. The other 93 per cent. accept no responsibility at all for long-term sickness.
      The report also shows that over one third of the schemes exclude recent employees, generally for the first six to 12 months, when accidents are most likely to occur, and 43 per cent. of large firms' sick pay schemes exclude manual workers altogether. Even for those theoretically covered, entitlement to long-term sick pay often depends on the cause of sickness. There is a great deal of picking and choosing in this matter and a very wide range of exclusions, ranging from drug or alcohol abuse to sporting injuries.
      When long-term sick pay is paid, it is limited in both its amount and its duration, and only 12 per cent. of schemes provide full basic pay. Even in the public sector, which has been the pacemaker in this field, as in so many others, two out of three schemes have a time limit on them. It may indeed be true that 60 per cent. of employees work for employers with some kind of long-term sick pay arrangement, but it seems very clear that most of the 60 per cent., if they fall sick, will get no long-term sick pay at all. The rest may get something, depending on the reason for their illness.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people who have deliberately misused themselves by drug or alcohol abuse ought to be getting that sort of thing from their employers?
      Mr. Flynn: I am saying that there should be universal benefits. That has been the principle behind the social security system in this country and in every other country. One could equally argue, and I think that it has been argued in some barbarous circles, that people who are ill as a result of drug abuse should not be treated, although we make different judgments for acceptable drugs, such as alcohol and cigarettes. We have a pension scheme, and we are not in a position to make judgments on how people fell into ill health. That would be treading on very dangerous ground. We need a highly effective scheme, which must cover those who are in it for all eventualities.
      The case I quoted showed one of the defects of many occupational schemes, but the hon. Lady is unfair if she is considering that rather than all the others. We know that the occupational schemes are inferior in many ways, and I quoted a long list. We certainly cannot make a judgment on people because of the way in which they acquired their illness. I believe that hon. Members of all parties would find that an intolerable course of action.
      So, while it may be true that 60 per cent. of employees work for employers with some kind of long-term sick pay arrangement, it seems clear that most of that 60 per cent., if they fall sick, will get no long-term sick pay at all. The rest may get something, depending on the reason for the illness, but it will not be any substitute for the invalidity benefit that they will lose if clause 4 is enacted.
      We are arguing that there is now a universal benefit that is paid without prejudice, and the excuse being given for withdrawing it is that occupational pay schemes are widespread. The occupational pay schemes are woefully inadequate in many directions.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Scott: The amendment would delete clause 4. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) sought to argue that the Government proposals to curtail entitlement to additional pension with invalidity benefit after 1991 should not be proceeded with despite the fact that, as I explained in Committee more than once, they form an important part of our package for the new provision for disabled people in our society.
      I acknowledge, of course, that if the savings are projected into the next century they look pretty massive, but by the time one gets there all sorts of other arguments will no doubt have entered into the dispute across the Floor of the House. It is undeniable also that those savings, having been acquired through this provision, which I shall justify in a moment, will give whoever has my job at that time some scope for manoeuvre. Certainly, within the economy overall, there will be room for manoeuvre and for the redeployment of those sums of money.
      Unless I misheard the hon. Gentleman, he suggested that in some way the Government were intending to cut the overall provision in the area of disability. He knows as well as I do that every year from now to the end of the century there will be extra resources above those previously announced in this area, peaking at some £300 million. In my judgment, the extra money will be put into this provision in a much better structured and balanced manner than at the moment.
      1114
      The hon. Gentleman gave quite a lot of figures and I will begin my response by giving a few of my own. Since 1979 the number of people entitled to invalidity benefit has almost doubled—from 600,000 to just under 1·2 million —and expenditure has risen in cash terms from £840 million to £3·8 billion. Moreover, if we take spending over the whole range of social security benefits payable to the long-term sick and disabled, as I said on the earlier amendment, it has increased by some £4 billion in real terms. That is a pretty substantial record and the whole house should recognise that. We can all speculate about what has led to the tremendous increase in the take-up of invalidity benefit over that period, but this is not perhaps the time to go into that, unless other hon. Members wish to intervene and make a point.
      On invalidity benefit, the current average payment of additional pension is £9 a week, with a maximum of some £41 a week. As I said in Committee, this costs some £450 million a year and it is estimated that, if we went on in the same way, by 1998 the average weekly payment of additional pension would rise to £21 a week, with a maximum of £84, and the annual cost would rise to a staggering £1·6 billion. All this is on top of the basic invalidity pension and the invalidity allowance.
      So, in considering the future structure of benefits available for the disabled, we needed to consider whether continued expenditure on this scale was a sensible use of available resources when set against other priorities in provision for disabled people. Our conclusion was that it was not, for two main reasons.
      First—I apologise to the House for repeating this, but I must emphasise it very strongly and I believe it personally very strongly—a major aim in the proposals set out in our paper, "The Way Ahead", is to provide more help for those disabled at birth or early in life. The whole House ought to agree with that objective. If we allowed additional pension to grow as alarmingly as I have outlined, we would be further widening the gap between those who have been able to work and those who have not.
      Secondly, as the hon. Member for Newport, West agreed, occupational sick pay cover is growing. I agree with him that it is uneven at present, but nobody can doubt that its coverage is extending at a steady rate. Coverage has tripled in the last 15 years, and there was no dispute about that in Committee.
      As I emphasised in Committee, the tighter employment situation in which we shall find ourselves in the coming few decades will make employers more willing to offer packages including provision for long-term sickness and disability to attract people into their work forces. Indeed, that will put extra bargaining weapons in the hands of trade unions negotiating packages for their members in large-scale enterprises. They should find it easier to negotiate this type of provision because in the coming years there will be great competition for skills. We can therefore look forward to seeing that uneven provision evened out and further extended in the years ahead, and that will be a good development.
      Those are the two main reasons which led us to make our proposals in "The Way Ahead" for the curtailment of additional pension for invalidity benefit and the introduction as a consequence of the two new benefits—the disability allowance and the disability employment credit. They will make for better balanced provision in future.

      1115
      The clause does not affect existing rights to additional pension. All the rights built up in the years up to and including the 1990–91 tax year will be preserved, whenever the claim for invalidity pension is made, however far in the future that may be. Moreover, such additional pension will continue to be subject to revaluation uprating in exactly the same way as at present.
      That all means that, even with the provisions in clause 4, the cost of additional pension will still grow from the present £450 million to £1·3 billion in the next 10 years. The provisions in clause 4 are consistent with the Government's overall strategy for future provision for disabled people. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Battle: The Minister put a gloss on his remarks to emphasise the positive side of what the Government are doing. His phrase "uneven development" may be nearer the truth. On the economic side, his analysis suggests that there will be competition for much-needed skills in the work force in future, but at the same time there could continue to develop—it is developing now—a low-wage economy, with more part-time, temporary and low-paid work. Let us be clear that there is uneven development in the employment sector.
      The Minister said that there had been an alarming growth in the degree of invalidity pension. Let us remember that the basic benefit has been frozen since 1980, when the link with average earnings was broken. The earnings-related addition was cut by over a third by the Social Security Act 1986, so the Government cannot claim a gloriously progressive record on this issue.
      We have waited a long time for the publication of "The Way Ahead." We had to press to get it, having been told that it would represent a proper survey of the needs of the long-term sick and disabled. We now have the proposals in the new integrated package, which appear to be fine. But part of the Government's strategy seems to involve deciding on a strategy, putting it to the Treasury and then resolving—if they discover that it will cost Government Departments, in particular the Department of Social Security, too much—to look to local authorities as a means of funding that package. That has happened in the past—for example, with housing benefit—and many would say that the social fund notion has involved shifting expenditure to the local level.
      The Minister said that local authorities would be putting this package together in conjunction with the Government. On this of all days, we must wonder whether it will turn out to be a capped budget to prevent local expenses from escalating, the whole thing being partly controlled from the centre.
      Mr. Scott: I fear that I may be losing the thread of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he talking about the community care arrangements? He cannot be talking about the additional pension when referring to local arrangements. Or is he perhaps referring to my previous remarks about the independent living fund?
      Mr. Battle: I am questioning the whole structure of the scheme being planned by the Government. The ILF comes into it, but I am particularly concerned with disability benefit because the Minister said that there could be a gap before the introduction of the new benefit for disabled people. We must be sure that whatever emerges during that time will be adequate. Will the cost be borne by local authorities, controlled from the centre—like housing
      1116
      benefit, which is then repaid—or will there be a different budgeting arrangement? At present, central Government control the budget for benefits. I foresee a time when the integration of disabled benefit will mean the burden being pushed to the local level. In other words, local authorities could be expected to pick up the tab, thereby saving central Government the cost.
      Clause 4 enables the Government to make savings. "The Way Ahead" concealed the extent to which the long-term sick would suffer as a result—
      Mr. Scott: I interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the hope that I can help him while his line of argument is fresh in my mind. There is no intention that the general run of disability benefits should be provided other than centrally, but obviously there are elements of provision, of which community care is one, where a local judgment is likely to be more flexible and responsive to the needs of individuals than any centrally run system could be. But to suggest that we are pushing it off on to local authorities cannot be right.
      A clear part of the commitment to community care policies is not only that the Department in which I am a Minister will transfer the reserves that are saved on the existing provision for residential care from our budget, and from our assumptions for an uprated budget—those will be transferred year by year via the Department of Health, presumably through the Department of the Environment, to local authorities so that they have the resources—but that the Secretary of State for Health will be seeking to provide extra resources to enable those policies for care in the community to operate effectively. So long as that provision is properly made and that transfer of resources is properly done—I am confident that that will happen—those decisions are better made at a local level than centrally.
      Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and I take it in good faith that that is his intention. We support the assessment of need being made locally, but we wish to be assured that the necessary funds will be underwritten. After all, a few hours ago in the Chamber the Secretary of State for the Environment capped the budgets of local authorities so that they could not meet their assessed needs.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Excess needs, not assessed needs.
      Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. When the standard spending assessment was fixed for my city, we needed a meeting with the Secretary of State because the figure was reduced by the Government, as they had not taken into account the needs outlined at local level. In other words, the assessment at local level was overridden by the Government.
      We must be assured that the funds will be available. The Minister said that resources from his Department and from the Department of Health would be transferred to local authorities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be saying at some future date that local authority budgets will be capped in such a way that they will not be able to provide for the needs that have been assessed locally.
      Otherwise, we feel that, as has happened with local housing, the service level and the policy of providing service will pass to local government but resources to fulfil those commitments will not be given, so the local

      1117
      authorities cannot undertake the job. That would be a most cynical move, in this area of all areas. Therefore, I welcome the comments that the Minister has made in his intervention, but I hope that his colleagues in other Departments will be able to give such clear assurances.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Flynn: The answer that the Minister gave was unsatisfactory. He again made a point, as he did in Committee, about how much extra spending will take place. He took me to task for suggesting that there would be a decrease. As the Minister knows, it is difficult to make an objective judgment about what will happen in future. Our reason for suggesting that there would be a decrease was the Government's unrealistic assumption about the growth of wages. It all depends who has the most accurate crystal ball that will give us the clearest picture of the future.
      We suggest that what destroys the Government's case about extra spending is their ludicrous proposal that average earnings will increase by a mere couple of per cent. We shall continue to disagree with the Government on those issues and about what is likely to happen in the future. The purpose of tabling the last two amendments was to underline that the Government are not increasing spending on the disabled. They are recycling the money spent on the disabled just as much as they are ring-fencing housing payments to tenants on council estates.
      The Government's philosophy is that, if there has to be an increase, there must be a complementary decrease in spending somewhere else. Today, we are trying to expose what is taking place to the House. We are trying to show that this is not an act of generosity. We are an aging population and we are more aware of disability than ever before. The disabled are keenly aware of all the awards and allowances that are made.
      As the Minister said, we could talk at great length about why there has been an increase in the amount of money claimed by the disabled. We all welcome that increase without any reservations. However, we are looking forward to a more ambitious and generous reaction from the Government. We did not expect them to come up with this Bill. Although the Bill contains good things that we could welcome, we hope that those good things will be financed by new money and not by taking money from people with other problems.
      Mr. Scott: As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) knows, public expenditure figures are published on a three-year cycle. It is already clear that we will have extra provision above the public expenditure survey three-year period for the long-term sick and disabled. I said earlier in the debate that extra resources will be put in in each and every year to the end of the century. Looking beyond that, one is moving into crystal ball territory.
      Extra resources are being committed and the Government's commitment and their record on providing extra resources for the disabled far exceeds that of previous Governments. We can be proud of what we are doing for the long-term sick and disabled in this country.
      Mr. Flynn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5

      LATE CLAIMS FOR WIDOW'S BENEFIT WHERE DEATH IS DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH
      Amendment made: No. 24, in page 6, line 42, leave out 'that section' and insert
      'the section 165AA of that Act inserted by section [Retrospective effect of section 165A of the principal Act] above'.—[Mr. Scott.]
      Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 6, line 47, leave out 'his'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 69 to 74.
      Mrs. Shephard: All these amendments fulfil a commitment that we gave in Committee. In this group of amendments, we undertook to see if the already beneficial provision proposed in clause 5 in Committee for widows could be extended to widows' invalidity pensions. I am happy to say that we have been able to do so.
      To deal briefly with the background to the provision, we have been conscious of the difficulties faced by widows who, because of circumstances beyond their control, make a late claim for widow's benefit and then find themselves caught by the existing 12 months limitation on payment of arrears.
      The type of case we have in mind—fortunately, there is a small number of such cases—is where the widow's claim is delayed more than 12 months because her husband has disappeared and there is a lengthy delay in the discovery of his body; or if his body is not found, when she has to rely instead on the presumption of death provisions. Such cases are fortunately rare, but they do exist; we felt it right and proper to make special provision for them, and we did so in the Bill. The clause provides that there shall be no limitation on the payment of arrears of widow's benefit where a claim which is late is made within 12 months of: the date on which the widow first knew of her husband's death, where his body has been found; or the date on which the adjudication authority gives a determination of presumption of death where no body has been found.
      Also, because some of these women will be of pensionable age, the clause as drafted lifts the normal 12 months on review of earlier decisions awarding benefit. So that a woman receiving the married woman's lower rate of category B retirement pension, who establishes belatedly that she is in fact a widow, can have her pension reviewed to the higher rate appropriate to a widow, back to the date of widowhood.
      I come now to the purpose of the proposed amendments. They extend the provision to two further benefits—thus going further than the commitment we gave in Committee.
      First, we propose extending it to cover widows invalidity pension under section 15 of the Pensions Act. This is an alternative route to IVP for a widow who, although she is incapable of work when widowed, does not qualify on her own contributions. That was a specific matter of debate in Committee. It enables her to get invalidity benefit, exceptionally by using her late husband's contribution record—and would benefit the widow who was too young for a widow's pension at all or who perhaps has only a low rate of widow's pension

      1119
      because of her age when widowed. It would also benefit a widow whose late husband's contribution record entitled her to a higher rate of invalidity pension than her own record.
      Secondly, a widow who remains incapable of work until pensionable age and who does not qualify for a category A retirement pension on her own contributions in the normal way can, exceptionally, become entitled on her late husband's contributions. Again, such cases are rare, but we accept the logic of extending that beneficial provision for women who are widowed in that particularly horrible way, to widows' invalidity pension and to the consequential retirement pension where appropriate.
      These amendments extend a beneficial measure to more widows. I commend them to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 69, in, page 7, line 9, leave out from
      'for' to 'by' in line 10 and insert 'any of the widowhood benefits, that is to say—

      (i) widow's benefit,

      (ii) an invalidity pension under section 15 of the Pensions Act, or

      (iii) a Category A retirement pension by virtue of subsection (5) of that section,

      was made or treated as made in respect of the death'.
      No. 70, in page 7, line 14, leave out 'widow's' and insert 'a widowhood'.
      No. 71, in page 7, line 35, leave out 'widow's' and insert 'a widowhood'.
      No. 72, in page 7, line 43, leave out 'widow's' and insert 'widowhood'.
      No. 73, in page 8, line 6, after 'benefit', insert—
      'any invalidity pension under section 15 of the Pensions Act'.
      No. 74, in page 8, line 10, leave out from 'for' to end of line 12 and insert—
      'a widowhood benefit, within the meaning of section 165B below, which is made or treated as made by virtue of that section.'.—[Mr. Scott.]

    Clause 7

      THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
      Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 8, line 30, at end insert—
      '(2) In the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971—
      (a)in paragraph 23 of Schedule 1 (certain tribunals concerned with pensions to be under the general supervision of the Council) there shall be added at the end of the second column—
      "(e) the Pensions Ombudsman established under Part IVA of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (c. 60) in respect of his functions under or by virtue of section 59C(2) of that Act."; and
      (b) in section 8(2) (which specifies the paragraph numbers of the tribunals which are excepted from the requirement of concurrence to the removal of members) after "22" there shall be inserted "23(e)".'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 50 to 52 and 38.
      Amendment No. 9, in page 22, line 43, after 'year,'insert—
      'which may include a report on any case or cases in which he has made an investigation,'.
      Government amendments Nos. 39 to 43, 53, 54, 44 to 46, 55, 47, 79, 50, 48, 80 and 81, 49 and 57.
      Mrs. Shephard: This group of amendments also covers matters that were the subject of promises in Committee.
      The effect of amendment No. 36 will be to include the pensions ombudsman in schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. That would mean that the council on tribunals would supervise that part of the ombudsman's jurisdiction which deals with the determination of the disputes of fact or law.
      The effect of amendment No. 44 would be to enable the council on tribunals to be consulted about the rules governing that part of the ombudsman's jurisdiction which considers cases of maladministration. Amendments Nos. 45 an 46 are consequential on that.
      The effect of amendment No. 38 is to bring the pensions ombudsman into line with powers already available to the Health Service commissioner, for example. It will provide the ombudsman with the power to delegate certain of his functions other than the determination of a dispute or complaint to his staff. That provision will allow the ombudsman's staff to require information or documents from those who hold them, and to examine witnesses on behalf of the ombudsman. The ombudsman would then weigh up the evidence available and reach a determination.
      Amendments Nos. 39 and 42 deal with a matter that I promised in Committee to consider. Their effect will be to provide for the extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to cover employers and such other persons or bodies as are concerned with occupational and personal pension schemes, as well as the trustees or managers of a scheme.
      Amendment No. 39 also provides that the Ombudsman could investigate cases that arise before this legislation has taken effect. Although the rights of scheme members are most dependent on the trustees or managers of a scheme, employers clearly have a role to play in the operation of schemes. Membership may arise out of the contract of employment, and of course the employer generally contributes to the scheme and collects the members' contributions. The employer is also likely to be involved when a bulk transfer takes place or when a scheme is wound up. This is to ensure that the pensions ombudsman covers bodies such as insurance companies when they are acting both as managers and as agents of the trustees or managers.
      The effect of amendment No. 41 will be to widen the definition of an authorised complainant to include people who believe that they are entitled to be a member of a scheme but have been denied membership. Amendment No. 40 is consequential. Amendment No. 43 will clarify that a scheme member includes any person who is or has been in pensionable service under the scheme, and that those people will therefore be entitled to approach the pensions ombudsman.
      Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, and 79 to 81, are minor legal amendments to do with appeals and with enforcing the ombudsman's determination in Scotland. The effect of amendment No. 49 is to give the pensions ombudsman the power to publish reports of individual cases he has investigated in whatever way he sees fit, if he thinks it would be appropriate for him to do so.
      In Committee, I promised to consider the publication of case reports by the ombudsman. As I explained, we do not believe that the ombudsman should be required to publish details of all his investigations, but he should have the power to publish details of particular cases where he feels it is of particular significance. In other words, it is over to him. The ombudsman may wish to publish reports

      1121
      of cases of general interest, with the details of individual complaints anonymised. That provision therefore extends the ombudsman's powers of publication to reflect that intention, and protects him from the law of defamation.
      Opposition amendment No. 9 would duplicate the intention of our amendment, giving the ombudsman the power to include details of individual cases in his annual report if he wished to do so. I therefore invite the Opposition to withdraw amendment No. 9.
      Amendments Nos. 50 to 57 deal with the extension of those provisions to cover Northern Ireland directly. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1973, pensions are a transferred matter on which a devolved Northern Ireland administration may legislate. However, as occupational or personal pension schemes are usually offered on a United Kingdom basis, it is deemed practicable for the registrar of ocupational and personal pension schemes and the pensions ombudsman to be appointed on a United Kingdom-wide basis. Therefore, the appointment of those officers—but not their functions—becomes a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security. I remind the House that the OPB itself is United Kingdomwide. Amendments Nos. 51 to 57 are technical amendments consequential on amendment No. 50. I commend them all the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8

      REGISTRATION OF OCCUPATIONAL AND PERSONAL PENSION SCHEMES
      Mrs. Shephard: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 10, line 13, at end insert—
      '(6A) The Secretary of State may direct the registrar to submit to him, in such form and at such intervals as may be specified in the direction, such statistical and other reports as the Secretary of State may require; and the Secretary of State may determine at his discretion whether or not to publish a report submitted to him under this subsection.'.
      This amendment will require the registrar to submit to the Secretary of State such reports as he may request and to give the Secretary of State power to publish those reports if he wishes to do so. In Committee, I accepted the principle of an Opposition amendment based on previous legislation and that it would be useful for the Secretary of State to have a power to ask the registrar for statistical and other reports and to publish them if he sees fit. We undertook to bring forward our own provision to achieve that. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9

      MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PENSIONS
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Flynn: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 10, line 39, at end insert—
      '(3) In sections 3 and 7 of the 1986 Act. for the words "April 1993", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "April 1991".'.
      I thank the Minister for Social Security and the Under-Secretary of State for generously examining the arguments presented in Committee. A large number of
      1122
      amendments have been given the proper consideration that they fully deserved and have been adopted. The Bill will not be tolerable as a consequence, but it will be better.
      Sadly, there will be no great degree of agreement on this amendment, which concerns a matter of great importance. I refer to a growing scandal which has resulted in a great many people being misled by actions which have flowed from Government legislation.
      The effect of amendment No. 13 will be that the 2 per cent. inducement to persuade people to leave SERPS and take out personal pensions will cease in April 1991 instead of continuing for another two years. There are many reasons for wanting to terminate the abuse of which I speak at the earliest possible date.
      It is grossly unfair that the majority of national insurance fund contributors should have to bear the cost of a bribe payable to a minority. The fact that the minority is much larger in numbers than the Government bargained for means that the cost of the bribe is also much greater —as is the unfairness to those who have not taken it.
      It was expected that the scheme would be in surplus by £5 million for the year, but in fact it is in deficit to the tune of nearly £1 billion. That is because of the greater take-up of the bribe, which has distorted the choice between the state scheme and occupational schemes on the one hand, and so-called personal and money purchase schemes on the other. Instead of making a rational choice based on a sober assessment of the long-term implications for their pension rights, the public have been subjected to unscrupulous advertising campaigns based on the suggestion that one can get something for nothing by signing up for a "personal" pension. The outspoken criticism of those sales methods by the regulatory body LAUTRO has had little effect—as the disgraceful posters displayed in branches of the Midland Bank demonstrate.
      I could have cited many advertisements, including one asking, "Are you a SERPS?" However, the Midland Bank has about the most disgraceful record. Its methods are not only misleading but grossly, cynically and deliberately dishonest. In a frantic rush to grab its share of the lucrative personal pensions market, even a body as reputable as a national bank has produced advertisements which are wickedly deceitful. Every branch of the Midland Bank that I have visited displays the following notice prominently:
      "How often does the Government give you something? Up to £5,250 could be yours, to invest in your Midland Personal Pension Plan. Only if you act by the 5th April 1990. Plus income tax relief to boost your contributions."
      Its meaning could not be clearer—that the Government will give individuals £5,250 to invest in a personal pension, with added tax relief. Rarely have so many lies been concentrated in so few words. The Government's "gift" includes £1,242 of the individual's own national insurance contributions plus £2,359 employers' contribution, those sums being transferred to the personal pensions scheme instead of earning pension rights in the state scheme.
      The whole of that large sum comes from the employer and the employee, but it is advertised as a gift. Then there is the extra £1,242 which is paid into the personal plan as a bribe to induce as many people as possible to opt out of the state scheme. That looks like a gift until one realises that the money is taken from the national insurance fund and that the fund is being plundered in order to finance personal pension schemes. The fund is being damaged. The deficit this year is calculated at £1·5 billion.

      1123
      All the Figures that I have given add up to £4,843, not the £5,250 in the advertisement. Where does the other £407 come from? It consists of the tax relief on the contributions to the personal pension scheme. Let us look at it again. The Midland bank poster says that the Government will give the person £5,250 plus income tax relief. Is not that a con? I put that question to the Midland bank, who said, "No, you can get extra tax relief if you pay additional contributions to the scheme." The poster says nothing about extra tax relief. Of course, there is no extra tax relief for someone taking out a basic, rebate-only personal pension scheme, as most people would.
      As for the £5,250 gift itself, that applies only to earnings of at least £350 a week from now until April 1993, and depends on payments being made into a personal pension scheme for the whole of that period. The poster, which is fairly typical of those published by respectable organisations, gives no warning that, even with the Government gifts, the state pension remains a far better buy for most people than a personal pension. If it takes such dishonesty to market a product, however one looks at it, one can be fairly sure that the product is hardly worth buying.
      We have a welter of other information coming in too. Not only has LAUTRO condemned the advertising but an assessment has been made by an independent group of consultants called PIRC, Pension Investment Research Consultants. We were told yesterday by the Secretary of State that 3·6 million people have taken out these schemes. On the previous figure of 3 million, PIRC is convinced that 1 million will lose because they have not taken out pension schemes but saving schemes. According to the independent group, those people will have poor pensions at the end of the day, and they will be deprived of the benefits of the state scheme.
      We are concerned about who will advise those people when the loss leader no longer has an effect and they have to come back into the state scheme. It has become increasingly clear that the Financial Services Act 1986, which was intended to guarantee that pension scheme salesmen offered the best advice to customers, has failed to achieve that aim. On the one hand, so-called independent financial advisers have been selling schemes on a commission basis, which makes them anything but independent, while, on the other, tied agents of insurance companies are forbidden to recommend the schemes of any company other than the company which pays them.
      Some insurance companies are resorting to indiscriminate mail shots which exclude the possibility of independent advice. There is clearly no case for bribing people to succumb to commercial pressures. The result is that many people are paying into schemes, against their best interests, even when on certain assumptions a personal scheme appears to be a better buy than the state scheme in the short run. The Government's own figures show that within a few years it will pay them to go back into the state scheme.
      Yesterday I received a parliamentary answer to a question which I had asked about how much was spent by the Government on advertising SERPS. The answer was predictable: nothing has been spent because it is nobody's responsibility to sell the superior state scheme. The 3·6 million people to whom I have referred are being pushed out of the state scheme because the state does not want the responsibility of dealing with them in future. Because of what it would cost the country, they are being pushed into inferior schemes. The consequences will come home to
      1124
      roost. A scandal will emerge when many people, many in their 40s and 50s, discover that their pension is hardly worth having.
      The decision of whether to continue paying into a personal pension scheme should be taken annually as the balance of advantage changes from year to year. In making the decision, people should not be influenced by the promise of something for nothing which might mean that they continued paying into a scheme when it is no longer in their interests to do so.
      The amendment proposes April 1991 for the ending of the bribe for two reasons. First, by the time the Bill becomes law several months of the 1990–91 tax year will already have passed; secondly, the burden falls on the national insurance fund a year in arrears, so the bribe for 1990–91 will be paid in 1991–92. That happy year will be the last year of a Tory Government. From 1992 on, a Labour Government will need to put the finances of the national insurance fund on a proper footing so that we can make a start on the creation of what the country really wants—the new social insurance system set out in Labour's policy review.
      Mr. Haynes: I realise only too well what the Government are about. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) fiddled about with SERPS and interfered with the scheme which was running in the interests of the workers who contributed to it. I contributed to it before I came to this place. The right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the points that were made to him, so we have to have the argument all over again.
      As I said earlier at Question Time about the defence team, this lot too should be summoned to the Bar and dealt with because of what they have done. The Minister can take that grin off his face; this is a serious matter. If the Minister had been in the United States, he would be in Alcatraz. He would deserve that; there would be no one there but himself unless he had his two colleagues with him.
      Yesterday, I asked a question to which I got a very unsatisfactory answer from the Secretary of State. He need not shake his head. Yesterday he responded to my supplementary question by asking a question. He did not answer my question. Mr. Speaker would not let me back in to answer the question that he asked. What the Government are doing is a racket. All they are doing once again is feeding the pockets of the rich. They do so in many other ways, and here they are, doing it again. It is a scandal. I support the amendment, because it is necessary. I will never change my mind about what the Government are doing to pensions.
      The Government are robbing people. They talk about protecting the taxpayer, but they are pouring taxpayers' money into the pockets of a few rich people. The Secretary of State was not here earlier; let me tell him that we will put matters right when we are in government. Although I shall not be here after the next general election, I shall be watching on television, and then the Government will be sorry for what they did.
      Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I wish that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) would not exhort other hon. Members not to smile when he has a big grin all over his own face. I am sorry to tell him that it is very disarming.
      Perhaps I can correct some of the assumptions that were over-colourfully expressed by the hon. Member for

      1125
      Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). First, he said that the cost of the incentive is being borne by the minority; that is not the case. Only about 30 per cent. of people in full-time employment are not in either an occupational or a personal pension scheme. The majority are taking advantage of the contracted-out rebate.
      Secondly, it is not the case that the national insurance fund has been either bankrupted or plundered. The fund still has a healthy balance, which is twice the recommended level. The great success of personal pensions—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members do not support them—is just one reason why the revenue going into the fund has dropped. Another reason is the restructuring of national insurance contributions introduced last October which has been widely welcomed throughout the country. Arrangements are made in the Bill to correct the balance in the national insurance fund, as Opposition Members—
      It being Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [28 March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 283.

      Division No. 156]

      [9.00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Allen, Graham

      Darling, Alistair

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dixon, Don

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dobson, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Battle, John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Beith, A. J.

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Bell, Stuart

      Eadie, Alexander

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

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Blair, Tony

      Fatchett, Derek

      Blunkett, David

      Fearn, Ronald

      Boateng, Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boyes, Roland

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

      Bradley, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Foster, Derek

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foulkes, George

      Buchan, Norman

      Fraser, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Callaghan, Jim

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gould, Bryan

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clay, Bob

      Hardy, Peter

      Clelland, David

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Haynes, Frank

      Cohen, Harry

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Henderson, Doug

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Crowther, Stan

      Home Robertson, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      1126

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Howells, Geraint

      Prescott, John

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hoyle, Doug

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Radice, Giles

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Randall, Stuart

      Ingram, Adam

      Redmond, Martin

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Richardson, Jo

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kilfedder, James

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lambie, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lamond, James

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Leighton, Ron

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Litherland, Robert

      Short, Clare

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

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

      McCartney, Ian

      Smith, J.P. (Vale of Glam)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Snape, Peter

      McKelvey, William

      Soley, Clive

      McLeish, Henry

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stott, Roger

      Madden, Max

      Strang, Gavin

      Marek, Dr John

      Straw, Jack

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Martlew, Eric

      Turner, Dennis

      Maxton, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Meacher, Michael

      Walley, Joan

      Meale, Alan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Michael, Alun

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Morley, Elliot

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Wilson, Brian

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Winnick, David

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mullin, Chris

      Wray, Jimmy

      Nellist, Dave

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      O'Brien, William

      O'Neill, Martin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Pendry, Tom

      Mr. Ken Eastham

      Pike, Peter L.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Alexander, Richard

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Allason, Rupert

      Boswell, Tim

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Amess, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Amos, Alan

      Bowis, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Brazier, Julian

      Ashby, David

      Bright, Graham

      Aspinwall, Jack

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

      Atkinson, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Baldry, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Burt, Alistair

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butcher, John

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Butler, Chris

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butterfill, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Benyon, W.

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Carrington, Matthew

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Carttiss, Michael

      1127

      Cash, William

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Chope, Christopher

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irvine, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Irvine, Sir Charles

      Colvin, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Janman, Tim

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Jessel, Toby

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Couchman, James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Gran, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Critchley, Julian

      Key, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Curry, David

      Kirkhope, Timothy

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

      Knapman, Roger

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Devlin, Tim

      Lang, Ian

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Latham, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dover, Den

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Favell, Tony

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maclean, David

      Forth, Eric

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Madel, David

      Gale, Roger

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gardiner, George

      mans, Keith

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marland, Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Marlow, Tony

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gow, Ian

      Mellor, David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Meyer, sir Anthony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mills, Iain

      Gregory, Conal

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Mitchell, sir David

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Grist, Ian

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Ground, Patrick

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Grylls, Michael

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hague, William

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hannam, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

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

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Norris, Steve

      Harris, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Patnick, Irvine

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Pawsey, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Portillo, Michael

      Holt, Richard

      Price, Sir David

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Raffan, Keith

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

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      1128

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rost, Peter

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Tracey, Richard

      Ryder, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Trippier, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shersby, Michael

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Sims, Roger

      Waller, Gary

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Ward, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Warren, Kenneth

      Speed, Keith

      Watts, John

      Speller, Tony

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Squire, Robin

      Whitney, Ray

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Steen, Anthony

      Wilshire, David

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stevens, Lewis

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stokes, Sir John

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Yeo, Tim

      Sumberg, David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Schedule

      'INSERTION OF SCHEDULE 3A TO THE PENSIONS ACT
      "SCHEDULE 3A
      ANNUAL INCREASE IN RATE OF CERTAIN OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS
      Interpretation
      1. In this Schedule—
      "annual rate", in relation to a pension or the later or earlier service component of a pension, means the annual rate of the pension or component. as previously increased under the rules of the scheme or this Schedule;
      "the appointed day" means the day on which this Schedule and section 58A of this Act come into force;
      "the appropriate percentage", in relation to an increase in the annual rate of a pension or a component of a pension, means the percentage specified in the last revaluation order made before the increase is to take effect as the revaluation percentage for the last revaluation period of twelve months;
      "earlier service component" means so much (if any) of the annual rate of the pension as is attributable to pensionable service before the appointed day;
      "later service component" means so much (if any) of the annual rate of the pension as is attributable to pensionable service on or after the appointed day;
      "pension" does not include—

      (a) a guaranteed minimum pension or any increase in such a pension under section 37A above; or

      (b) any money purchase benefit;

      "pensionable service" has the meaning given by paragraph 3 of Schedule 16 to the 1973 Act;

      1129
      "qualifying scheme" means a scheme to which section 58A of this Act applies;
      "revaluation order", "revaluation percentage" and "revaluation period" shall be construed in accordance with section 52A above.
      Annual increase of later service component
      2.—(1) If, apart from this Schedule, the annual rate of a pension under a qualifying scheme would not be increased as mentioned in section 58A(1)(b) of this Act, the annual rate of its later service component shall be increased annually by an amount equal to the appropriate percentage of the annual rate of that component as applicable immediately before the increase takes effect.
      (2) The first increase by virtue of this paragraph in the rate of a pension shall take effect before the expiration of the period of twelve months beginning with the commencement of the pension and subsequent increases shall take effect at intervals of not more than twelve months thereafter.
      (3) This paragraph is subject to paragraphs 4 to 6 below. Annual increase of earlier service component where scheme is in surplus
      3.—(1) If on any valuation day the value of a qualifying scheme's assets, as determined in accordance with regulations, exceeds the value of its liabilities, as so determined, the amount of the excess (the "valuation surplus") shall be applied in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph in providing for annual increases, up to the aggregate referred to in sub-paragraph (6) below, in the annual rate of the earlier service component of each pension under the scheme that would not, apart from this Schedule, be increased as mentioned in section 58A(1)(b) of this Act.
      (2) The amount of each annual increase to be provided in pursuance of this paragraph in consequence of a valuation surplus shall be an amount equal to the appropriate percentage of the annual rate of the earlier service component of the pension in question as applicable immediately before that annual increase takes effect.
      (3) The days which are "valuation days" for the purposes of this paragraph are—

      (a) the appointed day, except in a case where regulations otherwise provide; and

      (b) each subsequent day as at which the assets and liabilities of the scheme in question are valued for any purpose.

      (4) Where, in consequence of a valuation surplus, this paragraph requires provision to be made for annual increases in the annual rate of the earlier service component of a pension, the first of those increases shall take effect before the expiration of the period of twelve months beginning with the later of—

      (a) the valuation day as at which the valuation was made which disclosed the valuation surplus; or

      (b) the commencement of the pension;
      and subsequent increases shall take effect at intervals of not more than twelve months thereafter.

      (5) In any case where—

      (a) a valuation of the assets and liabilities of a qualifying scheme discloses a valuation surplus, but

      (b) the amount of the surplus is insufficient to provide in full for the annual increases otherwise required by this paragraph in pensions under the scheme,

      the valuation surplus shall be applied in providing for the increases so required, but only at the percentage rate that would apply year by year in relation to those increases if, for the maximum percentage of 5 per cent. specified in section 52A(9)(a) above, there were substituted such lower percentage as represents the greatest maximum percentage by reference to which the valuation surplus is sufficient to provide for annual increases in the earlier service component of the pensions in question.
      (6) If a valuation surplus is disclosed on a valuation at any time when either

      (a) in consequence of one or more prevous valuation surpluses, provision has already been made
      for the
      1130
      annual rate of the earlier service component of every pension under the scheme which is required to be increased under this paragraph to be so increased annually in the aggregate by at least the appropriate percentage of that rate, or

      (b) the application of part only of the valuation surplus would be sufficient to secure that result,

      this paragraph does not require that valuation surplus or, as the case may be, the remaining part of it, to be applied in the provision of increases under this paragraph.
      (7) The power to make regulations conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above includes power to provide that the value of the scheme's assets or liabilities is to be calculated and verified—

      (a) in such manner as may, in the particular case, be approved—

      (i) by a prescribed person;

      (ii) by a person with prescribed professional qualifications or experience; or

      (iii) by a person approved by the Secretary of State;

      (b) in accordance with guidance prepared by a prescribed body;

      (c) in accordance with prescribed principles and requirements; or

      (d) in accordance with principles determined by the person who performs the duties of calculation and verification.

      (8) This paragraph is subject to paragraphs 4 to 6 below. Proportional increases where first period is less than 12 months
      4.—(1) Where a pension commenced to be paid less than twelve months before the the date on hich its first increase under paragraph 2 above is to take effect, the amount of that first increase shall be determinied by the application of the formula—
      M x I
      12
      where—
      M is the number of months, rounded to the nearest whole month, in the period beginning with the commencement of the pension and ending immediately before that date; and
      I is the amount of the increase that would have been required by that paragraph, apart from this sub-paragraph.
      (2) This paragraph shall apply in relation to the first increase of a pension by virtue of paragraph 3 above in consequence of each successive valuation surplus as it applies in relation to the first increase of a pension under paragraph 2 above.
      Restriction on increases where member is under 55
      5.—(1) No increase under paragraph 2 or 3 above is required to be paid to or for a member of a scheme whose pension has commenced but who has not attained the age of 55 at the time when the increase takes effect, unless—

      (a) he is permanently incapacitated by mental or physical infirmity from engaging in regular full-time employment, or

      (b) he has retired on account of mental or physical infirmity from the office or employment in respect of which, or on retirement from which, the pension is payable.

      in which case the pension shall be payable at the annual rate at which it would have been payable apart from this sub-paragraph.
      (2) The rules of a scheme may provide that if, in a case where a pension has been paid to or for a member under the age of 55 at an increased rate in consequence of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above, the member—

      (a) ceases to suffer from the infirmity in question before he attains the age of 55, but

      (b) continues to be entitled to the pension,

      any increases subsequently taking effect under paragraph 2 or 3 above in the annual rate of the pension shall not be paid or shall not be paid in full.
      (3) In any case where—

      (a) by virtue only of sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above, increases are not being paid to or for a member, but

      (b) the member attains the age of 55 or, in a case falling with sub-paragraph (2) above, again satisfies the conditions set out in paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-paragraph (1) above,

      his pension shall thereupon become payable at the annual rate at which it would have been payable apart from sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above.
      Regulations
      6.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations direct that section 58A and this Schedule shall have effect, in such cases as he may specify in the regulations, subject to such modifications as he may specify.
      (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "modification", without prejudice to the generality of that sub-paragraph, includes addition, omission and amendment.
      Overriding effect of the increase provisions
      7. The provisions of section 58A of this Act, this Schedule and any regulations made under it override any provision of a qualifying scheme, other than a protected provision (within the meaning of paragraph 7 of Schedule lA to this Act), to the extent that it conflicts with them.".'.—[Mr. Newton.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second times.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order [28 March], to put forthwith the Question, That the new schedule be added to the Bill.
      Question agreed to.
      Schedule accordingly added to the Bill.
      Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the remaining amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

    Schedule 2

      THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 23, line 37, after 'person', insert—
      '(a) who is or has been in pensionable service under the scheme, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 16 to the 1973 Act or paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, or
      (b)'.
      No. 53, in page 23, line 39, at end insert—
      'or under Article 2(5) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) (S.I. 1975/1503 (N.I. 15)) Order 1975 as a member in relation to the scheme for the purposes of Part IV or V of that Order;
      "Northern Ireland public service pension scheme" means a public service pension scheme, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of that Order;'.
      No. 52, in page 22, line 20, after 'Act', insert
      'or any corresponding legislation having effect in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 38, in page 22, line 31, at end insert
      'and any function of the Pensions Ombudsman, other than the determination of complaints made and disputes referred under this Part of this Act, may be performed by any member of that staff who is authorised for that purpose by the Pensions Ombudsman.'.
      No. 39, in page 23, line 11, at end insert—
      '(2(A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, subject to any modifications or exceptions specified in the regulations, this Part of this Act shall apply in relation to—
      1132

      (a) the employer in relation to any description or category of employment to which an occupational pension scheme relates or has related; or

      (b) any prescribed person or body of persons concerned with the financing or administration of, or the provision of benefits under, any occupational or personal pension scheme,

      as it applies in relation to the trustees or managers of such a scheme.
      (2B) The Pensions Ombudsman may investigate a complaint or dispute notwithstanding that it arose, or relates to a matter which arose, before the coming into force of this Part of this Act.'.
      No 40, in page 23, line 31, at end insert '(i)'.
      No 41, in page 23, line 34, after first 'person' insert ';or
      (ii) whether a person who claims to be entitled to become a member of the scheme is so entitled,',
      No 42, in page 23, line 35, at end insert—
      "'employer", in relation to a pension scheme, includes a person—

      (a) who is or has been an employer in relation to the scheme, or

      (b) who is or has been treated under section 66(3) below as an employer in relation to the scheme for the purposes of Part III or IV of this Act, or under Article 2(4) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 as an employer in relation to the scheme for the purposes of Part IV or V of that Order;'.

      No. 54, in page 23, line 41, after 'scheme', insert
      'or a Northern Ireland public service pension scheme'.
      No. 44, in page 25, line 34, leave out from 'making' to end of line 36 and insert
      'and investigation of complaints under this Part of this Act.
      (2A) Subsection (2) above is without prejudice to the powers conferred by section 10 of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act 1971 to make rules with respect to the procedure which is to be followed in connection with the reference and investigation of disputes under this Part of this Act'.
      No. 45, in page 25, line 37, after 'rules', insert
      'referred to in subsections (2) and (2A) above'.
      No. 46, in page 25, line 38, leave out 'such an investigation' and insert
      'an investigation under this Part of this Act'.
      No. 55, in page 25, line 44, after Ace, insert
      'or under any corresponding legislation having effect in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 47, in page 26, line 23, leave out
      'by way of case stated'.
      No. 79, in page 26, line 29, at end insert—
      '(9) Subsections (4) and (5) above shall be construed, in their application to Scotland, as if contempt of court were in Scots law categorised as an offence.'.
      No. 56, in page 26, line 39, after 'Act', insert
      'or under any corresponding legislation having effect in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 48, in page 27, line 1, leave out
      'by way of case stated'.
      No. 80, in page 27, line 7, after 'enforceable', insert—'
      (a) in England and Wales,'.
      No. 81, in page 27, line 8, at end insert ';
      and
      (b) in Scotland, by the sheriff, as if it were a judgment or order of the sheriff and whether or not the sheriff could himself have granted such judgment or order.'.
      No. 49, in page 27, line 8, at end insert—
      '(6) If the Pensions Ombudsman considers it appropriate to do so in any particular case, he may publish in such form and manner as he thinks fit a report of any investigation under this Part of this Act and of the result of that investigation.
      (7) For the purposes of the law of defamation, the publication of any matter by the Pensions Ombudsman—

      (a) in submitting or publishing a report under section 59B(6) or subsection (6) above, or

      1133

      (b) in sending to any person a statement under subsection (1) above or a direction under subsection (2) above,

      shall be absolutely privileged.'.—[Mr. Newton.]

    Schedule 3

      OCCUPATIONAL AND PERSONAL PENSION SCHEMES
      Amendments made: No. 75, in page 27, line 39, after 'manager', insert or the trustee,'.
      No. 76, in page 28, line 3, after 'employer', insert 'or of the scheme'.
      No. 75, in page 30, line 4, at end insert
      'and to be so paid in priority to all other claims falling to be met out of the scheme's resources.'.
      No. 23, in page 31, line 1, leave out to line 7 on page 32 and insert—
      'Employer to make good deficiencies on winding up
      2. The following section shall be inserted into the Pensions Act after the section 58A inserted by section [Annual increase of certain occupational pensions] above.'.
      No. 58, in page 34, line 42, leave out 'pensionable' and insert 'normal pension'.
      No. 59, in page 36, line 10, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
      '(d) where the scheme provides that part of the earner's pension shall accrue after the termination of employment date by reason of employment after that date, the later earnings addition.".'
      No. 60, in page 36, line 18, leave out
      'on which he attained pensionable age'
      and insert
      'after his termination of employment date'.
      No. 61, in page 36, line 38, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
      '(d) where the scheme provides that part of the widow's pension shall accrue after the termination of employment date by reason of the earner's employment after that date, the later earnings addition.".'.
      No. 62, in page 36, line 46, leave out
      'on which he attained pensionable age'
      and insert
      'after his termination of employment date'.
      No. 78, in page 38, line 4, leave out '(d)' and insert '(e)'.
      No. 57, in page 39, line 30, at end insert—
      'Extension of certain pension scheme provisions to Northern Ireland
      11A. In section 68(4) of the Pensions Act (provisions which extend to Northern Ireland) for the words "Section 57 of this Act extends" there shall be substituted the words "The following provisions of this Act, namely, sections 57, 59B, other than subsections (4) and (5)(b), and 59K(1), (2), other than paragraph (a)(ii), (3), (4) and (8) extend".'.—[Mr. Newton.]

    Schedule 5

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 67, in page 43, line 38, at end
      insert—
      'Regulations relating to industrial injuries and diseases
      3A.—(1) In section 76 of the principal Act, after subsection (4) (power to make regulations for determining, among other things, the time at which a person is to be treated as having developed a prescribed injury or disease) there shall be inserted-
      "(4A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the power conferred by subsection (4)(a) above includes power to provide that the time at which a person shall be treated as having developed a prescribed disease or injury shall be the
      1134
      date on which he first makes a claim which results in the payment of benefit by virtue of this Chapter in respect of that disease or injury."
      (2) In section 77 of that Act, at the end of subsection (2) (power to modify provisions relating to disablement benefit and its administration) there shall be added the words—"and for the purposes of this subsection the provisions of this Act which relate to the administration of disablement benefit or reduced earnings allowance shall be taken to include section 165A and any provision which relates to the administration of both the benefit in question and other benefits."
      (3) Regulations 6(2)(c), 25 and 36 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 (onset of occupational deafness and time for claiming in respect of occupational deafness or occupational asthma), and any former regulations which they directly or indirectly re-enact with or without amendment, shall be taken to be, and always to have been, validly made.'.
      No. 85, in page 44, line 29, at end insert—
      'Restrictions on entitlement to benefit in certain cases of error'
      5A.—(1) In section 104 of the principal Act (reviews), after the subsection (6) inserted by section 5(3) of this Act, there shall be inserted—
      "(7) Section 165C below shall apply in relation to a review under this section of a decision on the ground that it was erroneous in point of law in any case where the claim in question was made or treated as made as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of that section as it applies in relation to a claim so made or treated as made.
      (2) After the section 165B of that Act inserted by section 5(2) of this Act there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Restrictions on entitlement to benefit in certain cases of error
      165C.—(1) This section applies where—

      (a) on the determination of a Commissioner or the court (the "relevant determination"), a decision made by an adjudicating authority is found to have been erroneous in point of law; and

      (b) a claim for benefit is or has been made or treated as made (whether by the same or any other claimant and whether for the same or some other benefit and whether before or after the relevant determination) which, in consequence of the relevant determination, falls to be determined otherwise than it would have been determined had it been required to be determined in acordance with the erroneous decision.

      (2) Where this section applies, the claimant in relation to the claim mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above shall not be entitled to the benefit in question—

      (a) if it is a widow's payment, in respect of a death occurring before the relevant date, or

      (b) if it is any other benefit, in respect of any period before the relevant date, notwithstanding anything in section 165A(2) above.

      (3) In this section—
      "adjudicating authority" means an adjudication officer, a social security appeal tribunal or a medical appeal tribunal;
      "the court" means the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Court of Session, the House of Lords or the Court of Justice of the European Community;
      "the relevant date" means whichever is the later of—

      (a) the date on which the relevant determination was made; and

      (b) the day falling twelve months before the date on which the claim is made or treated as made.".'.

      No. 88, in page 48, line 36 at end insert—
      'Mobility allowance for certain persons eligible for invalid
      carriages: pre-consolidation amendment.
      10A. The amendments of paragraph (a) of section 13(3) of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisons) Act 1977 by the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 shall be deemed never to have been made and that paragraphs shall accordingly have effect and be deemed at all times to have had effect as originally enacted.'.—[Mr. Newton.]

    Schedule 6

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 83, in page 54, line 3 at end insert—

      '1977 c.49.

      National Health Service Act 1977

      In Schedule 15, para-graph 71

      1978 c.29

      National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.

      In Schedule 16, para-graph 44.'.

      No. 26, in page 54, line 12, Column 6, at end insert—
      'Section 32(4).'.
      No. 87, in page 54, line 15 column 3, at beginning insert—
      'In section 33(10A), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (e).'.— [Mr. Newton.]
      Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].
      9.14 pm
      Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have the opportunity for only a short debate, so I shall be brief and shall not deny others the opportunity to speak, particularly those who served on what I am told was a good-natured but demanding Standing Committee.
      As Bills go, even perhaps as Social Security Bills go, this Bill is not large. The last one on which I served was the Social Security Act 1986—or the reform Act, as I would call it, although I am not sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) would accept that
      description. Nevertheless, the Bill's importance is considerable and has grown during its further consideration in the House last week and this week, with the new clauses that have been added on occupational pensions and lone parents.
      The Bill has three strategic objectives, with which I think that both sides of the House agree, even if there are differences of opinion—sometimes substantial—as to how those objectives should be pursued. First, the Bill contributes to the development of what we believe to be a structure of benefits for disabled people which is both more coherent and more sustainable in the long term, while bringing the prospects of early additional help to the terminally ill through the removal of the six-month qualifying period for attendance allowance and improving the position of many thousands of people in receipt of severe disablement allowance. Those legislative changes should be seen alongside the other improvements being made almost at this very moment through the uprating that is taking place this week and next and other changes later this year which will help almost 500,000 long-term sick and disabled people and their carers at an additional cost of some £100 million.
      1136
      Secondly, the Bill contains several changes designed to strengthen the arrangements for the maintenance of lone parents and their children, In particular, it makes such maintenance more effective as a basis on which the lone parent who wishes to do so can move from benefit into employment. That, too, should be seen alongside what is being done either in the current uprating or later this year to make real improvements in benefits both for lone parents and for many other low-income families with children.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend share with me—I doubt whether he does, but I would like him to do so—the view that it is easier for a lone parent to move into employment if the family allowance is uprated in line with inflation?
      Mr. Newton: I noticed that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber earlier. No doubt she would have made that point if there had been more extensive debate on child benefit, and I note her view. I also note that if maintenance payments could be effectively enforced, they would make an even greater contribution than the allowance that my hon. Friend is worried about.
      Thirdly, and certainly not least, the Bill makes significant further improvements to the framework of occupational pensions by providing greater protection in various ways, including the introduction of an important measure of inflation-proofing for rights derived from future service and making a similar degree of inflation-proofing the first call on scheme surpluses when such surpluses exist. The context in this respect is the growing success of the Government's policies to promote occupational and personal provision, building upon the foundations of the basic state pension.
      I have outlined the main themes of the Bill, although it contains many other useful measures. The Bill is useful and worth while, and it will advance our provision for many who deserve and need our help. I commend it to the House.
      9.19 pm
      Ms. Short: Although some of the Bill's contents are acceptable to us, we believe that it should not receive its Third Reading because of the nature of the majority of its contents and, more importantly, because of what it fails to contain.
      The guillotine that the Government introduced on Report, before there had been any debate on the Bill, was designed to prevent proper debate of many important questions that should be dealt with but which are not contained in the Bill. It is important to put the Bill in its proper context. This is the 12th Social Security Bill that the Government have introduced. The effect of the cumulative changes in social security benefits and in our tax system has been a massive redistribution of resources from those with least to those with most.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not true.
      Ms. Short: It is absolutely true. Although I agree with the hon. Lady about child benefit, even though she called it family allowance, she should recognise that the figures are shocking. The Government should be deeply ashamed of them.
      In 11 years the Government have taken £6·6 billion from the bottom half of our population. Of that sum £5·6

      1137
      billion has gone to the richest 10 per cent. and £4·8 billion has gone to the top 5 per cent. The Bill is part of that process. The Government deliberately set out on that policy and such are its cumulative effects which they have achieved by stealth.
      One of the disgraceful things that has made people poorer was the break in the link between the state pension and earnings. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has referred to that. A fantastic amount of money has already been taken away from pensioners, thus excluding them from the benefits of economic growth. According to Library figures, a pensioner couple has lost £20 a week as a result of deliberate Government policies and a single pensioner has lost £12.
      Mr. David Nicholson: Does the hon. Lady accept that the Labour Government of 1974-79 did not always keep their pledges and that their performance when running the economy and the pathetic increase in the standard of living of those in employment meant that it was no great achievement to attempt to keep pensions in line with earnings?
      Ms. Short: I know that the hon. Gentleman is blustering because he is shocked by the true figures. He has not made a telling point. The cumulative figures are clear and demonstrate a deliberate massive redistribution from those with least to those who do not need more. That is what has happened as a result of 12 Social Security Bills and changes in taxation. The hon. Gentleman has made a broad, ill-informed remark about the performance of the economy in the 1970s at a time when our economy is in deep difficulty. The Government thought that they could get faster economic growth out of greater inequality. A lot of people have been hurt. Their economic experiment has failed and that is why the Government are in such grave difficulties.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: I agree with my hon. Friend that pensioners have already suffered as a result of Government legislation. We should also consider their plight as a result of the community charge. In the case of a couple when one person is still working and even when their income is just over the limit at which one begins to pay the community charge, the working partner must pay the community charge of the retired partner. Money will be taken off pensioners once again.
      Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have deceived pensioners by their ill-thought-out so-called concession made in the Budget. They said to pensioners with some savings that they would give them lots of money, but they did not tell them the true story. Many, many pensioners with some savings believe that they will receive some relief, but because the Government falsely attribute a higher rate of return on their savings, many of them will be deceived and bitterly disappointed. Their suffering will be in addition to that described by my hon. Friend.
      I was trying to list some of the factors in the cumulative, massive redistribution from those in need to those without need which has made our country so unequal and bitterly divided and the Government so unpopular with the electorate.
      1138
      I mentioned what the Government have done with state pensions. The erosion of the value of child benefit is another serious matter. Due to the way in which the debate was squeezed today, we were unable to challenge the Government to tell us the truth. Everyone who considers these issues believes that the Government are trying to allow child benefit to wither away. The hon. Member for Lancaster is right: that would be disastrous particularly for lone parents or people on low incomes who are on benefits and want to get off them. High child benefit will help people to make that transition; the erosion of child benefit traps them into poverty. It also deprives women of income. Giving the money to mothers ensures that it is spent on children.
      There are all sorts of other issues which should have been included in the Bill and which we would like to have discussed. The removal of young people's right to benefit has enlarged the enormous and shameful growth of homelessness across the land. It shames everyone, whatever their political views. Young people, often those who grew up in care and do not have relatives to fall back on when they get into difficulty, are living on our streets and are not entitled to benefit. They are unable to get a step up and get on with life because of what the Government have done to the benefits system.
      The truth is that, after 11 years of Thatcherite rule, our country is deeply, bitterly and unhappily divided. There is enormous public unease about the degree to which it is divided. It is interesting that Conservative Members think that the Thatcherite experiment has led to a change of political values in Britain. But the annual survey of British social attitudes shows that cumulatively, over every year, people in Britain have become less and less happy with the Thatcherite project, more and more worried about how deeply divided our country is and more and more willing to pay a little more tax if that is what is required to look after pensioners and the sick. The people of this country do not support the experiment and its consequences.
      The experiment has been enormously costly. We lived through a period of the good luck of oil becoming available. It could have given us the chance to restructure our economy and invest in the long term. Instead, it was wasted on an experiment, using materialism, greed, selfishness and inequality as an economic engine, which has failed and hurt many people.
      The Bill contains some provisions that we welcome, and in which we take a pride. In Committee the Minister of State was honest and good enough to give the Opposition credit for some of the good factors in the Bill. He said that they were the results of democracy and of previous Social Security Bills when the Opposition had argued a case which was unassailable—if I may use a word that has probably changed its meaning given recent developments in the Conservative party.
      The change in attendance allowance for the terminally ill who are unlikely to survive the six-month waiting period is, of course, welcome. We made that clear in Committee. We worry that the allowance does not extend to cover elderly people who might need it because they have had a severe stroke. The Government are so worried about spending money that they have excluded elderly people from the value of such benefits, but we welcome the provision as far as it goes. The Government must have credit for it, but we also take some credit.
      We are deeply unhappy with the disability package about which the Government attempt to boast.

      1139
      Conservative Members do not have to take our word for that; they can consult any of the disability organisations and find out that they are deeply and savagely critical of that package. They criticise the fact that they were not properly consulted and the duplicity underlining it.
      The pretence is that lots of new money has been found to help disabled people. But more has been clawed back than has been provided. Money has been taken away from disabled people to put forward a package that helps some, but takes away from other disabled people. It is a cosmetic package, not an enlargement of resources to look after people with disabilities and help them to be independent and self-reliant, as many of them wish to be.
      We welcome some of the improvements in the Bill that relate to occupational and private pensions. We are glad that there is to be an ombudsman. We decided in Committee that we could not possibly call it an "ombudsperson"—it would be too odd a word, although my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) suggested "ombudsk vinne" which is apparently "person" in the right language, Norwegian.
      We also welcome the limited protection against the erosion of the value of pensions with inflation, but we do not understand why the Government did not go as far as we wanted in enlarging the powers of the ombudsman and setting alongside them a tribunal that could deal much more happily with complaints from pensioners, thus avoiding the enormous problem and cost of having to go to the High Court to settle questions of trusteeship. There could have been a much leaner and more efficient system that would have protected pensioners much better.
      On protection against inflation, of course we welcome the 5 per cent. protection for early leavers and the Government's late decision to protect everyone where there are surpluses, up to 5 per cent. But we do not understand why the Government cannot go as far as our amendment in Committee and say that, when there are surpluses, there will be full protection against inflation.
      As we are all living longer and might be talking about a 20-year retirement span, people get poorer as they get older when there is no protection against inflation. If there is a surplus, it is the most reasonable thing in the world to have protection, not up to 5 per cent. but up to the level of inflation. That is what Opposition Members argued in Committee. It is another unassailable case, and I do not understand why the Government could not accept it.
      We also welcome the provisions to encourage energy conservation. They fall oddly in this Bill, but there they are. They are limited to people on low incomes. They are welcome as far as they go, but in our view they do not go far enough. Energy conservation is one of the most important policies available to a country such as ours, and it benefits everyone—the planet, people's heating bills and so on. Such a policy is absolutely beneficial and means that we do not have to rely on nuclear power, with all its pollution and waste that people dread. Nuclear power is being proved more and more to harm the health of those who work in the industry and their children. It is firm Labour party policy to go very much further.
      The country is raging with anger at the injustice of the poll tax, but that injustice comes on top of an even bigger redistribution from those with least to those with the most; but it has been done cumulatively and by stealth, so there has never been a moment when the people could show
      1140
      their rage as they are showing it about the poll tax. I refer to cumulative effects of the changes in social security and taxation system.
      It is pretty clear to all of us that the Government have had it and that their economic experiment in the glorification of greed, selfishness and inequality is coming to an end. The British people do not like it and they want no more of it. We look forward greatly to the defeat of the Government and to the introduction of our own social security legislation, which will create a much more just settlement in our country. It will protect those who are in need and create pathways out of poverty for people trapped on benefits, instead of making bigger and bigger poverty traps such as the present system provides.
      To hon. Members on the Government Benches—sometimes they worry me because they seem to read nothing—I say that it is all set out in our policy review. We will take power, implement the policy review and bring about a more just, more equal and economically more efficient society, and we look forward to doing so.
      9.34 pm
      Sir George Young: It would be a tragedy if the House were to adopt the advice of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and deny the Bill a Third Reading. That would deny the real help that the Bill provides for many thousands of people who are looking forward to that help. I listened with interest to what the hon. Lady said about the redistribution of wealth and also to what she said about greed. I found it impossible to relate what she was saying to the Bill. Far from redistributing wealth from the less well-off to the rich, the Bill does the opposite. Even if we accepted the premise from which she started, which I do not, it would not lead us to the conclusion that the Bill should be rejected.
      Despite the recent controversy about the Bill—the debate on the guillotine and on the new clauses—the bulk of the Bill has been non-controversial. The Committee stage was broadly harmonious—
      Ms. Short: How do you know?
      Sir George Young: The hon. Lady has conceded as much in our debates on the Floor of the House.
      The vast majority of measures in the Bill are non-controversial and have been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. They should reach the statute book as soon as possible.
      The hon. Lady mentioned the help for the terminally ill; more than 50,000 people will benefit from that. Does she really want to deny them that help by voting down the Bill? There is the extension of the severe disablement allowance, with an additional £10 a week for more than 250,000 people. Does she want to deny them that help? There is the introduction—
      Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue; that may allow him the opportunity to make his speech, whereas if I give way, it may deny him that opportunity.
      As more and more people invest larger sums in personal pensions, it must be right to provide better protection to that investment by extending the ombudsman principle to

      1141
      personal pensions—a system that has been tried and proved in so many other aspects of our society. I also welcome the protection for early leavers. Mobility is important in furthering the development of the economy and we want people to move from one job to another. The current arrangements act as a disincentive to national mobility, which is very much in the country's interests, and I welcome the proposed protection.
      I commend the Government for listening as the Bill has passed through its stages. They listened to the argument about rules for self-investment and dropped that part of the Bill at an early stage. Last week, they listened to the argument about income support for those in residential and nursing homes. They listened to the argument about the independent living fund and have found an additional £8 million for that. The Budget changes—which are social security changes—on the capital limits reflected a listening Government who were conscious of what was expected. There have been further changes on the surpluses, which have also been broadly welcomed, and further help for lone parents.
      It was a good Bill when it started, and it became better as it went through its stages. I find the reforms sensible—reflecting changes in society—realistic and prudent. I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.
      9.37 pm
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. I shall confine my brief remarks to clause 10, which deals with energy efficiency in low-income households. I could make the same points about that as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made in her philosophical remarks on the deficiencies of the Bill in general. The Bill divides society into three groups: the very rich, who will clearly benefit; the generality of society—the middle 70 per cent.; and the 20 to 30 per cent. welfare-dependent group at the bottom. We are only too familiar with that group, having studied what has gone wrong with American society during the past 10 to 20 years—yet the Government seem intent upon repeating that experiment in Britain.
      Let us consider what this Bill does for energy efficiency in the context of the general question of how we handle the entire energy question. The Government intend to use the less well-off for target practice with a scheme that had virtually collapsed when they thought that they had a reduction in the unemployment statistics sufficient to bring forward new regulations and criteria for putting people on to the community insulation project schemes—the ET rule. This was known as the extra tenner rule in the community at large.
      It was extremely unattractive to the bulk of the people under 25 who had previously volunteered to go on to the old community programme rules and were involved in community insulation work under community programme rules.
      It was not that unemployment declined; it was that the unattractiveness of the ET rule meant that the under-25 group no longer wished to go on to the schemes, which eventually collapsed under the present Government. They are trying to revive them now, and obviously we do not criticise that, but in the 18 months in which they allowed
      1142
      these schemes to collapse, they received innumerable warnings, not only from Opposition Members but also from the organisations involved in the work—those on whom the Government are now depending to revive the work—that things were going very badly indeed, with a drop of 60 per cent. or more in the work of draught-proofing and installing loft insulation in the homes of the less well-off on local authority estates, old terraced property, and so on.
      While bringing this Bill forward, the Government are also doing a great deal to damage the possibility of the less well-off to afford heat. While this Bill has been in Committee, we have seen our major public utilities which provide the raw energy used to heat homes increase prices by very large amounts indeed. Gas has gone up by 7·7 per cent. even though there has been no increase in the production cost, and electricity has gone up for the domestic consumer by an average of 9 per cent., but with a loaded increase in the areas in which there are more low-income families.
      In my own region, south Wales, which has one of the lowest family incomes in the country, the price to domestic consumers is to rise by 12·9 per cent. in the year that started last week. Furthermore, we have already been promised by the Government that in the coming years prices will rise not by the retail price index minus X, as we were promised at the time of the electricity privatisation legislation, but by RPI plus X. So the minus of privatisation has become a plus. If we have average inflation this year, that will be about 9 per cent., so the increase will be another 11·5 per cent., and that will apply to the following year as well. In south Wales, we know now from the Government's announcement that, in three years, the price of electricity will rise by about 50 per cent., while in the better-off parts of the country, the best calculation that we can make is that it will rise by some 25 per cent.
      That is the damage that the Government are doing to the less well-off in society at the same time as they are pretending to do something for them in this Bill. They are creating a three-tier society. We understand now that they intend to enable the rich who apply for shares in the privatised electricity companies to have a rebate of 10 per cent. on their electricity bills. That is outright discrimination in pricing electricity. What good will that do the pensioner?
      This Bill is not only completely inadequate from the point of energy conservation but, together with other measures such as the rises in electricity prices and a proposed concession to shareholders, highly divisive. It is completely inadequate from the energy conservation point of view, because it is an example of this Government talking green but acting blue.
      9.43 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this short debate before the House rises for Easter. Not having had an opportunity of taking much part in the deliberations on the Social Security Bill, I have looked at some of the issues with keen interest, because issues relating to social security and how we should look after the poorest in our society are probably the most challenging of all the matters that come before the House and are of great concern to those of us who profess Christian values.

      1143
      One cannot always support everything that the Government propose. About three weeks ago in the House, along with right hon. and hon. Friends, I found that I had to vote against the Government on the clause relating to income support in another Bill. I am delighted to report that that matter has largely been put right in this measure. In any event, just because some of us are occasionally unhappy with a detail of social security policy does not mean that secretly we are unhappy with the rest. Far from it, and that is why I was anxious to contribute to the debate.
      I went into my village church last Sunday morning with a heavy heart. We had seen on television the disgraceful scenes in the west end of London on Saturday. The weekend press was not kind to the Government or our leader and, it being my turn to read the lesson, I took encouragement —[Interruption.] This is not a party political matter. I took great encouragement from some words from Philippians chapter 2, given in the New English Bible translation as:
      "Look to each other's interest and not merely your own."
      There is no greater commendation from any authority about how we as politicians should reflect on how we care for the weakest in society.
      I shall support the Bill at this stage, as I have throughout its passage, with enthusiasm, for two reasons. The first is that it is packed full of good provisions for which many of us have been asking for some time. I recall taking part in a debate late at night towards the end of the summer when I asked the Minister of State to produce in the autumn a package of measures for the disabled. One might have been forgiven at that time for doubting that he would do that, but I then urged hon. Members to consider his work on behalf of the disabled, and it is a fitting tribute to that work that such measures are included in the Bill.
      Mr. Ian McCartney rose—
      Mr. Greenway: I will not give way. It is a short debate and other hon. Members wish to take part.
      I must declare my interest in the pensions industry. In a few letters to the Secretary of State at an early stage of the Bill, I said that I could not support the provision for self-administered pension schemes and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) rightly pointed out, that provision has been dropped. We now have some valuable additions to our pensions legislation.
      Much is happening in the whole sphere of social security for which the Government can take credit. I find deeply distasteful much of what is said purely for party advantage about the care and compassion issue. No political party has a monopoly—[Interruption.]—on care for the weakest in society.
      The second and more important reason why I support the Bill with enthusiasm is that the Government are providing more money by way of social security than have any previous Government. We are now paying £1 billion a week in social security, at a time when more people are at work in Britain than ever before. I regret that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that she felt unable to support the Bill. Anyone in doubt about the Government's committment to look after the weakest in society need only consider some of the measures that have been introduced. Anybody doing that will support the Bill with enthusiasm.
      9.48 pm
      Mr. Battle: I am attempting to ask the title of the Bill that we shall be sending to another place. The measure that we considered in Committee comprised 18 clauses and 6 schedules. This Bill is quite different. Although it has provisions concerned with disability, disablement allowance, reduced earnings allowance, pensions and so on, some of which we welcome, we found on Report that the Bill grew like Topsy, with new matter being introduced. Had we had time properly to discuss the provisions that greatly concerned us, the Chancellor's beneficence might have proved not all that it was claimed to be.
      Similarly, there were the changes that were forced on the Goverment as a result of their ill-advised introduction of the social fund. The High Court overruled the Goverment and they had to come back and tack a clause on to the Bill, and the same thing happened with their residential care provisions.
      If we had had a full debate and it had not been guillotined, we might have got further. We might have been able to consider whether there is absolute protection against eviction of old people from homes. I am not sure that the Bill goes far enough to cover that or to cover their care and maintenance. Substantial new policies have been tacked on to the Bill. It almost seems to be a new Bill. We have not had a chance properly to debate it on the Floor of the House because of the guillotine.
      Earlier this evening, Conservative Members asked why Opposition Members did not want to debate the Bill. Some of us did want to talk about the clauses that dealt with pensioners' incomes. Some of us wanted to point out that, as a percentage of average earnings per year since 1979, pensioners' incomes, particularly those living on the state pension alone, have gone down. We did not have a chance.
      The child benefit debate lasted 13 minutes. We could not discuss why the Government have frozen child benefit for the past three years and why they seem likely to do the same again.
      A clause was tabled in my name which might have some topical significance. It concerned the families of people locked away in prison. Those families suffer because their benefits are taken away. They have to pay twice. I would have liked time to speak about the actively seeking work clause, which was included in another Bill that we opposed but which was nevertheless enacted.
      Although the Minister says that not many cases have been reported, in my constituency, wage rates advertised in job centre windows are going down. Jobs that were on offer at £1·30 or £1·20 an hour last year are now down below £1 an hour. People are forced to accept those wages or be told that they can have no benefit.
      All that is taking place against a background of rising unemployment. If the Minister and the Secretary of State care to have another glance at the Government Actuary's report on benefit upratings in the Vote Office, which was published in January, they will find that it makes it plain—as does no document other than the Red Book—that unemployment in the financial year starting this April will rise. Within the Actuary's report there is an estimate of the reduction in contributions to the national insurance fund as a result of the increase in unemployment. Those reductions will mean cuts in other social security benefits, and in pensions during the coming 12 months.

      1145
      The Chancellor, appearing on "On the Record", was asked how the Government could win, bearing in mind the present rate of inflation. He said that it should be remembered that, when unemployment was high, they won. He was saying that the Government are once again prepared to use the weapon of unemployment to bring down inflation. The unemployed are politically expendable.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has often spelled out the facts and figures about how income and wealth have been redistributed from the poor to the rich. They have been taken from the benefits system and redistributed to the richest people, not least by the tax cuts Budget of 1988. The final act in the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich is the poll tax.
      The Government are already proposing another social security Bill next year. I am certain that, before then, the Government will introduce an additional transitional relief scheme when they realise how hard the poll tax has hit people—just as they did when the Social Security Act 1988 started to bite into housing benefit. On that occasion, the Minister was back at the Dispatch Box introducing transitional relief to ensure that pensioners, the disabled and those on low incomes would receive protection. The same will happen when poll tax starts to bite.
      This is not the Bill we set out with, and I do not believe that it is the Bill we should commit tonight to be considered by another place. I suggest to the Government that, rather than turn the Bill into a holdall for their other policy mistakes, they should rethink it.
      9.54 pm
      Mr. Scott: In commending the Bill to the House for a Third Reading, I may say that I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was willing to accord it at least the status of a curate's egg, believing it to be good in parts. I take a more flattering view of it, and I was surprised that the hon. Lady devoted so much of her speech not to the Bill's contents but to two tangential issues—pension incomes and child benefit.
      The arguments on pensioners' incomes have been well trodden across the Floor of the House. Opposition Members tend to concentrate on the value of the state pension, but we believe that what matters is the money that is in the pockets of pensioners. I freely acknowledge that, in part due to the maturing of SERPS but also because of the greater growth of occupational pensions, and because savings are increasingly contributing to pensioners' standard of living—
      Ms. Short: Because of high interest rates.
      Mr. Scott: Only partly. The factors I mentioned are all contributing to the high standard of living enjoyed by those living in retirement. It is manifest that pensioners are enjoying a higher standard of living now than in the past. We know that some have not shared in that, and we have taken special steps to give them help.
      As to child benefit, I repeat my remark during Question Time yesterday that there is no policy of allowing it to wither on the vine. Each year, the Government decide whether it is more sensible to spend small amounts of the resources available to us spread thinly across the board, or
      1146
      to concentrate larger amounts on people who really need the most help. The fact that we have chosen to do the latter for the past three years does not mean—
      Mr. Wray: Will the Minister allow me to intervene? Why is he misleading the House? He talks as though the Bill is giving people something, whereas it actually takes something away from them. The Bill is really about gaining money for the Government. The Minister talks about spending £230 million on the disabled, but he does not mention that the provisions of clause 2 will gain £15 million for the Government in the first year and £50 million every year thereafter. In the first 20 years of the 21st century, the Government will gain £l billion annually. Why does not the Minister tell the House that?
      Mr. Scott: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he intended to make a short, specific point.
      I was grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who clearly illustrated the damage that would be done in the unlikely event that the Opposition were able to prevent the Bill from being committed for consideration by another place. I was grateful for his acknowledgement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I hope myself, have listened to points made during the Bill's progress by those outside the House as well as by right hon. and hon. Members.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) was critical of the new insulation grants scheme. The Government have a good record on energy conservation, but we aim at achieving more, and the fresh approach taken by the Bill will help. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) expressed the view, which I reinforce, that economic success should be the engine for producing a more compassionate society able to give more to help the needy. I am glad that, with my hon. Friend's acknowledged expertise in occupational pensions, he felt able to welcome the Bill's provisions.
      I contrast our measured and deliberate strategy with the Opposition's policies. I am minded to wonder whether the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) or the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has been following carefully the proceedings on the Bill, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, because consistently the Opposition have moved amendments which would commit them to more and more public expenditure if and when they ever return to office. We have added up the commitments which would result from their amendments, and they come out at about £1·5 billion. Any future Labour Government would rapidly find themselves on the same path as the Labour Government in which Lord Barnett was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who spent their first two years in office spending money they did not have.
      I am particularly proud that we have managed to put together a disability package—
      It being Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [28 March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 205.

      Division No. 157]

      [10.00 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Alexander, Richard

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      1147

      Allason, Rupert

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Forman, Nigel

      Amess, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Amos, Alan

      Forth, Eric

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      French, Douglas

      Ashby, David

      Fry, Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Gale, Roger

      Atkinson, David

      Gardiner, George

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Baldry, Tony

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Benyon, W.

      Gow, Ian

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gregory, Conal

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Grist, Ian

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Ground, Patrick

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Grylls, Michael

      Bowis, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hague, William

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bright, Graham

      Hampson, Dr Keith

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

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hannam, John

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hargreaves, A. (Bham H'll Gr')

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Butcher, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butler, Chris

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Butterfill, John

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hill, James

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cash, William

      Holt, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Chope, Christopher

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

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

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Irvine, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jack, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Janman, Tim

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jessel, Toby

      Couchman, James

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cran, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Critchley, Julian

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, David

      Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

      Key, Robert

      Davis, David (Booth ferry)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Day, Stephen

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Devlin, Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knapman, Roger

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dover, Den

      Lang, Ian

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Latham, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Evennett, David

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fallon, Michael

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Favell, Tony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lightbown, David

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lilley, Peter

      1148

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Shersby, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Sims, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Speller, Tony

      Malins, Humfrey

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mans, Keith

      Squire, Robin

      Marland, Paul

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stern, Michael

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mellor, David

      Stokes, Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Sumberg, David

      Mills, Iain

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Neubert, Michael

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tracey, Richard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Trippier, David

      Norris, Steve

      Trotter, Neville

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Paice, James

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Waller, Gary

      Patten. Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Ward, John

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Pawsey, James

      Warren, Kenneth

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Watts, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wells, Bowen

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Portillo, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Price, Sir David

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Raffan, Keith

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wilshire, David

      Redwood, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wolfson, Mark

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wood, Timothy

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Yeo, Tim

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rost, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Ryder, Richard

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Beggs, Roy

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Allen, Graham

      Bell, Stuart

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Armstrong, Hilary

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Blair, Tony

      Barron, Kevin

      Blunkett, David

      Battle, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Beckett, Margaret

      Boyes, Roland

      1149

      Bradley, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Foster, derek

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foulkes, George

      Buchan, Norman

      Fraser, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Callaghan, Jim

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Gould, Bryan

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clay, Bob

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clelland, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hardy, Peter

      Cohen, Harry

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Corbett, Robin

      Henderson, Doug

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Crowther, Stan

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cryer, Bob

      Home Robertson, John

      Cummings, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Darling, Alistair

      Howells, Geraint

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hoyle, Doug

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

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Dixon, Don

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Dobson, Frank

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Doran, Frank

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Ingram, Adam

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Eastham, Ken

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Kilfedder, James

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fatchett, Derek

      Lambie, David

      Fearn, Ronald

      Lamond, James

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Leighton, Ron

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

      Lewis, Terry

      1150

      Litherland, Robert

      Richardson, Jo

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Rooker, Jeff

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAllion, John

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCartney, Ian

      Ruddock, Joan

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKelvey, William

      Sheerman, Barry

      McLeish, Henry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McNamara, Kevin

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Madden, Max

      Short, Clare

      Marek, Dr John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Meacher, Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Michael, Alun

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Steingberg, Gerry

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Stott, Roger

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Gavin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Straw, Jack

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Turner, Dennis

      Mullin, Chris

      Vaz, Keith

      Murphy, Paul

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Nellist, Dave

      Walley, Joan

      O'Brien, William

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Pendry, Tom

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Pike, Peter L.

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wilson, Brian

      Prescott, John

      Winnick, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wray, Jimmy

      Radice, Giles

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Randall, Stuart

      Redmond, Martin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Mr, Frank Haynes and

      Reid, Dr John

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing

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

Prescription Charges
10.14 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 537), dated 8th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
This will be a short debate, as it is based on a prayer and must finish by 11.30 pm. Indeed, it will be so short that the House will remember that I have made speeches longer than this whole debate. In opening the debate, I shall confine myself to the central proposal— [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The House is attempting to hear the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is moving the prayer.
Mr. Cook: You disappoint me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had hoped that I had stimulated unusual interest in my speech.
As 1 was saying, I shall confine myself to the central proposal of the regulation, which is that, if the regulation is carried by the House, it will increase prescription charges by 9 per cent.—in a year in which the Government have based the funding of the National Health Service on the assumption that inflation will be 5 per cent. If the regulation is carried, prescription charges will be £3·05. That figure is so large that Conservative Members may have difficulty remembering what it was when they took office. To assist them, I remind them that in 1979, when they inherited office from the last Labour Government, prescription charges were 20p. My hon. Friends will have no similar difficulty in recalling what the Daily Mail said in that year, when we warned that the Conservatives might double prescription charges—it called the warning "another Labour lie".
I must confess to my hon. Friends that the Daily Mail had a point, as we had failed to warn the nation of the full shock in store for patients in the NHS. If the latest increase is put in place, prescription charges will be 1,425 per cent. higher than when Labour left office.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman remind me, as I have forgotten, what proportion of National Health Service patients pay prescription charges?
Mr. Cook: One quarter of those who claim prescriptions pay the prescription charge. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will deal with that point at some length in the course of my remarks. I very much hope that I shall have his attention when I come to that aspect. If that is a factor in the hon. Gentleman's thinking, we may be able to persuade him with reason to join us in the Lobby.
To put the increase in perspective, in 1979 one could get three prescriptions for the price of one packet of cigarettes. After this regulation is in place, one will need to club together the price of almost two packets of cigarettes to pay for one prescription. That relative price movement provides an awkward footnote to the Government's health strategy.
It would be bad enough if the new prescription charge merely covered the cost of the drugs that it purchased, but
1152
we have arrived at the stage when prescription charges will exceed the cost of a large number of the prescriptions that they pay for.
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I will give way, but as we have to conclude by 11.30, this had better be the last time.
Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is taking us down memory lane. Will he confirm that the Labour party promised in 1974 to get rid of prescription charges but did not do so?
Mr. Cook: I fully admit that the last Labour Government had their failings. If the hon. Gentleman's concern is that we failed to get rid of prescription charges, I happily offer him a compromise: we shall withdraw any commitment to getting rid of prescription charges if he will join us in the Lobby to vote for a prescription charge of 20p as opposed to the Government's proposal for a charge of £3·05. To complain that the last Labour Government left charges at 20p hardly seems a logical or rational argument for increasing the charges to £3·05.
To return to the point that I was about to make, arising from a highly contemporary parliamentary answer, the Minister of State admitted only last month that one third of all prescriptions dispensed have a drug content costing less than the face value of the prescription charge. They are the more common drugs, amounting to more than a third of the total number of prescriptions. Forty-five million prescriptions are being dispensed every year on a prescription charge which renders a profit to the Secretary of State. The National Pharmaceutical Association has furnished me with a full page listing common drugs which can be bought over the counter at a cheaper price than they can be obtained on prescription. Is that what Conservative Members want to achieve? Is it part of their strategy of commercialising health care to encourage patients to dose themselves rather than to seek a prescription on qualified medical advice?
Over the years, as we have debated the matter, I have become familiar with the defence that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has already advanced. It is that the exemption from prescription charges is so wide that there is no real problem. The reason why the proportion of people who are exempt from prescription charges is so high is that the majority of prescriptions are for pensioners and children, who are automatically exempt. The majority of prescriptions to adults under the age of retirement are not exempt.
For example, people with chronic illnesses, who represent a large number of those who require prescriptions, are not exempt. They may have conditions which require repeated prescriptions, and those repeated prescriptions may well be expensive, but such people have no automatic exemption. There is no exemption for people who suffer from cystic fibrosis, asthma, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis or schizophrenia.
Each of those diseases has been brought to the attention of the Government by organisations representing people who suffer from them and the people who care for those who suffer from them. Repeatedly over the years the Government have refused to widen the exemption to cover them. All the conditions that I have mentioned automatically and unavoidably lower the sufferer's

1153
capacity to earn. They all require medication—perhaps two or three prescriptions a week—but there is no exemption for sufferers from them unless they pass the income test.
That brings me to the income test as the basis for exemption. A feature of the Government with which my hon. Friends will be familiar is that means tests keep getting meaner. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for winkling out of the Minister of State the fact that the number of people eligible for free prescriptions on grounds of income fell by half a million last year. That is the result of the changes made in April 1988. Changes were made to the income test for free prescriptions without any statement to Parliament or debate in the House. As a result of the changes, only 3·4 million adults in Britain, out of the whole population under retirement age, qualify for free prescriptions on the grounds of low income. The rest have to pay, unless they fall into one of the other small exempt categories.
One group of people who have increasingly become liable to pay the full prescription charge are those in receipt of invalidity benefits. Since the changes in 1988, many of those people found that they lost the exemption that they had on the grounds of low income, not because their income rose in real terms but because the threshold fell in real terms. The problem for them is that, once they are carried £1 over the income threshold, they lose all their exemption. By definition, if someone is on invalidity benefit, the chances are that they require regular prescriptions—perhaps two or three a week. But even if they require two or three prescriptions a week, the moment they go £1 over the income limit they are expected to find £9 to pay the face value of the prescription. That is a serious reduction in the standard of living for a household living on perhaps £70 or £80 per week.
I have seen the correspondence between one such person on invalidity benefit and the Minister's office. The correspondent wrote complaining that, following the change in the income test, he had not been able to afford five prescriptions that he had needed in the previous month because he could not spare the necessary £14 out of his tight budget. The reply from the Minister of State's office—I exempt the present Minister of State from blame, as the letter came from her predecessor's office—was masterly in its incomprehension of what life is like on a hand-to-mouth existence in which one has to count every penny. The reply, if you please, advised the correspondent that it would be cheaper for him to make a bulk purchase by buying a season ticket for the prescriptions. As the correspondent pointed out in his letter to me in rather blunter terms than I can share with the House, if he could not budget to find £14 to pay for the prescription charges how did the Minister imagine that he would find £40 to buy the annual certificate in the first place?
Every week, pharmacists are confronted with patients who have been given three prescriptions and ask the pharmacist to advise them which ones they really need because they cannot afford all three. I find it curious that Conservative Members keep denying that charges have that effect. After all, every Conservative Member believes in market forces—it is a condition of membership of the modern Conservative party. They know that market forces
1154
work by the price signal, so it is an article of faith that if prices go up, demand must go down. That is certainly what has happened with eye tests.
This week marks the end of the first year since charges were introduced for eye tests. Every survey—there have been many—concludes that charges have been accompanied by a 30 per cent. drop in eye tests—3·5 million fewer eye tests have been performed, so 3·5 million people have been put off by the new price signal of a tenner a test.
Mr. David Winnick: That is damaging to health.
Mr. Cook: The Secretary of the Association of Optometrists shares my hon. Friend's belief as he observed on Monday, that 200,000 people have been missed who might have serious eye conditions which would have been detected if they had come forward for a test, as they would have done last year. He said:
"I think it is inevitable that people will go blind as a result of charging."
The deterrent that we have seen in the case of charges for eye tests can also be witnessed in the case of prescription charges. The Government's own figures show that prescriptions that are not exempt, those prescriptions for which there is a charge, fell from 107 million in 1979—I have already reminded the House that the charge then was 20p—to 70 million in 1988. That is a reduction of about a third. That drop is all the more remarkable given that, in the same period, those prescriptions which are exempt continued to rise.
The York Centre for Health Economics has made the reasonable estimate that, if prescriptions for which people have to pay had continued to increase at the same trend growth rate as those which are exempt, the number of prescriptions for which people are currently paying would be double the current level. In other words, half the demand for prescriptions has been suppressed by the current level of prescription charges.
Ironically, in the very month in which the Government have announced the latest increase, the Institute for Fiscal Studies released a study which concluded:
"The entire fall in the number of charged prescriptions could be accounted for by the increase in the real level of the prescription charge"—
an entire fall of one third in real terms.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies is not alone in its judgment. The latest increase has been condemned by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the National Pharmaceutical Association and the British Medical Association—the very organisations which speak for pharmacists and for general practitioners. They are the people who see the effect of prescription charges on their patients. They know that it is a tax on the sick and they find it repugnant that the people who are most sick have to pay most. There can be no justification for the latest increase.
The House began its proceedings after Question Time today with a ministerial statement on capping local authority poll taxes. I invite the House to conclude the day's work by joining me in the Lobby to cap the Government's own poll tax.
10.30 pm
Mr. John Marshall: Whenever the House talks about prescription charges, we have a debate that is little better than a charade, because it is full of cant

1155
from Opposition Members. If we consider the history of prescription charges in this country, we must remember that a Labour Government first took upon themselves the power to impose prescription charges. We must remember that in 1964 Lord Wilson won the election on the promise that he would get rid of prescription charges. He did for three years, but then Lord Jenkins reintroduced them in 1968. In 1974, Lord Wilson was at it again; he promised to get rid of prescription charges.
It is no use the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) saying that prescription charges were merely 20p at the end of his term of office. The integrity of election promises is at issue. It is surely wrong and cynical—
Mr. Cook: I am delighted at the hon. Gentleman's observation about the integrity of election pledges. May I invite him to consider two issues to which he must address his mind in the context of this debate? First, will he show my hon. Friends and me where, in the Conservative manifesto in 1987, there was a commitment to introduce charges for eye tests or dental examinations? Will he cast light on how it was that before—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may seek guidance, but he will not find a reference in the manifesto.
Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman cast light on how it was that the Conservative party could assure the country in 1979 that it had no intention of doubling prescription charges when it increased them fifteenfold?
Mr. Marshall: We made a commitment in 1979 to improve the quality of the Health Service, which is what we have done. Those prescription charges are part of that improvement. Those who vote against prescription charges tonight are voting against an income for the Health Service of more than £200 million.
Dame Jill Knight: I wonder whether my hon. Friend noted with the same interest as I did the fact that, in all the remarks of the hon. Member for Livingston tonight, not once did he say what cuts he would impose on the Health Service to meet the drugs bill.
Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right. The choice facing the country is simply whether we want—
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mr. Marshall: I have given way twice, and I am trying to answer my hon. Friend. When I have done so, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The choice facing the country is simple: do we want a better Health Service for those who are ill or do we want free drugs for people who can afford to pay for them? The Labour party must say how many nurses it would get rid of, how many fewer hip replacements and how many fewer heart transplants there would be if its views were to prevail.
Mr. Corbyn: I shall take the hon. Gentleman back to 1979. Will he tell us exactly what the pledge was in that Conservative election campaign? I seem to remember very well that there was a pledge not to increase prescription charges. That has clearly been broken. The argument then was just as valid as it is today: by increasing prescription charges, one increases the cost for those who can least afford it because they are ill at the time.
Mr. Marshall: I well remember 1979 because that was when the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)
1156
was causing chaos throughout north London by persuading refuse collectors not to collect refuse, indulging in a series of strikes and disrupting education in the London borough of Haringey, where schools were closed for several weeks.
As for the hon. Gentleman's talk of an alleged election promise, no promise was made in 1979 not to increase prescription charges. A specific promise was made in 1974, however, which the Labour party refused to honour. It is perhaps significant that we have not heard from the Labour party tonight what its policy is. Is it the policy of the 1989 Labour party conference, which was to get rid of prescription charges, or is it a fact that its latest policy review fails to mention the subject at all? I suspect that Labour Members have realised that no one will believe any promises they make in respect of prescription charges.
Mr. Robin Cook rose—
Mr. Marshall: I have given way three times.
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will ask these questions, he must expect them to be answered. The answer is perfectly straightforward. Our commitment, as a first priority, is to abolish the charge for eye tests, and that will go; secondly, we will abolish the charge for dental examinations, and that will go; then we will make what progress we can within resources in reducing the prescription charge. There will certainly be no increase. If there is no increase, it will mean that the prescription charge will decline with inflation. Of course, under the next Labour Government, inflation will be so low that that will not be satisfactory, so I assure my hon. Friends that I shall seek to make real cuts in the value of the prescription charge.
Mr. Marshall: That has been a valuable little exercise: we have managed to smoke out from the Labour party spokesman on health the fact that a future Labour Government would retain prescription charges. The commitment to reduce them is so "pie in the sky" that we know it will not happen. To be told that a future Labour Government will reduce the rate of inflation, when under the previous one inflation increased within 12 months to 25 per cent. and the average rate of inflation was twice the rate under this Government, is pure "pie in the sky" economics.
There are widespread exemptions for these charges, and we should look at them in relation to the total drugs bill. We have been told that they are going up by 8·9 per cent. in the current year. What we were not told by the hon. Member for Livingston was that the drugs bill is estimated to go up by 13 per cent. this year, so that prescription charges will be meeting a smaller percentage of the total drugs bill.
We should also look at the size of the drugs bill, which in the current financial year will be £2·4 billion. I should have thought that a system of charges raising less than 10 per cent. of the total drugs bill is not at all unreasonable. The charges are not paid by the needy, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, because there are widespread exemptions covering a very large number of people.
I believe that the charges are reasonable. I believe that the opposition to them is full of cant and humbug and pays no attention to what the Labour Government did.
10.37 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am not going to follow the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), particularly on his line of argument, although I would say that perhaps the best—or perhaps not the best but the most worrying—thing that could be said about his speech is that he actually sounds as if he believes it. It strikes me that we have had a recurrence of debates at about this hour of the evening, when Ministers from the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security are frequently lambasted from their own Back Benches on a variety of issues, but when there will be one loner, one loyalist, who will stand up and read the brief, either from Smith square or the Whips Office.
I wonder, when the hon. Member speaks, how it is that the Whips allocate these things. It must be on a "short straw" basis, the choice of who has to make the speech defending a policy which, to judge by the expressions on the faces of other hon. Members on the Government Benches, particularly those interested in health issues, is fairly indefensible. I suspect that, within the parliamentary Conservative party, it works rather like a reverse example of how one loses a driving licence—by accumulating points over time. The more of this kind of speech one makes, the more one accumulates points; one does not lose one's licence at the end—one is given a knighthood for services to the state. So I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his endeavours.
Let us just deal with the reality of this. One thing struck me when this year's increase in prescription charge was announced. It is a worrying fact, which reflects the longevity of the Government and, alongside that longevity, the extent to which the public have become much less interested over the years in increases in these charges. For slightly more than a decade, we have become used to way-above-the-odds increases in prescription charges that, even compared with when I entered the House in 1983, are no longer as big and as dramatic a story in the media—[AN HON. MEMBER: "They should be."] They certainly should, but they are not. That is a sad reflection of an almost weary acceptance among reporters. They feel that it is the same old story again of the Government putting up prescription charges above the level of inflation, even though inflation is well beyond what was anticipated in the current financial year.
In addition, that group in society who are most dependent upon prescriptions—the categories referred to by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—are all too often the same strata of strained financial cross-sections who have the weakest voice, not only on prescription charges but on housing and social security policies. Therefore, we are right to debate these matters on each and every occasion they arise, so that we can give voice to the reality that we hear in our constituency surgeries. I cannot believe that Conservative Members do not hear it also, because they certainly appear to be hearing all the complaints about the poll tax. They have somewhat selective hearing when it comes to social security issues in general and health policies in particular.
The hon. Member for Livingston also referred to eye test charges and the deregulation in that category of the Health Service, with the resultant serious problems. During the past few months, my party, through a
1158
questionnaire, has polled the opinions of almost 2,000 opticians throughout England, Wales and Scotland. The results have been in line with what the professional associations have found—that there has been about a 30 per cent. drop in the number of people seeking eye tests. Almost as high a number—28 per cent.—of opticians feel that there is a question mark against their financial liability if the changes introduced last year are not reversed.
We now have a contrast. A year ago, when Lords amendments were debated on the Floor of the House, the Government majority was slashed to single figures or at least the low teens. They sought to overcome the amendments on dental and optical tests imposed in another place. I took the trouble to read the Hansard of the exchanges during that debate, including the remarks of the Minister and the Secretary of State. They offered the same assurances that they are now offering on prescription charges—that they would not have a detrimental effect, that there would be sufficient exemptions, that it was scaremongering by the Opposition, that there was no need to upset people, and so on.
The evidence since then is overwhelming and disastrous. First, the changes make nonsense of public health preventive medicine policy. Secondly, they must raise legitimate anxieties about public safety. With a 30 per cent. drop in eye tests, how many people are now behind the wheel of a vehicle on our roads who, had they had an eye test during the past 12 months, would be wearing glasses and would therefore be safer drivers? They also make nonsense of transport policy and public safety on our highways, which should be an arm of government into which the Department of Health has an input.
Thirdly, the Government are carrying out a survey of opticians and are due to publish the results in May. Surprise, surprise, I have been looking at some of the detailed comments that the professional associations have made, and we should take with a pinch of salt any findings in the Government's collection of statistics that apparently give the lie to the most recent surveys. I say that because the questions are loaded. They are loaded to avoid the public's giving the kind of answers that would give an accurate reflection of this attitude to eye tests.
I will give one example. One of the questions asked is: "Have you had an eye test since Christmas?" They do not say since the beginning of the year, or in the last three months. MORI has been asked to advise on the efficacy of using the word "Christmas" and it says, as an organisation of experienced opinion pollsters, that that is a deliberately vague term in that it stretches the bounderies of recollection back as far as November, and that it does not line up with the kind of dates over which the Government have been promising that they would be able to give accurate figures.
Secondly, the pollsters ask the public not if they had to pay but what kind of eye test they had. They say: "Did you have a National Health Service eye test, or did you pay for an eye test?" Again, they are trying to confuse the public by the questions they are asking.
I sent the Secretary of State a copy of the questions which we circulated throughout Britain, and a copy of the responses. I think he will find that they are far more accurate and honest. Given that the results produced from nearly 2,000 opticians approached directly are completely in line with the figures discovered as a result of the

1159
professional bodies carrying out their surveys, if the Government figures are far removed from those, it is because their supposed survey has been rigged.
In comparison with what we were assured over dental and optical charges 12 months ago and the disastrous downturn since, one can have no confidence whatsover in the Goverment's latest hike in prescription charges, because any assurances that they can offer are likely to prove too low, not least when we hear the kind of assurances drafted from Smith square for Back Benchers which immediately preceded my own contribution.
10.47 pm
Mr. Roger Sims (Chiselhurst): This debate, as the hon.
Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) implied, is an annual event that takes on something of a ritual quality, not least with the Pavlovian response from Members on the Opposition Front Bench. These are entirely predictable, although certainly more enjoyable from the lips of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) than from some of his predecessors.
I assure the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye that I am not a pressed man but very much a volunteer, as I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) can confirm. Indeed, I am no party hack on this or any other issue.
Mr. Kennedy: Having served on a number of Committees with the hon. Gentleman, I would never accuse him of that. I think that is why he tends to stand further way from the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Sims: I am grateful for that compliment from the hon. Gentleman, as no doubt the hon. Member for Livingston is for the one that I just paid him.
As the subject has been mentioned, I remind the House that I believe that it was wrong for the Government to impose charges for eye tests and teeth checks, and spoke and voted accordingly. I believe that the evidence that we have already heard in the debate this evening, when it has had more time to emerge, will prove the case, but time will tell.
Having established my position on that, I am bound to say that I think it entirely reasonable that those who can afford to do so should make a contribution towards the cost of prescriptions. After all, more than half the population are within the exempt categories and only one quarter of prescriptions are charged for. We are talking of £3 or so per item, although with the use of the so-called season ticket facility the average cost reduces. However, I sometimes wonder whether people are as aware of this facility as they should be and whether it might usefully be given more publicity.
I was interested that the hon. Member for Livingston made a comparison with the cost of a couple of packets of cigarettes. Is it unreasonable to expect people to pay for a prescription what they pay for a couple of packets of cigarettes or a round of drinks in the pub, although they probably pay a good deal more for a round of drinks?
Another comparison might be with the items on a normal shopping list at the chemist. People expect to pay £2 or £3 for cough mixture, aspirins, sticking plasters and many other items to be found in the average bathroom cabinet. Is it unreasonable to ask people who can afford it
1160
to pay £3 for a prescription?
If Opposition Members are really against it, they must answer the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). The Department estimates that this increase we are discussing will provide the NHS with £13 million. What alternative method of raising money for the NHS do Opposition Members have? Should it come from increased taxes? Or would they prefer cuts to be made in NHS expenditure to protect those with means from having to pay a little more for their prescriptions? If that is their view, it is a curious socialist philosophy.
Were Labour Members to follow through their party conference policy and abolish prescription charges, they would have to find about £170 million, if my calculations are right. There would have to be huge NHS cuts to find that sort of money. The Government proposal is reasonable and reflects the higher cost of pharmaceutical services in the NHS.
10.52 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: We must discover the real reason why, yet again, the Government wish to increase prescription charges. After all, the Conservatives have increased them every year snce they came to power in 1979.
Conservative Members have offered only one reason for the increase—that of raising money for the NHS. Compared with the overall NHS budget, the extra cash that this increase would raise—£13 million—is chickenfeed.
The Government have had huge sums at their disposal, but have invested them otherwise than in the NHS In a recent short debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I pointed out that the Conservatives had raised about £50 billion through selling public assets—the family silver—and a further £83 billion from North sea oil. No previous Government have had such enormous resources at their disposal from which to make a larger contribution to the NHS. Yet today we are discussing a mere —13 million, which will penalise the poor and the sick. It is disgraceful.
I believe that there are other reasons why the Government wish to increase prescription charges. They may wish, for example, to establish financial disincentives so that people will think twice before obtaining the drugs that they require. Is that the reason why the Government are bringing forward increased charges?
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned the report by York university, which is well worth studying. A number of points raised by that report give us cause for concern. We are worried about the implications of increased prescription charges, because the York report said that
"increasing prescription charges may … be reducing as opposed to enhancing the use of primary care resources."
The Government must be aware of that problem. They are affecting the way in which general practitioners operate, and the way that primary care can assist the patient.
The Government must also be aware of the huge reduction in the take-up rate for prescription since charges were introduced. Some 107 million were cashed in 1979. The figure was down to 70 million by 1988. We should all be concerned about the implications of that for the patients involved.

1161
be valued and will be used rather than flushed down the toilet or the drain? Do the Government feel that if something is paid for it is more valued? I have been waiting to hear the Government's justification from the Government benches for another huge increase in prescription charges, but frankly no reason has been given.
The real reasons relate to the Government's wider political objectives for the National Health Service. The Under-Secretary of State for Health knows my view of the scenario because he heard it last week and the week before. He heard it in the Standing Committee on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. He understands my view of the Government's actions. I feel that I need to repeat it again and again because I genuinely believe that the Government's policies are part of an overall plan to transform the National Health Service into something quite different.
The Government have made a deliberate attempt to undermine public confidence in the National Health Service during their time in office—for example, by the way in which they have continued to underfund the service. Year in and year out since 1982, the National Association of Health Authorities report has indicated massive underfunding of the Health Service.
The Government have deliberately provoked industrial disputes within the National Health Service. The nurses' dispute and the ambulance crews' dispute were inflamed deliberately by the Government and in particular by the Front Bench and the Secretary of State for Health. The Government have attempted to try to convince people that we can no longer afford a state National Health Service and that we need to consider alternatives to the service that we have been fortunate enough to have since the 1940s.
Those Government policies are part of an overall plan to prepare for something very different. The Government have deliberately attempted to create a public expectation that one now has to pay for the health care which has been freely available in this country since the inception of the National Health Service. What other justification can there be for the provisions in the Health and Medicines Act 1988 for eyesight checks that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) mentioned?
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston cited some appalling figures tonight—3·5 million fewer eye sight checks have occurred as a result of the charge. That number of people would otherwise have gone for those checks. What other justification can there be for charges for dental checks? Charges for hospital parking will be a disincentive for people to attend hospital or to visit relatives in hospital. What other justification can there be for the huge jump in prescription charges?
The measure relates to wider issues than just another huge increase in prescription charges. I was fortunate to have been born shortly after the inception of the National Health Service, so I never knew about doctors' bills—but I have read about them and I have been told about them. It is fitting that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) is here tonight as I have read the volumes that he wrote about Nye Bevan and learnt from those and from other publications about the reality before the inception of National Health Service.
In the past week, the reality of the situation that we may face has been brought home to me. One of my constituents
1162
is facing a bill for £6,000 for private health treatment which she cannot afford to pay. The medical insurance company which she thought would cover those expenses has told her, "Sorry, but because of a technicality you are not covered" and she is being sued for £6,000. That sort of thing should have gone out of the window in 1948, on the introduction of the National Health Service.
The real reason behind this measure is the Tory policy of turning the Health Service into a commercialised, pay-as-you-go, American-style health care system. Anyone who believes in the NHS should today and in any future debate vote solidly against the Government in defence of the Health Service of this country.
11 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) about how remarkably little coverage there has been of this measure in the national press. In the Library, I failed to find one mention of it in any national English newspaper. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that is the result of apathy, but that newspaper commentators and the majority of the public accept that there is nothing wrong in asking people who can afford to pay prescription charges to make some contribution— albeit not an economical contribution—and so provide the Health Service with substantial additional revenue at a time when the drugs budget is rising rapidly.
It is easy to caricature prescription fees as a charge on the sick, as was said by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), and to claim that they deter people from seeking proper medical treatment. That may be good political hyperbole, but the majority of the public reject it as totally divorced from reality.
The reality is that the Opposition recognise the strength of the argument for prescription charges. Although Labour abolished charges in 1965, they reintroduced them three years later, at a 25 per cent. higher level. In 1974, Labour promised to abolish prescription charges but failed to do so during their subsequent four years in government. Last year, Labour's national conference voted to abolish charges, but the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury must be concerned that prescription charges raise £212 million—the equivalent of budgets for six or seven health authorities of reasonable size. The total amount raised by all Health Service charges, many of which Labour introduced after the war, is £1,020 million annually, which even Opposition Members, in their saner moments, would regard as a significant contribution to NHS funding.
Most people accept that it is a sensible, progressive and sane proposition that people who are able to contribute to prescription costs, and have sufficient income, should do so. The charges involved can hardly be regarded as regressive. Of a total of 335 million prescriptions, no fewer than 260 million are provided free of charge. The number of prescriptions per person has risen by about one tenth since 1977, the amount spent on the drugs budget per se has risen from £550 million in 1979 to £2·4 billion, and the drugs budget is rising significantly faster than increases in charges.
Despite that background, the exemptions that the Government have allowed, which account for a higher proportion of the total drugs budget, have increased over the past 10 years. In addition to children under 16, all

1163
pensioners, people on income support or family credit, expectant mothers and mothers who have had a child within the previous 12 months, in 1982 the Conservative Government allowed a further extension to include mothers who have had the appalling experience of having a stillborn child within the previous 12 months, between 1983 and 1985 they made further exemptions for medical conditions, and in 1988—a fact that has not been mentioned by the Opposition or by my hon. Friends—they extended exemption to students under 19 who are in full-time education.
It is scarcely surprising that, with 55 per cent. of the population and a far greater proportion of those needing prescriptions being exempt, the changes are met with understanding and, indeed, a deafening silence by the newspapers which might be expected to oppose them.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned the Institute of Fiscal Studies and an article in its February magazine. It is not surprising that research shows that the increase in charges of some five times in real terms over the past 10 years has not resulted in any decrease in the number of prescriptions. Indeed, between 1979 and 1987 the number rose by 11 per cent. The hon. Gentleman said that the Institute of Fiscal Studies showed that the number of paid prescriptions declined from 107 million to 70 million between 1979 and 1988 and that this showed that the increase in prescription charges had reduced the number of people who were prepared to pay for prescriptions. That may be a significant determinant. Indeed, the Institute of Fiscal Studies argued that.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies also argued that many people who would no longer pay for prescriptions realised, as a result of prescription charges going up, that they had a statutory right to free prescriptions and, far from stopping taking out prescriptions, more of them went to their doctors to get the free prescriptions to which they were entitled. Instead of increased charges leading to a decline in the total number of prescriptions given out by doctors, they had the opposite effect.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies has showed that increasing prescription charges can have a beneficial effect on take-up and on preventive health care. The hon. Member for Livingston was not prepared to elaborate on that when he discussed the report. For that reason and the other reasons that I have outlined, I shall support the regulations and oppose the Opposition prayer.
11.9 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: Earlier today we debated the poll tax capping legislation. My local authority will be capped for increasing its expenditure by 6 per cent.; after 11 years of Conservative government, we now find ourselves debating a 1,000 per cent. increase in prescription charges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out to me earlier, this, too, is a kind of poll tax. Conservative Members have provided no more than a tissue of excuses for the attempt to privatise medical care and introduce market forces that underlies the Government's proposals.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Like the poll tax, this tax on health will affect most seriously those whose housing and working conditions are worst: their health will suffer most.
Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The introduction of charges will cause the cronically ill to ask doctors to delete items from multiple prescriptions, or to abandon their prescriptions altogether.
Opposition Members have said a good deal about the general implications of the proposals; I refer specifically to the problems of women who cannot afford to pay multiple prescription charges. I am currently dealing with the case of a constituent of my late colleague Allan Roberts, who was the Member for Bootle. Because she could not afford the three-part hormone replacement therapy package, a growth of hair now covers her face and she lives almost as a hermit. She was recently sent to a consultant dermatologist in Liverpool, who has written to me that the case is one of the worst that she has seen. Because of cuts, however, she cannot begin to treat the patient for nine to 12 months, although the patient is deemed to he in the emergency category. She has advised the patient that, if she is prepared to pay, treatment can begin at the same hospital 24 hours after an appointment has been made.
I have already written to the Minister about the case, so I shall not go into detail now, but it illustrates graphically the disincentive that multiple prescription charges will introduce: people will be discouraged from either embarking on or continuing treatment.
Conservative Members have simply parroted their speeches. I think that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) must have left his speech on his seat, and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) must have picked it up and read out pages 3, 4 and 5. Perhaps another hon. Member will read the concluding passages. The hon. Member for Hendon, South spoke of raising resources for the National Health Service, but he did not mention the Government's proposal to provide £40 million in tax relief for private medical insurance in the current financial year. I trust that one of the first steps that the Labour Government will take will be to remove that relief, and pump the money back into the NHS, so that people need not pay prescription charges.
Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has had ample opportunity to put his case. He has been out of the Chamber since then—for medicinal purposes., I understand.
The issue at stake is this: how can we establish preventive medicine within the confines of the NHS and ensure that multiple prescriptions are effective for preventive and treatment purposes? The Minister owes it to the House to explain clearly why the Government have failed on the 15 occasions when prescription charges have been raised to do anything to protect those who require multiple prescriptions. That affects women in the main and there is growing evidence that the lives of many women who go without hormone replacement treatment become an abject misery. Far more expensive hospital treatment may be needed later in their lives, whereas, if the treatment had been carried out through the prescription service, much of the pain would have been relieved and much of the expense of in-hospital treatment would not have been incurred by the National Health Service.
These dangerous increases run even against the Government's concept of value for money. The proposals are not value for money for the National Health Service in terms of their long-term effect on people's health. I know

1165
that the Minister is desperate to speak tonight to explain why it is in the interests of the nation's health once again to increase prescription charges.
Why, when the Select Committee on Social Services is in the process of analysing in detail the effect on uptake of the introduction of eye test charges, are the Government attempting to influence public opinion to their way of thinking? All the evidence so far suggests that there has been a substantial and growing decline in the number of people using the service. In some areas, the drop is not 30 per cent. or 40 per cent., but 60 per cent. and above. Most of them are areas of social deprivation and high unemployment, with a high incidence of child deaths and a high mortality rate. Yet the Government, with their warped way of seeking to influence public opinion, are trying to suggest that the charges are not having the effect that the evidence before the Select Committee suggests.
I hope that the Minister will make two promises tonight: first, to put all the independent evidence from the current investigations about eye tests before the Select Committee so that we can check and verify it, and, secondly, to amend the regulations next year, if not this year, to allow some relief for people, especially women going through hormone treatment, who must have multiple prescriptions.
11.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). They have performed a valuable function in drawing out of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) a commitment—a Front-Bench commitment, I assume—that a Labour Government would freeze the prescription charge in monetary terms. He gave that commitment clearly. In the coming year, they would remove £13 million from the National Health Service. Freezing the charge is an irrational way of targeting resources on those who most need assistance and a very inefficient way in which to proceed.
The House would have expected a more reasoned argument from the hon. Gentleman, perhaps indicating certain categories of those receiving prescriptions on whom he wished to concentrate resources. Instead, we had an argument based more on political symbolism than reality. It is convenient for an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to spend money by forgoing increases in charges without, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South so clearly put it, explaining precisely where the resources were to come from.
That adds a further £13 million to the cost of the hon. Gentleman's two previous commitments—to end compulsory competitive tendering, which will lose the NHS £100 million, and to end, in view of the Labour party's evident hostility to them, private practice and income generation, losing another £100 million to the NHS.
Mr. Sims: Can my hon. Friend reconcile the apparent commitment to freeze prescription charges with the commitment of the Labour party conference to abolish them altogether?
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was taking the words of the hon. Member for Livingston at face value as a Front Bench commitment, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Labour party's commitment, which would lose the Health Service about £180 million—the revenue from charges, which contribute about 8 per cent. of the total cost of the drugs budget.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister paid glowing tribute to his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). Given that he referred to a drugs budget increase of 13 per cent., how can the Minister justify an element for inflation of a mere 5 per cent.?
Mr. Freeman: I was coming to that very point. It is reasonable to increase prescription charges from 1 April 1990 by 25p, from £2.80 to £3.05. The 8.9 per cent. increase cited by the hon. Member for Livingston compares with the 10 per cent. increase in resources going into the NHS in the coming year—amounting to about £30 billion in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the rate of increase in the total drugs bill during the past few years. Certainly, the average monetary increase has been about 13 per cent. We believe that those who can afford to pay should contribute, by way of an increase in the charges, a reasonable proportion of the cost of the drugs bill, bearing in mind that increase. Our proposals for indicative drug budgeting are intended not to reduce the real cost of the drugs budget but to bring some moderating downward pressure on the rate of its growth.
We understand that the real cost of drugs must increase each year, to pay for new techniques in the NHS and for an aging population, so the drugs bill is rising at 13 per cent. in monetary terms; set against that, the increase of just under 9 per cent. in prescription charges is reasonable. I have already said that only 8 per cent. of the total cost of our drugs budget is recovered by way of charges. That total was £2·2 billion in 1988–89, and it is forecast to rise further in the coming year.
The proportion of the average cost of drugs prescribed that prescription charges recover is also relatively modest. For prescriptions for which there is a charge, the charge covers only 36 per cent. of the average cost of the prescription. The hon. Member for Livingston selectively referred to drug costs, but I am taking the total cost of the prescription, which rightly includes all the other costs of preparation and dispensing. The plain fact is that charges amount to only one third of the total cost of prescriptions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said, the increased resources available to the NHS in the coming year are of the order of £12 million to £13 million. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) called that chickenfeed, following the hon. Member for Livingston, who said that he would forgo that increase. I invite the House to consider what £13 million amounts to per district health authority— [Interruption.]—including that of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It amounts to some £65,000 in the coming year alone. That is the increase that would be forgone. It is equal to five qualified nurses for every district health authority. I put it to the hon. Member for Wakefield that those sums are not chickenfeed.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I should be grateful if the Minister would put my comments into their full context. I said that

1167
the money was chickenfeed in the context of the overall NHS budget. I am sure that the Minister would agree with that.
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is ducking the issue. The total sum of £13 million, just under 9 per cent. in the coming year—I shall come on to deal with waivers of prescription charges which make the system fair—and £65,000 on average per health authority, which is equal to five qualified nurses, are real numbers which make a real difference.
We have a generous system of waivers for prescription charges. The hon. Member for Livingston rightly said that some 75 per cent. of all items dispensed are free. The exempt categories include those on low incomes, pensioners, children under the age of 16, students under the age of 19, and expectant and nursing mothers. It is a generous range of exemptions, amounting to three quarters of all prescriptions.
Mr. Tom Clarke: So why bother with the rest?
Mr. Freeman: We bother about the £180 million collected from the other 25 per cent. because it is a significant sum for the National Health Service. It is ploughed back into patient care and it is contributed by those who can afford to make the payment. By waiving those charges—as an act of political symbolism, I suspect—the hon. Gentleman would lose the NHS real funds of £180 million, which is equivalent to £1 million per district health authority.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister lays heavy stress on the revenue to the NHS from the charges. If that is the sole argument that he can adduce in defence of the increase, where does his argument stop? If raising revenue for the NHS is the only concern, why not introduce charges for seeing a GP? Why stop at prescription charges? We must surely grasp the fact that we are debating the fundamental principle that people should pay for the NHS not at the moment when they are sick, but when they are well.
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman carefully did not subscribe to the view of his party that prescription charges should be abolished. He carefully said from the Front Bench that in his judgment the charge should remain at £3·05 and not be increased further. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to correct me.
Mr. Cook: The Minister is creating a problem for a future Labour Government. Every time the Government increase the prescription charge, they increase the cost of abolishing it, as the Minister well understands. I said that in the first instance there would be no further increase in real terms and that we would seek to reduce the prescription charge as resources permitted. [Laughter.] I do not see what hon. Members find funny about that. We have made an explicit commitment that the first priority will be to abolish the charge for eye tests. The second will be to abolish the charge for dental examinations. The third will be to make what progress we can to reduce the prescription charge. If the Minister is worried about the cost of that, he should join us in the Lobby today and vote against his increase, which will merely increase the cost of abolition.
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is changing his tune—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He has clearly redefined the commitment from the Labour Front Bench. He is now
1168
saying from the Front Bench that the Labour party would not increase the prescription in real terms. Perhaps he will clarify the position.
Mr. Cook: If the Minister is in any doubt, I am glad to repeat the commitment. We shall not increase the prescription charge and we shall seek real reductions in it. I would also like to achieve cash reductions.
Mr. Freeman: We strongly believe that the proposals are fair, reasonable and prudent. I invite the House to throw out the prayer and support the regulations.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)).
The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 278.

Division No. 158]

[11.29 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Doran, Frank

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Allen, Graham

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Eadie, Alexander

Armstrong, Hilary

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ashton, Joe

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Fatchett, Derek

Barron, Kevin

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Battle, John

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

Beckett, Margaret

Fisher, Mark

Beggs, Roy

Flannery, Martin

Beith, A. J.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bell, Stuart

Foster, Derek

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foulkes, George

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

Fraser, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Fyfe, Maria

Bidwell, Sydney

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Blair, Tony

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Blunkett, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Boateng, Paul

Golding, Mrs Llin

Boyes, Roland

Gordon, Mildred

Bradley, Keith

Gould, Bryan

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh 5)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Grocott, Bruce

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hardy, Peter

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Buchan, Norman

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Buckley, George J.

Henderson, Doug

Callaghan, Jim

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Home Robertson, John

Canavan, Dennis

Hood, Jimmy

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howells, Geraint

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, Roy (Newport E)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ingram, Adam

Corbett, Robin

Johnston, Sir Russell

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Crowther, Stan

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cryer, Bob

Kennedy, Charles

Cummings, John

Kilfedder, James

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kirkwood, Archy

Dalyell, Tam

Lambie, David

Darling, Alistair

Lamond, James

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Leighton, Ron

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Litherland, Robert

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

Livingstone, Ken

Dixon, Don

Livsey, Richard

Dobson, Frank

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

1169

Loyden, Eddie

Rooker, Jeff

McAllion, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McAvoy, Thomas

Ross,William (Londonderry E)

McCartney, Ian

Rowlands, Ted

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Ruddock, Joan

McKelvey, William

Sedgemore, Brian

McLeish, Henry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McNamara, Kevin

Short, Clare

Madden, Max

Skinner, Dennis

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

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 Sir David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Steinberg, Gerry

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Strang, Gavin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Straw, Jack

Morgan, Rhodri

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Turner, Dennis

Mowlam, Marjorie

Vaz, Keith

Mullin, Chris

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfasr N)

Murphy, Paul

Walley, Joan

Nellist, Dave

Wareing, Robert N.

O'Brien, William

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

O'Neill, Martin

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wigley, Dafydd

Patchett, Terry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

Pike, Peter L.

Wilson, Brian

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Winnick, David

Prescott, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Primarolo, Dawn

Worthington, Tony

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wray, Jimmy

Radice, Giles

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Randall, Stuart

Redmond, Martin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Mr. Frank Hayes and

Reid, Dr John

Mr. Ken Eastham.

Richardson, Jo

NOES

Adley, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Aitken, Jonathan

Budgen, Nicholas

Alexander, Richard

Burns, Simon

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Burt, Alistair

Allason, Rupert

Butler, Chris

Amess, David

Butterfill, John

Amos, Alan

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Arbuthnot, James

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carttiss, Michael

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Chapman, Sydney

Ashby, David

Chope, Christopher

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

Baldry, Tony

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Batiste, Spencer

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Conway, Derek

Bellingham, Henry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bendall, Vivian

Coombs, Simon (SWindon)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cope, Rt Hon John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cran, James

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Body, Sir Richard

Curry, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Boswell, Tim

Day, Stephen

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Dorrell, Stephen

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bowls, John

Dover, Den

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Durant, Tony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Eggar, Tim

Brazier, Julian

Emery, Sir Peter

Bright, Graham

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

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

Evennett, David

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

1170

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Leigh, edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Forman, Nigel

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Peter

Forth, Eric

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Freeman, Roger

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

French, Douglas

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Fry, Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Mackay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gardiner, George

Maclean, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Gill, Christopher

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Madel, David

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Malins, Humfrey

Goodlad, Alastair

Mans, Keith

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marland, Paul

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marlow, Tony

Gow, Ian

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Maude, Hon Francis

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gregory, Conal

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir, Patrick

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Mellor, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Grist, Ian

Miller, Sir Hal

Ground, Patrick

Mills, Iain

Grylls, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mitchell, Sir David

Hague, William

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Hanley, Jeremy

Moss, Malcolm

Hannam, John

Moynihan, Hon Colin

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

Neale, Gerrard

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Neubert, Michael

Harris, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hawkins, Christopher

Norris, Steve

Hayes, Jerry

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Patnick, Irvine

Hill, James

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hind, Kenneth

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Holt, Richard

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

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

Portillo, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Price, Sir, David

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Raffan, Keith

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Redwood, John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hunter, Andrew

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Irvine, Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Irving, Sir Charles

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy).

Jack, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jackson, Robert

Rost, Peter

Janman, Tim

Rowe, Andrew

Jessel, Toby

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ryder, Richard

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jones, Robert B (Harts W)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Key, Robert

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shersby, Michael

Knapman, Roger

Sims, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Knox, David

Speller, Tony

Lang, Ian

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Latham, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lawrence, Ivan

Squire, Robin

Lee, John (Pendle)

Stanbrook, Ivor

1171

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Viggers, Peter

Steen, Anthony

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Stern, Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Stevens, Lewis

Walker, Bill (T'Side North)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Waller, Gary

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

ward, John

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stokes, Sir John

Warren, Kenneth

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Watts, John

Sumberg, David

Wells, bowen

Summerson, Hugo

Wheeler, Sir John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whitney, Ray

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wiggin, Jerry

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wilshire, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wolfson, Mark

Thornton, Malcolm

Wood, Timothy

Thurnham, Peter

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Yeo, Tim

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tredinnick, David

Trippier, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Trotter, Neville

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mr. John M. Taylor

Question accordingly negatived.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS
Ordered,
That Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Ernie Ross be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. David Evans and Mr. George Howarth be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Durant.]

PETITIONS

  Orange Grove Farm
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: This petition is from one of my constituents who is due to lose her and her husband's home by the action of bailiffs. She has fought many court cases and lost them, often on her own, in a desperate attempt to keep her husband from news that could seriously harm him. Time has caught up with her and she has only this House to which to appeal.
  The petition states:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Mrs. Evelyn May Mason, Orange Grove Farm, 1, Handley Lane, Clay Cross, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, showeth she and her husband are to have bailiffs sent to their home to take possession of their property on 12th April 1990, that this will have a serious adverse effect upon the health and well-being of her Husband as shown by medical evidence, That the loss of their home is excessive and unreasonable restraint for the minor amounts that were initially allegedly outstanding to Rice and Co., Solicitors, Saltergate, Chesterfield.
  Wherefore your petitioner prays that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent bailiffs from entering and taking over the home of Herself and her Husband.
  And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  It is signed by Mrs. Mason.
  To lie upon the Table.

Human Embryos
11.43 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I have the honour to present a petition from the parishioners of St. Aidan's church, Seahouses, Northumberland. The petitioners affirm that the newly fertilised human embryo is a living human, and pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation forbidding any procedure that involves the purchase, sale, discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment—unless that is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned—and all forms of trans-species fertilisation. The petition has also been signed in the same terms by members of the Alnwick branch of the Catholic Women's
League.
I support the petitioners in their desire that the House should enact legislation to prevent the use of embryos for research, and I look forward to the opportunity so to vote, now that the House is to have a day dedicated to the subject in the near future.
To lie upon the Table.
11.44 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I wish to present a petition which was presented to me after a meeting at my local parish church, St. Joseph's, on Sunday, which was attended by 170 local parishioners, including priests. The petition is presented on behalf of Mrs. Jacoba Cornelius Slee, 3 Davett Close, Leicester, Monsignor O'Down, the Vicar General of Leicestershire and 785 other signatories.
It reads as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of members of St. Joseph's, the Sacred Heart and Our Lady's churches, Leicester, and the members of Leicester, East constituency, sheweth that we affirm that the newly fertilised human embryo is a real, living human being. THEREFORE, WE ELCOME the statement in the report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology, the Warnock report, that "the status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation", and its recommendation that the embryo of the human species should be afforded protection in law; AND THEREFORE WE OPPOSE all such practices as are recommended in the report which discriminate against the embryo or violate his or her human dignity and right to life.
WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS PRAY that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which (a) forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done coley for the benefit of the embryo concerned); and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will for ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Local Government Finance
11.46 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: This petition was organised by a Mrs. Robinson of 36 Firs avenue, Ashfield in Scunthorpe, and it deals with the issue of the poll tax and how it affects people who are at home with no income, in particular, married women. Mrs.

1173
Robinson attracted 437 signatures from many people, mainly women, who feel aggrieved that the poll tax is an unfair system of taxation. Even though it is meant to be based on individuals, it is people in their position with no income who are expected to pay 100 per cent. of the charge. I very much sympathise with Mrs. Robinson and the many who organised the petition.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the people of Scunthorpe sheweth
That the introduction of the poll tax (community charge) is objectionable to those people, many married women, who are at home with no income of their own, yet are expected to pay 100 per cent. of the poll tax if their partners are working, even though this was supposed to be a tax on individuals.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will replace this unfair and unworkable tax with one which recognises ability to pay and is based on a simpler and fairer system.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Out-patient Services (Cheshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tony Durant.]
11.47 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who has stayed to reply to this Adjournment debate, because he has had a wearying evening up to now and a long day; but I assure him that it is a matter of great concern to the people of Warrington and Cheshire because it concerns the out-patient services provided in Warrington and Cheshire.
During the ambulance dispute, the managers ordered cuts in non-emergency out-patient services. As a result, the number of vehicles available for out-patient services in Warrington was reduced from 10 to three. I must refute right away the statement made on behalf of health service managers by Hugh Lamont of the Merseyside regional health authority, who alleged that these cuts were made because ambulance crews refused to provide out-patient services. I read from a press release of the Warrington health authority, which is signed by Mike Shannon, the unit general manager of the district general hospital, about the industrial action in the ambulance service:
"In order to maintain the emergency ambulance service it is now necessary to reduce the non-emergency workload ambulance staff. As from Tuesday 10th October 1989 there will be no outpatient transport available to walking patients. The inconvenience that this will cause is very much regretted, but the reduction in this service is necessary to sustain the emergency service … The geriatric day hospital of the general hospital and the elderly severely mentally day patient unit of Winwick hospital are not affected."
That action was taken by the management. Indeed, the press release recognised the inconvenience that the reduction would cause.
It is therefore surprising that, far from beginning to increase provision, the management are trying to maintain the position that applied in Cheshire generally and in Warrington in particular. They have reduced the number of vehicles for out-patient services from 10 to three, despite the discomfort that that would cause, and which was recognised by Mr. Shannon in the press release.
Evidence of that is shown in a memo from Mr. M. J. Lloyd, divisional commander control, Cheshire ambulance service. He said:
"At a meeting with the D.H.A. representatives of all Cheshire districts today, the following level of P.T.S. provision was insisted on. It will therefore be actioned from Monday 12 March 1990—no increase in the level of provision that has been operative during the national dispute."
I have already referred to the severe cuts in Warrington and in Cheshire generally. Mr. Lloyd also said:
"In operation requests for transport must always be met with a negative response, it is then up to the person requesting to medically justify the request. Any problems regarding this should result in the person requesting being directed to the relevant unit general manager."
I cite that document as evidence that the Cheshire ambulance service and, indeed, district health authorities throughout Cheshire, are trying to keep provision at the skeleton level that applied during the national dispute. That has already caused many protests from organisations in Warrington and Cheshire generally.
Those cuts were made without consultation with anyone, and certainly without observing the statutory duty to consult the community health councils. I wish to quote a letter sent on 23 March to Mr. Rae, the district general

1175
manager of Warrington health authority, from Mrs. Roylance of Warrington community health council. She said:
"The committee is extremely concerned that the decisions referred to … have been implemented without consultation."
She goes on to say:
"The CHC questions the basis on which the instructions were issued: (i) the reduction in the level of service represents `a significant variation in the provision of service' on which the CHC has a statutory right to be consulted."
That consultation did not take place. Indeed, in a final paragraph, Mrs. Roylance says:
"The Chairman and members of the Council are deeply concerned that the CHC's statutory right to be consulted has been ignored and they request the resumption, without delay, of the level of ambulance service available in Warrington prior to the national dispute, pending the outcome of formal consultation."
It is quite evident that this has upset all the members of the community health council. They make the point that they were not consulted at all in relation to this.
What has happened in Warrington and in Cheshire in relation to out-patient provision—or the lack of it—is, I suggest, a breach of the Government guideline in health circular HC(78)45, which says:
"Ambulance services are required to provide or arrange the provision of suitable transport, free of charge, normally to the nearest hospital or treatment centre with hospital based facilities, where the necessary treatment can be obtained, to NHS convalescent homes, dentists' surgeries or Artificial Limb Appliance and Assessment Centres for any patient (emergency or non-emergency) who is considered by a doctor, dentist or midwife to be medically unfit to travel by any other means."
The words "by a doctor, dentist or midwife" are very important in the context of the rest of what I have to say in relation to this matter.
I now have to quote from a press release, again issued by Mr. Mike Shannon, who, I remind the Minister, is not a clinical practitioner but the unit general manager of Warrington health authority. He says—this was issued on 28 March—
"As we know, the recent industrial dispute within the ambulance service has now ended, and great efforts are now being made to reinstate an appropriate service as quickly as possible.
This is being done, but strictly in accordance with the long-established rules within the Health Service that ambulances are not white taxis"—
whatever Mr. Shannon means by white taxis; I presume he means that a taxi service was being provided, rather than an ambulance service—
"but can be authorised only on medical grounds."
If Mr. Shannon, in referring to a white taxi service, is claiming that the service has been abused and ambulances have been ordered on other than medical grounds, he gives no examples.
The unit general manager has no right to question in this way the clinical judgment of doctors, dentists and midwives. Now, of course, ambulances will be allowed not on medical grounds but on the whim of the unit general manager. In his reply to Mrs. Roylance he claims that these services are strictly in accordance with NHS rules, but they are not. He goes on to say:
"Ambulance services are authorised by clinical staff."
So far, so good, but then he says:
"If there is a dispute between the requester and the ambulance staff, I am called upon to arbitrate."
The unit general manager may have many worthy and endearing qualities, but why should he be called upon to
1176
arbitrate when a clinical judgment has been made? He is saying, in effect, "I shall have the final say as to whether a service shall be provided."
The result of this arbitrary action is that those who are least able to speak up for themselves are the most affected, in Warrington and the rest of Cheshire. I am of course referring to the sick, elderly, infirm and disabled. It is having a devastating effect on those people.
I do not have time to cite the many examples that I have. So I will give two, as reported in the Warrington Guardian of 30 March. In the first case, that newspaper wrote:
"Hospital staff said … that out-patient services have … been minimised to stretcher cases only. One out-patient, who has just had his right leg amputated, was told he is not eligible for transport and must continue making his own way to hospital. The 71-year-old ex-serviceman, secretary of Culcheth Royal British Legion, told the Guardian: 'I have just been fitted with an artificial leg and have to visit a physiotherapist every week to learn how to use it. I also make regular visits to the Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre in Liverpool and am continually having to depend on friends. This is a very desperate situation.'".
Clearly, such a man is covered by the guidelines and should have been provided with transport.
In the second case, the paper wrote:
"Another woman aged 72 was refused an ambulance to have an artificial leg fitted in Liverpool. She had no friends or relatives to help, and was forced to cancel the appointment and manage without."
Nobody—least of all the Minister, knowing him as I do—would try to justify that state of affairs or what is happening to the out-patient vehicle service in Cheshire and particularly in Warrington. How ill does a person have to be to qualify for an out-patient vehicle in the area? Why are those concerned not abiding by the guidelines, particularly when, it seems, the decision no longer rests with the members of the clinical profession but with accountants and faceless bureaucrats, such as the unit general manager? They should be obliged to live up to the guidelines laid down by the Department.
We must not forget the effect that all this will have on jobs. The non-emergency ambulance staff, because of the reduced number of vehicles in Cheshire, are not Fully deployed, even if they are fully paid. If those members of staff are not being deployed, redundancies are bound to result. Indeed, as many as 60 drivers in Cheshire could be made redundant, and nine of them will be in Warrington.
During the ambulance dispute, half the non-qualified ambulance staff were put on temporary contracts. Their services will be dispensed with as soon as the management finds it convenient to take that step. Penny-pinching of this kind must not take place at the expense of the sick and those in need. The cuts should cease immediately, and I hope the Minister will announce that from tonight, full out-patient transport services will be restored.
12.4 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) for the kind remarks which he made at the outset of this brief debate. The hon. Gentleman thanked me for staying. I am always pleased to reply to debates that he initiates, but the hon. Gentleman is the only person present who has any choice in the matter. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the only other person present in the Chamber apart from myself—my

1177
hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) —have no choice in the matter. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North concentrated on out-patient ambulance services and upon the consequences for the patient of the changes that I shall describe in a moment, rather than the consequences upon the unions. He was fair to do that, and I shall therefore concentrate on the consequences for patients.
Since 1982, the Chester health authority has managed a single ambulance service for all five district health authorities in Cheshire—Chester, Crewe, Halton, Macclesfield and Warrington. It has run that service efficiently, and has introduced diesel vehicles, paramedic training and cardiac care training. A lot more needs to be done, but the authority is to be congratulated on the start that it has made.
As with all other ambulance services throughout the country, there are two fairly distinct aspects to the service. The first and most important is the need to respond promptly to accidents and emergencies—or 999 calls—to meet doctors' requests for urgent admissions and to move patients who need to be transferred from one hospital to another. These can, quite literally, be a matter of life and death, and it is entirely right that the utmost priority should be given to that side of the service. Recent events have underlined the importance that the public attach to the accident and emergency service. The other aspect is the routine transportation of outpatients to and from hospital or treatment centres. That is clearly the service which the hon. Member is most concerned about.
When we talk of routine cases, we have to distinguish between patients who have a medical dependency, such as oxygen therapy or who may need to be lifted in and out of their homes—those are clinically necessary services which are provided by the Cheshire ambulance service—and those patients who simply need a transport service to and from hospital. I say "simply", but of course that transport service is important, particularly for those people who need some form of public transport because they do not possess a car, or because it is to far to walk to and from the hospital.
In the examples which I have cited, where there is a clear clinical necessity, the service is clearly needed and will continue to be provided. However, the social need for transport is not a function of the ambulance service.
The hon. Gentleman has pressed me to define what is meant by clinically necessary services in his health authority and, most importantly, who defines what those services should be.
Before the ambulance dispute, I am told, the Cheshire service had 37 ambulances available as emergency ambulances but very often only between 12 and 14 were available, as quite a number—clearly the majority—were being used for non-accident and non-emergency work. Clearly that was unsatisfactory, because the accident and emergency service can, and I understand in some cases did, suffer.
Now the fleet of ambulances in Cheshire has been modernised. Some 20 ambulances are dedicated to accident and emergency work and there are some 22 other vehicles for non-accident and non-emergency work. I am told that those mainly comprise 10 to 12-seater vehicles.
1178
The numbers will grow marginally in the future to some 22 ambulances dedicated to emergency work and some 24 for non-emergency work.
A new system has been introduced for financing the ambulance service in Cheshire from 1 April this year. The proposals were under consideration before the dispute began but are only now being introduced.
The amount retained at the Chester headquarters for the accident and emergency service proper is some £4 million for 1990–91, and approximately £1·2 million has been allocated to the five districts. They will use that sum to purchase non-accident and emergency services either centrally from the Cheshire ambulance service—I have indicated the vehicles that could be available—or locally. The key requirement still is that the services provided must be clinically necessary.
Locally, there will be patient transport managers in the districts, to assess the needs for non-accident and emergency work—always concentrating on the clinical need for such services.
The hon. Gentleman asked the perfectly fair question: to what extent is authority delegated to those managers for making clinical judgments? I do not expect them to make clinical judgments. That is not their function. The responsibility for making the decision as to whether or not a patient is, for clinical or medical reasons, in need of transport rests with the medical staff, not the managers—who are there to manage the service and to match resources against clinical need.
It may help if I explain the reasoning behind the proposals. Until recently, during the day there have been about 37 ambulances theoretically available as a maximum for accident and emergency duties, but only one third of those could really be called on if needed. The other two thirds have been engaged on routine duties such as planned admissions to hospital or carrying out-patients to and from treatment centres. Not only has that reduced the number of vehicles available for emergencies, but it has been wasteful of resources to deploy fully trained and equipped crews on duties that could easily be carried out by personnel with less training, in simpler vehicles.
While Cheshire has managed overall to meet the minimum times laid down nationally for responding to an accident or emergency call, the position at individual stations has often been dangerously near, or actually below, the mark. This has put a considerable strain on the service. At night, at weekends, and during the "quiet hours", the level of emergency cover has stood at only 17 ambulances. Taking into account the geographical spread of Cheshire and the network of motorways that intersperses the county, that is very sparse cover.
Demand has sometimes meant that even ambulances reserved for accident and emergency duties have been called upon to deal with planned journeys involving patients discharged from, or being admitted to, hospital. It is for these reasons that the working party studying the needs of the Cheshire ambulance service has recommended a two-tier service. That does not mean a first and second-class service. The proposal is for a distinct accident and emergency service with the very latest equipment and with staff trained to the highest level, able to perform a range of life-saving techniques—and, it must be said, with more dedicated vehicles.
The non-emergency ambulance service will continue to transport patients with a medical need as determined by a clinician. That service, as organised by Chester for the

1179
county of Cheshire, will be available to the districts. They will have freedom either to purchase services from Chester or to make their own local decisions.
There may be patients who can make their own way to and from hospital but who find difficulty meeting the cost of travel. They can apply for help with these costs and should ask the hospital about this. The Department of health leaflet H11, "NHS Hospital Travel Costs", explains who can claim help with fares incurred travelling to and from hospital and how the scheme works. There is also a Cheshire dial-a-ride service for registered disabled.
That is our mechanism for providing help in a social context for those who cannot afford the full costs of travelling to or from hospital.
Mr. Hoyle: The dial-a-ride service does not provide that, nor was it set up to do so. Its purpose is to provide vehicles, not for travel to hospital, but for disabled and other people who need to go shopping and so on. There cannot be help from that service, because it is already stretched to the limit.
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I stand corrected. The record will show that it is a service available within the community and not to and from hospital. I am not familiar with the service, but doubtless next time I am in Cheshire I shall make detailed inquiries about it.
I should make it clear that geriatric day care attendances, with which there were, I understand, some problems during the recent dispute, will be given priority, as will other cases which in the light of individual circumstances merit special attention. I am talking now about the non-accident and emergency services. The intention is to use the available resources to best effect and to make sure that those who really need the service obtain it—that is, those with a clinical need—as promptly as possible.
1180
The working party has also recommended that ambulance stations provide more flexible and appropriate cover throughout the country. It has recommended that there should be a redistribution of resources to provide 22 emergency ambulances during the day and 20 at night. This will improve cover in the Crewe, Ellsmere Port, Malpas and Warrington areas. These recommendations are aimed at strengthening the accident and emergency service and providing overall a service more tailored to the needs of the people who use it.
Mr. Hoyle: There are two points I should like the Minister to explain. Why was there no consultation with anyone, and particularly with the community health council? I am willing to give the Minister a copy of the document. How can he say all these things when Mr. Lloyd, divisional commander, control, says plainly that there has been no increase in the level of provision operative during the national dispute?
Mr. Freeman: I do not know to which document the hon Gentleman is referring. I look forward to receiving a copy from him. I shall certainly look into the point about consultation procedure. I shall also send copies of the Official Report to region and district for additional comment.
As I understand it, this is a reorganised service which concentrates the resources on accident and emergency and which does not diminish the proper service which should be provided for those who have a clinical need for transportation. It means, perhaps, that those with no clinical need who were using the service will no longer be able to do so. I believe that it concentrates resources where they are most needed in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I think that is best, not only for his constituents but for the Health Service as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock midnight.

TRANSPORT

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now announce a decision about the awarding of the contract to finance, design, build and operate the second Severn crossing.

  Mr. Portillo
  I will announce a decision when it has been taken, and will make clear whether we have chosen a private sector or public sector option.

  Scottish Airports
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the evidence received in the course of his consultation on Scottish lowland airports policy suggesting that a change in policy would benefit economic investment in Scotland.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Many of the responses to my right hon. Friend's consultation addressed in detail the possible economic effects of the policy options, and all the points made were assessed and taken into account. We do not intend to make public the responses which were received, some of which we were asked to regard as private.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the submissions to his consultation on Scottish lowland airports policy favoured retaining Prestwick's exclusive gateway status; how many expressed no preference; and how many favoured open skies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In reaching his decision on future policy for the lowland airports, in consultation with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend was principally concerned with the strength of the arguments mounted in support of the different policy options.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place copies of the submissions to the consultation on Scottish lowland airports policy in the Library;

  (2) if he will publish the submissions to the Scottish lowland airports policy submission.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We do not intend to make public the submissions made in response to the consultation. Some respondents asked that their response be regarded as private and it would give an unbalanced picture if only the remainder were to be made public.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the changes in tariffs for freight and passenger services at Prestwick and Glasgow airports necessitated by his announcement on Scottish lowland airports policy.
  502
  Mr. McLoughlin
  BAA has said that it will move to a common tariff at Glasgow and Prestwick for long-haul traffic. The hon. Member will wish to seek information on the details of the tariffs from BAA plc direct.

  Merchant Shipping Fleet
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to introduce to reverse the decline in numbers of the United Kingdom merchant shipping fleet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no plans to introduce such measures. We shall continue to keep under review the availability of adequate merchant shipping for defence purposes.

  European Railways
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold talks with the chairman of British Rail on the European Economic Community proposals for a directive on the development of Community railways.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department is keeping in close touch with British Rail on these proposals.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has prepared to improve the compatibility of British rail systems with other European rail systems after 1992.

  Mr. Portillo
  The first step is to explore at Community level the best way of improving compatibility between the various national rail systems. We are playing a full part in these discussions.

  A46-A47 Link Road
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to visit Leicester to discuss the A46 to A47 link road.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. The A46-A47 link road is a local authority scheme for which statutory orders have recently been made and submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Leicestershire county council will determine the need for a public inquiry if it is unable to resolve any objections which may be made to the orders.

  Cycle Accidents
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government is taking following the conclusions of the transport and road research laboratory report on the relative frequency of cycle accidents occurring at road junctions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Data on the numbers of cycle accidents occurring at different kinds of junctions is contained in table 42 of the Department's casualty report "Road Accidents Great Britain 1988", which was published in November 1989. The transport and road research laboratory has reported on issues determining the frequencies and rates of all kinds of traffic accidents at. mini-roundabouts. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.
  503
  The Department has a continuing programme of research on cycling, which is guided by information on accident rates. We draw on it in giving day-to-day technical advice to highway authorities and others, and in publishing more general advice on cycling issues. In recent months my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has referred the hon. Member to the range of publications issued by the Department, many of which give information on traffic engineering techniques which can be used to improve conditions for cyclists at various kinds of junction.

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure that lorries arriving in the United Kingdom via the Channel tunnel are subject to the same weight controls now operating at United Kingdom sea ports.

  Year

  Cars

  Per cent.

  Buses

  Per cent.

  Light goods vehicles

  Per cent.

  Heavy goods vehicles

  Per cent.

  Total

  Gerrards Cross

  1979

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1980

  27,600

  86

  300

  1

  1,800

  6

  2,400

  7

  32,500

  1981

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1982

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1983

  Separate vehicle types not available

  32,000

  1984

  30,100

  86

  400

  1

  2,100

  6

  2,300

  7

  34,900

  1985

  41,400

  87

  500

  1

  2,500

  5

  3,500

  7

  47,900

  1986

  51,100

  85

  400

  1

  4,200

  7

  4,400

  7

  60,100

  1987

  62,300

  85

  600

  1

  5,000

  7

  5,000

  7

  72,900

  1988

  63,000

  84

  600

  1

  5,400

  7

  6,000

  8

  75,000

  Beaconsfield

  1983

  23,300

  84

  200

  1

  1,700

  6

  2,700

  9

  27,900

  1987

  60,800

  84

  400

  1

  4,900

  6

  6,500

  9

  72,600

  n.a. = not available.

  A46, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a decision on the report into the A46 Leicester western bypass is to be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment will be issuing a decision letter on 5 April.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when Her Majesty's Government expect to sign the United Nations convention on the international transport of radioactive wastes and nuclear materials, opened for signature on 1 February.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: We know of no such convention.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Discretionary Grants
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a list of the local education authorities which carry out monitoring of the awarding of discretionary grants by local education authorities for full-time and sandwich courses.
  504
  Mr. Atkins
  Discussions are in progress between the Department and Eurotunnel on the provision of a weighbridge at Coquelles in France. In this way we can ensure that lorries arriving in the United Kingdom via the Channel tunnel are subject to the same weight controls as apply at United Kingdom ferry ports.

  M40 (Traffic Flow)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the annual average traffic flows recorded for cars, buses, light goods vehicles and heavy goods vehicles on the M40(a) at Gerrards Cross and (b) at Beaconsfield for each year from 1979 to 1988, inclusive.

  Mr. Portillo
  The available information on annual average daily traffic flows is:

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the level of expenditure in 1988–89 by local education authorities on discretionary awards to 16 to 18-year-olds.

  Mr. Jackson
  The data requested for 1988–89 are not yet available.

  History Teaching
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now publish the report of the history working party; and if he will make a statement on his response to it.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today published the final report from the national curriculum history working group. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report has been published without statutory proposals, and I am inviting comment from a wide range of representative bodies with an interest. I am also writing to the chairman of the School Examinations and Assessment Council to seek the council's advice on whether the group's proposals would secure the effective assessment of pupils' mastery of historical knowledge.

PRIME MINISTER

  Defence Policy
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the progress of the review of Government defence policy in the light of recent developments in eastern Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has told the House, we are examining options for change in the structure and deployment of our armed forces which will enable us to continue to meet those commitments which are of greatest importance towards maintaining our nation's security.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has recently made to or received from the state President of South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  We have made regular representations to the South African Government on a wide range of issues, most recently during my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to South Africa.

  Tokyo
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Tokyo.

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

  Chancellor Kohl
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed during her meetings with Chancellor Kohl in Cambridge on 29 March and in London on 30 March.

  The Prime Minister
  Chancellor Kohl and I discussed German unification, the future of NATO, Lithuania, South Africa and the European Community. I announced a programme of scholarships and help with English language teaching in the GDR.

  Year 2000
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about plans, including any public building projects, to mark the year 2000.

  The Prime Minister
  Plans to mark the year 2000 will be developed in due course.

  Engagements
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties 506
  in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a state banquet in honour of President Venkataram of India.

THE ARTS

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many public libraries have been wholly or partially closed since 1978–79.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally. Returns by local authorities in England to the Chartered institute of Public Finance and Accountancy over the period 1978–79 to 1987–88 are incomplete; statistics from the same 103 authorities in these two years show that the number of libraries within their responsibility fell from 4,124 to 3,922 but that the number of libraries open 10 hours a week or more has risen. The biggest reduction is in the "less than 10 hours a week" category, probably reflecting rationalisation and a conscious effort to make better use of resources. In the same period the total number of service points in these areas rose from 13,163 to 19,264.

  Recent research suggests that in the three years to December 1989 more than 75 new library buildings or substantial extensions to existing premises were completed.

  British Library
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will consider the retention in public ownership of the five acres of land to the north of the new British library at St. Pancras to ensure the possibility of the library's future expansion.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1988 when Ministers agreed to authorise the construction of the completion phase of the new British library building at St. Pancras, they also agreed to dispose of that land at the site which may ultimately be surplus to requirements.

  The area of land which will be surplus and the optimum timing and method of its disposal are still being examined.

  Corporate Sponsorship
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give a breakdown by(a) region and (b) art form of current levels of corporate sponsorship for the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Figures for overall corporate sponsorship of the arts are not available. The latest regional and art form breakdowns for sponsorship under my business sponsorship incentive scheme are set out in the table.

  Artform breakdown—Financial year 1988–89

  Artform

  Awards Number

  BSIS £

  Sponsorship £

  Music

  119

  816,129

  1,551,174

  Theatre

  82

  509,529

  1,029,438

  Festivals

  54

  531,070

  856,673

  Visual Art

  41

  376,234

  1,071,477

  Opera

  19

  240,657

  493,167

  Museums

  14

  111,676

  287,175

  Dance

  11

  169,002

  588750

  Film/Video

  7

  52,001

  96,000

  507

  Artform

  Awards Number

  BSIS £

  Sponsorship £

  Literature

  6

  59,477

  77,810

  Building/Refurbishment

  2

  39,000

  64,000

  Photography

  1

  6,899

  20,698

  Total

  356

  2,911,674

  6,136,362

  Regional breakdown—Financial year 1988–89

  Region

  Awards Number

  BSIS £

  Sponsorship £

  London

  77

  969,809

  2,446,989

  Scotland

  42

  310,467

  543,236

  Wales

  35

  204,030

  264,360

  Eastern

  26

  121,620

  225,858

  South West

  24

  143,632

  238,389

  Southern

  23

  173,293

  436,378

  Yorkshire

  23

  122,959

  220,423

  West Midlands

  22

  184,436

  275,402

  Cross-Regional

  18

  180,885

  630,413

  Northern

  17

  69,449

  102,257

  South East

  15

  141,000

  217,000

  North West

  12

  100,534

  280,600

  East Midlands

  9

  78,010

  88,010

  Merseyside

  7

  79,500

  128,500

  Lincolnshire and Humberside

  5

  7,050

  7,050

  International

  1

  25,000

  31,500

  Total

  356

  2,911,674

  6,136,362

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditing Practices Committee
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the content of his letter to the Auditing Practices Committee regarding its policy on the release of information following the Privy Council Office's letter to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 11 August 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  As foreshadowed in the letter to which the hon. Member refers, my Department has raised with the Auditing Practices Committee its policy on the release of information about its proceedings. The matter is now being considered by the committee.

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation requiring social audits to be compulsory for all large companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  No, but I welcome the increasing recognition by business of its social responsibilities.

  Sinking of Marchioness (Compensation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will investigate co-operation between the insurance companies of both ships involved in the sinking of the Marchioness on payments to relatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The insurers of the Marchioness and Bowbelle have agreed a formula for settlement of claims without either party restricting the right to sue the other. I see no reason for any investigation.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation enabling members of the public to take legal action against auditors who have been criticised by his inspectors, and to cite his inspectors' report as evidence.

  Mr. Redwood
  Whether a member of the public has a right of action against an auditor depends on whether that person is owed a duty of care by the auditor and has suffered damage as a result of the auditor's negligence, irrespective of whether the auditor's performance has been criticised in an inspectors' report. Section 441 of the Companies Act 1985 provides for an inspectors' report to be admissible in any legal proceedings as evidence of the inspectors' opinion.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend section 363 of the Companies Act 1985 to require the letter of representation issued by the directors of a company to the auditors to be filed with the Registrar of Companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Government do not accept that any benefits that might be obtained from imposing such a requirement would outweigh the administrative costs involved.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring forward proposals for requiring all large companies to have audit committees.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Although we would encourage companies to set up such committees, we believe that the decision as to whether or not to do so is one that is best left to individual companies.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to require companies separately to identify all holdings gains in their financial statements.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to add to the existing legislative requirements.

  Car Sales
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to advise car buyers of the legal obligations of garage proprietors who offer 0 per cent. interest to finance the purchase of cars.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the Consumer Credit Act, it is the function of the Director General of Fair Trading to disseminate such information and advice as it may appear to him expedient to give to the public about the operation of the Act, the credit facilities available to them and other matters within the scope of his functions under the Act. I will draw the hon. Member's question to the director general's attention for consideration.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps he will take to increase the monitoring of the practices of garage proprietors who offer 0 per cent. interest to finance the purchase of cars;
  509
  (2) whether he will arrange for his officials to meet representatives of the SMMTA to discuss the need to protect motorists from unscrupulous practice arising from offers of 0 per cent. interest to finance the purchase of cars.

  Mr. Forth
  The Consumer Credit Act 1974 prohibits misleading credit advertisements and the Consumer Credit (Advertisement) Regulations 1989 contain specific provisions on the use of expressions such as "interest free". Enforcement of this legislation is a matter for local authority trading standards departments and for the Director General of Fair Trading. I will ask the director general to write to the hon. Member about this matter.

  Scania Saab
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice was given by officials in response to inquiries as to whether regional selective assistance would be available if Scania Saab were to locate a new plant in the north of England.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Officials told the company that the Government would be prepared to consider an application for regional selective assistance. However, any grant would require clearance by the European Commission under the rules of the Community framework on state aids to the motor vehicle industry. In the Department's judgment, the prospects for approval were not good.

  Textile and Clothing Industry
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has insisted on any regulatory point to meet the new situation brought about by the changes in central and eastern Europe if regulation of the textile and clothing industry passes to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: The precise arrangements for the return of trade in textiles and clothing to GATT rules and for the necessary transitional period before that happens are still the subject of negotiation. Recent developments in central and eastern Europe will be only one of many factors to be considered by the United Kingdom in trying to influence an EC negotiating position on these matters.

  EC Price Determination
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement outlining the procedures of the EC Commission for determining normal prices under their anti-clearing procedures; if the producer firms have any entitlement to be advised of the basis of calculations of the Commission; and if the procedures have been approved by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: In establishing whether dumping is taking place, the Commission assesses whether a product is sold abroad at prices below what is termed the "normal value". In most cases this "normal value" is the price which the foreign supplier charges for comparable sales in his own country. Where there are no such sales, or when they do not permit a proper comparison or are made at a loss, then the normal
  510
  value may be established, that is to say "constructed", by reference to either the foreign supplier's domestic costs of production or his price to other export markets. The precise procedures are laid down in the Council regulation (EEC) No. 2423/88, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Foreign producers involved in anti-dumping proceedings are entitled under the regulation to request to be informed of the essential facts and considerations on which Commission's proposals for definitive anti-dumping duties will be based. The procedures laid down in the regulation for assessing dumping conform with the GATT anti-dumping code.

  United Kingdom Japanese-owned Car Firms
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the new Japanese-owned United Kingdom car producers will be producing cars for sale; if these cars will be permitted to be sold in the EC on the same basis as other British-produced cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Nissan has been producing cars in the United Kingdom for sale since 1986. Its cars are sold in the EC on the same basis as other British-made cars. Honda plans to begin producing cars here at the end of 1991, and Toyota in late 1992. The Government are determined to ensure that all cars produced here by Japanese-owned firms should be treated in the EC in exactly the same way as other British-made cars.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the policy of the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland on the right to purchase residential property occupied by employees of the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Residential property is offered to employees when it is no longer needed, at a price which takes account of market circumstances, including the existence of the tenancy.

  Fruit of the Loom
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the amount of grant that has been allocated to the Fruit of the Loom company for the development of a new mill at Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  Details cannot be disclosed as this matter falls under the normal arrangement of strict confidentiality which exists between the Industrial Development Board and its client companies.

  Donaghadee Ring Road
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present status and programme for the proposed ring road at Donaghadee, County Down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no proposals for a ring road at Donaghadee.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing executive agencies in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  The training and employment agency became an executive agency of the Department of Economic Development yesterday. It will comprise some 1,700 staff. The agency's principal task will be to implement those training and employment service functions of Government which are the responsibility of the Department. Agency status should ensure greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of these functions, including an improved standard of service to customers. It will also emphasise to employers and individuals the value of training. The establishment of the agency coincides with the high priority now to be given to training and development of the work force in the interests of a competitive economy. Performance targets have been set against which the agency's effectiveness and efficiency will be measured. The framework document for the agency makes provision for the chief executive to propose additional management flexibilities in the future where these will contribute to better performance. Copies of the framework document have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Grants and Loans, Scotland
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the budgetary totals for offices in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole, for (i) community care grants and (ii) crisis loans from the social fund 1988–89, 1989–90; and what are his estimates for 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of budget allocations and expenditure for loans and grants for each social security region and local office are kept in the Library. These figures are available for each year since 1988. In my statement on the social fund to the House on 26 March at columns 21-40 I announced that the budget allocations for the year 1990–91 had been placed in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the reply of 28 March, if he will make an estimate of the proportion of the 1,053 items of correspondence concerning the poll tax benefit scheme which related to poll tax rebate in Scotland.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 28 March at columns 204-5. It is not possible to estimate now many of the 1,053 items of correspondence referred to community charge rebate in Scotland.

  Social Fund, Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the final expenditure for each local social fund office in Wales for the latest available year separately for loans and grants, expressed as a proportion of the total annual allocation made to each office.
  512
  Mr. Scott
  Details of budget allocations and expenditure for loans and grants for each local office are kept in the Library.

  Area Computer Centres
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department took to notify British companies about the contract to run the area computer centre at Norcross, Lancashire, and to give them the opportunity to tender.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Three companies were invited to tender for the contract to run ACC1 Livingston. On the basis of the responses to that invitation, and the need to bring ACC2 into operation on schedule, it was decided to invite Electronic Data Systems to run ACC2 on similar terms. No other company was asked to tender.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether any British companies were invited to tender for the contract to run the area computer centre at Livingston; what was the name of the company other than Electronic Data System which tendered; and whether Electronic Data System submitted the lower tender.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  All three companies invited to tender for ACC1 Livingston are incorporated in the United Kingdom. The contract was awarded to Electronic Data Systems on the basis of best value for money, in accordance with normal practice. It is not the practice to give details of unsuccessful tenderers.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security from what date babies above six months but under two years old in April will receive attendance allowance providing they meet the condition when the new extension of the benefit is made.

  Mr. Scott
  These babies will qualify for attendance allowance from 9 April.

  Income Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available data on the number of claimants of income support, together with the number of dependants, in each of the parliamentary constituencies of Liverpool; and if he will give comparable data for 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 22 March 1990]: Data on the number of dependants are unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Data of the number of claimants of income support are unavailable by parliamentary constituency. Data for the Department's offices covering Liverpool as a whole are in the table:

  Local Office

  Income Support Live Load (1)

  1979

  1990

  Belle Vale

  8,114

  10,749

  Bootle

  11,524

  12,908

  Breckfield

  10,030

  15,189

  City

  7,674

  7,571

  Edge Hill1

  7,912

  14,918

  Garston

  8,161

  8,688

  Huyton

  10,396

  15,640

  513

  Local Office

  Income Support Live Load (1)

  1979

  1990

  Kirkby

  7,105

  15,858

  Norris Green

  5,740

  7,517

  Toxteth

  6,498

  15,651

  WestDerby

  7,361

  4,523

  1previously Wavertree

  Notes:
  (1)Source: 100 per cent. of cases in action. The figures include a small number of cases where benefit has ceased but other action on the case is continuing. Data for 1990 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available data on the number of claimants of income support, together with the number of dependants, in each of the Wirral parliamentary constituencies; and if he will give comparable data for 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 22 March 1990]: Data on the number of dependants are unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Data on the number of claimants of income support are unavailable by parliamentary constituency. Data for the Department's offices covering Wirral as a whole are in the table:

  Local office

  Income support live load1

  1979

  1990

  Birkenhead North

  10,828

  15,057

  Birkenhead South

  6,479

  9,985

  Wallasey

  7,910

  11,359

  1 Source: 100 per cent. of the cases in action. These figures include a number of cases where benefit has ceased but other action on the case is continuing. Data for 1990 are provisional and subject to amendment.

ENERGY

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), of 13 November,Official Report, column 98, if he will consider increasing the size of future tranches of renewable generating capacity; and when he expects to be seeking applications for these tranches.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  A total of 600 MW of capacity has been reserved for renewables within future tranches of the non-fossil fuel obligation and this could be increased if necessary. My right hon. Friend expects to announce the arrangements for the first additional tranche later this year.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each area electricity board this year's percentage increase or decrease for the average(a) domestic user, (b) non-domestic user taking less than 1 MW and (c) user taking more than 1 MW.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Electricity prices are a matter for the industry.

  Gas Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, columns 141-44 about gas privatisation, what was the role of Wood Mackenzie and James Capel in the gas privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Wood Mackenzie and James Capel were appointed by Her Majesty's Government to assist the lead brokers Cazenove and Company in the British Gas offer for sale.

  Energy Imports and Exports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the total export and import of oil, gas and coal, respectively, in February in tonnes and value on the sa e basis as his answer of 9 November 1989, Official Report, columns 767-68.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The equivalent information for exports and imports of oil, gas and coal for February 1990 as set out in my earlier answer of 9 November 1989,Official Report, columns 767-68, is as follows:

  Table 1—February 1990

  Thousand tonnes

  Exports (f.o.b.)

  Oil1

  6,004

  Coal

  181

  Imports (c.i.f.)

  Oil

  5,292

  Gas2

  1,433

  Coal

  893

  Table 2—February 1990

  £ million at 1985 prices3

  Exports (f.o.b.)

  Oil1

  1,027

  Coal

  7

  Imports (c.i.f.)

  Oil

  853

  Gas

  108

  Coal

  48

  1 Contains a small amount of natural gas exports.

  2 Coal equivalent.

  3 Figures at 1985 constant prices have been derived by applying the unit value for exports in 1985 to the relevant volumes in 1990.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimate of the date of Sizewell B's(a) completion, (b) commissioning and (c) run-up to full power.

  Mr. Baldry
  The timetable for completion of Sizewell B is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc. The CEGB indicated in its last annual report and accounts that it aimed to achieve full commercial load in May 1994, six months after the start of fuel loading.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide additional incentives to renewable energy generators in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department is already providing substantial incentives. We support a major research and development programme aimed at developing commercially viable and environmentally acceptable renewable technologies to contribute to future energy supply. Over £50 million is earmarked for expenditure on renewable projects during the next three years. Provision for 1990–91 is around £20 million.

  Renewables also benefit from the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the maximum potential for renewable generating capacity on the United Kingdom electricity network.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The most recent estimates of the potential contribution from renewable energy sources were published in energy paper 55, "Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Magnox
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list each Magnox station's current life expectancy; and when each will next be reviewed.

  Mr. Baldry
  The maximum life for each Magnox station is an operational matter to be determined by Nuclear Electric subject to continuing compliance with the nuclear site licence issued by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  The current review dates for each Magnox reactor are set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 January 1990, at column 819.

HEALTH

  Hepatitis
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish for each of the last five years the number of people who have contracted (i) hepatitis A, (ii) hepatitis B, (iii) hepatitis C, (iv) hepatitis D and (v) hepatitis E in England and Wales, separately distinguishing the figures by health authority areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures for laboratory reports to the communicable disease surveillance centre of the public health laboratory service are as follows:

  Year

  Clinical hepatitis A

  Acute hepatitis B

  1985

  2,254

  1,785

  1986

  2,217

  1,329

  1987

  2,785

  785

  1988

  4,167

  644

  1989

  15,334

  1605

  1 Provisional figure.

  It is not possible to provide the breakdown requested by health authority area, but the percentages of the above reports by area over the five-year period were:
  516

  Region

  Percentage of reports

  Hepatitis A

  Hepatitis B

  Northern

  4

  5

  Yorkshire

  11

  11

  Trent

  7

  8

  East Anglia

  2

  3

  North West Thames

  8

  7

  North East Thames

  7

  6

  South East Thames

  6

  8

  Wessex

  3

  4

  Oxford

  4

  4

  South Western

  8

  8

  West Midlands

  10

  8

  Mersey

  3

  6

  North Western

  12

  13

  Wales

  5

  4

  Reliable figures for hepatitis C, D and E are not available, because the diagnostic tests for these viruses are at different stages of development and use.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present number of(a) private nursing homes and (b) publicly owned nursing homes; and what is the number of inspectors to check the standards of care and facilities in nursing homes.

  Mr. Freeman
  Centrally collected data do not distinguish between hospitals and nursing homes registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984. By deducting the number of premises with operating theatres (that is, hospitals) from the total number of premises registered, a figure of about 3,000 nursing homes can be obtained for the year ending 31 March 1989.

  Figures on publicly owned nursing homes are not held centrally. The Government consider continuous nursing care services to be an integral part of NHS provision for those people who require them. However, the actual level of service to be provided by a health authority is a matter for that authority to decide for itself based on local needs and practice.

  Figures for the number of inspectors of nursing homes and hospitals are not held centrally. Registration and inspection is delegated to district health authorities. It is for each health authority to decide the number of inspectors required, taking into account local circumstances. Authorities must inspect each home or hospital at least twice a year.

  Salmonella
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the effect of more invasive salmonellas than salmonella enteritidis and typhimurium on the incidence of food poisoning outbreaks.

  Mr. Freeman
  Food poisoning due to salmonella is not generally regarded as an invasive disease. However, some salmonella strains are more likely than others to cause septicaemia or meningitis. For example, 28 per cent. of strains of salmonella dublin received by the PHLS division of enteric pathogens during 1981–89 were isolated from blood cultures, compared with only about 2 per cent. for all other serotypes. However, salmonella dublin is rare in humans; it accounted in 1989 for less than 1 per cent. (none in 1988) of outbreaks of food poisoning reported to
  517
  the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre. In contrast, salmonella enteritidis and salmonella typhimurium together accounted for 82 per cent. of reported outbreaks in 1989 (76 per cent. in 1988). These two strains therefore represent the greatest burden of human illness.

  In-patients waiting lists, North Western Region 31 March 1979 and 31 March 1989

  Health Authority

  11979

  21989

  Change

  Change per cent.

  Lancaster

  2,099

  2,826

  727

  35

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  5,038

  3,431

  -1,607

  -32

  Preston

  n/a

  4,897

  n/a

  n/a

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  5,512

  3,761

  -1,751

  -32

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  3,850

  1,807

  -2,043

  -53

  West Lancashire

  2,573

  2,852

  279

  11

  Chorley and South Ribble

  n/a

  636

  n/a

  n/a

  Bolton

  4,283

  2,936

  -1,347

  -31

  Bury

  1,147

  373

  -774

  -67

  North Manchester

  5,722

  2,456

  -3,266

  -57

  Central Manchester

  6,924

  9,441

  2,517

  36

  South Manchester

  8,339

  7,483

  -856

  -10

  Oldham

  3,210

  4,903

  1,693

  53

  Rochdale

  2,948

  3,280

  332

  11

  Salford

  4,873

  4,477

  -396

  -8

  Stockport

  5,043

  4,324

  -719

  -14

  Tameside and Glossop

  2,208

  1,566

  -642

  -29

  Trafford

  2,569

  1,469

  -1,100

  -43

  Wigan

  4,255

  4,310

  55

  1

  Region

  77,368

  67,228

  -10,140

  -13

  1 The regional total is not equal to the sum of the districts' figures because districts affected by NHS restructuring in 1982 have been excluded.

  2 Less self deferred cases.

  n/a = comparable data not available due to NHS restructuring in 1982.

  Source: 1979 SBH2O3 return.

  1989 KH07, KH07a returns.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many eye tests have been carried out in the northern region in each year since 1980.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of sight tests since 1983–84, paid for by the family practitioner committees which approximate the northern region, are set out in the table. The figures were supplied by the following family practitioner committees:

  Cleveland, Cumbria, Durham, Northumberland, Gateshead, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland.

  Number of sight tests in Northern Region 1983–84 to 1988–89

  Year

  Number of sight tests

  1983–84

  576,216

  1984–85

  592,048

  1985–86

  599,981

  1986–87

  627,573

  1987–88

  679,969

  1988–89

  740,424

  Information is not held on sight tests paid for before 1983–84. Figures for 1989–90 are not yet available.

  North West RHA
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much National Health Service waiting lists have changed between 1979 and 1989 in each district health authority within the North West regional health authority for(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on in-patient waiting lists is given in the table. Data on out-patient waiting lists are not collected centrally.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cervical smear tests have been carried out on women for each year of the past decade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of cervical smear tests carried out by the NHS in England and Wales in the last decade is shown in the table:

  (thousands)

  Year

  Number of smears

  1977

  2,545

  1978

  2,587

  1979

  2,749

  1980

  2,928

  1981

  2,999

  1982

  2,951

  1983

  3,200

  1984

  3,417

  1985

  3,897

  1986

  3,908

  1987–88

  4,322

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities in England and Wales have a computerised recall system for cervical cancer smear tests; and if he will list them;
  519
  (2) what measures the Government have undertaken to ensure that women are called and then recalled for cervical smear tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All 190 health authorities in England have computerised call and recall systems for cervical cancer screening. All women aged 20 to 64 are to be invited for screening by March 1993 and recalled at least every five years. Cervical cancer screening in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for results from cervical smear tests, by region; and if he will make a statement.

  Number of deaths from malignant neoplasm of the cervix uteri1 in England and Wales by regional health authority (RHA) of usual residence. 1979–88

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19882

  England and Wales

  2,080

  2,068

  2,017

  1,932

  1,959

  1,899

  1,957

  2,004

  1,903

  1,942

  RHA of Usual Residence

  Northern

  158

  157

  143

  153

  155

  134

  147

  145

  134

  148

  Yorkshire

  184

  194

  175

  159

  168

  165

  177

  150

  159

  144

  Trent

  193

  209

  205

  185

  177

  188

  191

  204

  168

  196

  East Anglian

  59

  65

  70

  64

  66

  54

  59

  69

  67

  68

  North West Thames

  100

  111

  90

  104

  98

  119

  91

  127

  88

  101

  North East Thames

  140

  113

  120

  141

  136

  117

  130

  141

  104

  124

  South East Thames

  144

  140

  143

  122

  129

  125

  123

  151

  134

  131

  South West Thames

  113

  117

  98

  105

  82

  82

  86

  76

  91

  89

  Wessex

  93

  107

  89

  82

  104

  87

  92

  84

  98

  107

  Oxford

  88

  62

  61

  67

  59

  54

  73

  71

  76

  81

  South Western

  146

  109

  120

  125

  129

  124

  129

  121

  146

  122

  West Midlands

  185

  204

  200

  189

  191

  213

  185

  174

  197

  206

  Mersey

  124

  145

  147

  132

  134

  130

  148

  131

  124

  105

  North Western

  217

  206

  216

  176

  187

  187

  183

  214

  177

  187

  Wales

  136

  125

  133

  118

  136

  114

  139

  139

  132

  126

  1 Assigned to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision code 180.

  2 Provisional.

  Allergy
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on research into allergies and the facilities available under the National Health Service for sufferers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main agency through which the Government support medical and related research in the United Kingdom. The MRC receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science and is currently conducting research into allergies; the total expenditure for these projects is £1 million.

  NHS treatment for allergies is widely available. The amount of resources devoted to it is for decision by health authorities in the light of their knowledge of local needs, priorities, and resources.

  Disability
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how he plans to use the information gained under section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 to develop good community care services; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on what date he expects section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 to be fully implemented;
  520
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 21 February at column 834.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have died from cervical cancer in each of the past 10 years; if he will give the figures region by region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  (3) what steps his Department is taking and will be taking to publicise the information collected under section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Section 11 came into force on 18 December 1989 and the first report was laid before the House on 21 December 1989. The report has been subsequently printed and distributed to health and local authorities. It is hoped that the information in the report, on services for people with a mental illness or mental handicap, will be of assistance to authorities in developing good community care services in line with the Government's policies.

  Experimental Drugs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce statutory regulations controlling payments by pharmaceutical companies and individual consultants in exchange for participation in tests using experimental drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no powers to make such regulations.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued by his Department to private hospitals and clinics with regard to ensuring that patients who are treated are in a position to pay for such treatment.
  521
  Mr. Freeman
  No such guidance is issued; payment for private treatment is a matter for the parties concerned.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 183, what accounts for the shortfall in estimated expenditure for publicity in 1989–90 of £15·876 million, from the budget given in his answer of 13 March 1989, Official Report, column 69.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The £19·586 million budget, quoted in the reply of 13 March 1989, included £4 million which was transferred during 1989–90 to the Health Education Authority to fund additional health promotion campaigns carried out by the authority.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) from which budget the provision of incontinence pads will come; and which profession will be responsible for the provision of incontinence advice and supplies, following the reorganisation of the National Health Service;

  (2) if his Department is carrying out research into the development of minimum standards for incontinence pads, including the microbiological aspect of pads;

  (3) what representations he has received on the delivery of incontinence advice and the provision of incontinence pads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision of incontinence services will not be altered by the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 8 March 1990 at columns 823-24.

  The Department is funding an evaluation project at St. Pancras hospital, London, including microbiological examination of reusable pads after laundering, which will not be completed until the end of March 1991. The project is looking into all four categories of incontinence pads. One of the aims of the project is to provide basic information which will be used by the British Standards Institution and the International Standards Organisation in the development of standards.

  We receive representations on the provision of incontinence pads occasionally, but have received no representations on the delivery of incontinence advice. The Department has funded a number of projects designed to promote awareness of the problems of incontinence.

  Traffic Casualties
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many district health authorities make charges under section 155 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 for payment for emergency treatment of traffic casualties;

  (2) what is the estimated cost to a district health authority of making a charge under section 155 of the Road Traffic Act 1972;

  (3) what is the total income received by the National Health Service under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1972.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total income from emergency treatment fees and charges under sections 157 and 158 for 522
  in and out-patient treatment recorded in the accounts of district health authorities was £8·7 million for 1988–89 in England. Income from emergency treatment fees is not separately identified. However, the indications are that most, if not all, district health authorities have collected income from this particular source. No information on the cost to district health authorities of collecting these charges is available centrally.

  Aspirin
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any food or drink offered for sale in the United Kingdom contains aspirin as an additive.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Aspirin is not listed as a permitted additive to food or drink by regulations made under the Food Act 1984.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider abolishing income tax and social security liabilities in regard to persons employed at sea in United Kingdom shipping companies' merchant ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Finance Act 1988 relaxed for seafarers the rules for qualification for the 100 per cent. foreign earnings deduction. A total exemption from income tax and social security liabilities would give seafarers an unjustified advantage over other groups of employees.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those years in the period 1974 to 1989 when public expenditure was reduced in real terms; and for each of those years if he will indicate the main services where reductions took place.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  General Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) fell in real terms in 1975–76, 1976–77, 1977–78, 1987–88 and 1988–89 as shown in table 21.2.1 of the 1990 public expenditure White Paper (Cm 1021). The reductions in the mid-1970s covered a broad range of services. The areas in which there were falls in the real level of expenditure in 1987–88 and 1988–89 are shown in table 21.2.11 of Cm 1021, which gives an analysis of general Government expenditure by function in real terms for 1978–79 to 1989–90.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year from 1970 to 1989, on a balance of payments basis, his estimate of the balance of visible trade with the world and with the European Economic Community Twelve on the basis of (i) 1989 and (ii) 1985 prices; and if he will add figures for visible trade less oil and erratic items;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing, for each year from 1970 to 1989, on a balance of payments basis, the balance of trade in manufactures less

  523
  erratic items with the European Economic Community and with the rest of the world as a percentage of gross domestic product to two places of decimals.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information from which United Kingdom world trade balances at constant prices may be derived can be found on the Central Statistical Office database, which may be accessed through the Library of the House. Estimates for trade with the European Community are available only at current prices, and information about manufactures less erratic items on a balance of payments basis is not available by area.

  Natural Beauty Products
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions Customs and Excise officials had with the debenture holder immediately before or after their two visits to Natural Beauty Products earlier this year in pursuit of a distraint order; and what other action was taken.

  Mr. Ryder
  Customs has had no discussions with the debenture holder either before or after its visits to Natural Beauty Products.

  The distraint was affected on 1 February 1990 and the administrative receiver was appointed on 2 February. Customs has maintained its distraint and has been in discussion with the administrative receiver about the sale of the business as a going concern.

  EC Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Major
  The informal ECOFIN met at Ashford castle, County Mayo on 31 March for its first detailed discussion of the later stages of economic and monetary union (EMU). I made it clear that we believed it premature to give detailed consideration to the later stages before stage 1 had begun and that the United Kingdom's position had not changed. I repeated our willingness to participate fully in the inter-governmental conference and in its preparation. I made clear our opposition to binding limits on the level of budget deficits, but said that we were ready to contemplate binding rules against monetary financing of deficits and the bailing out of member states, and providing for procedures for surveillance. These rules would be desirable whatever the eventual form of EMU. Legal conditionality might also attach to any Community support loans. I expressed our reserve on the monetary aspects of EMU including the proposed European system of central banks (ESCB). Preparation for the IGC will continue in the relevant committees and ECOFIN will discuss the issues again at our meeting in June.

  The German Minister for Finance outlined the latest developments in the preparations for an economic and monetary union between the Federal Republic and the German Democratic Republic. There was a brief discussion about the European bank for reconstruction and development. It was agreed that there should be further examination of the requests from some European countries for association of their currencies with the EMS.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year from 1970 to 1989 on a balance of payments basis the balance of trade with the European Economic Community Twelve and with other countries on (a) manufactures and (b) invisible trade; and if he will add figures for manufactures less erratic items.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: Estimates on a balance of payments basis for trade in manufactures with the European Community and with non-European Community countries are shown in the table:

  United Kingdom Trade Balances with EEC and Non-EEC Countries in Manufactured Goods (SITC 5-8) from 1970–1989

  BOP basis £ million

  Not Seasonally Adjusted

  Year

  EEC

  Non-EEC

  1970

  644

  1,899

  1971

  431

  2,578

  1972

  60

  2,086

  1973

  -360

  1,845

  1974

  -478

  2,441

  1975

  -587

  4,326

  1976

  -490

  5,401

  1977

  -503

  6,376

  1978

  -1,735

  6,789

  1979

  -2,570

  5,280

  1980

  -1,174

  6,600

  1981

  -2,651

  7,146

  1982

  -4,458

  6,550

  1983

  -7352

  4,636

  1984

  -8,313

  3,895

  1985

  -8,999

  5,376

  1986

  -10,392

  4,340

  1987

  -10,670

  2,842

  1988

  -12,538

  -2,338

  1989

  -13,583

  -2,552

  Information for invisible trade is available for 1973 to 1988 on the Central Statistical Office database, which may be accessed through the Library. The information for 1978 to 1988 is also in table 10.1 of 1989 edition of the "The CSO Pink Book", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Comparable data for manufactures less erratic items on a balance of payments basis are not available.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1990 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West of 4 April 1989,Official Report, columns 7-8.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1990 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 21 October 1986,Official Report, columns 812-14.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answers 28 and 29 March 1990]: The information is in the tables. For each financial year shown, the tables compare the yield from the tax regime in that year, with the 1978–79 tax regime, both assuming independent taxation. All estimates are based on a

  525
  provisional 1990–91 income base projected from the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and all tax regimes have been indexed to 1990–91 levels (using the new independent taxation allowances) by reference to the statutory formula. The comparisons therefore reflect budgetary changes in income tax rates and allowances, but not (i) any changes since 1978–79 in the definition of the

  Average gain per individual2 (£ per annum)

  Range of individual's income in 1990–91 (£)

  1979–80

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Under 5,000

  50

  20

  50

  60

  80

  110

  110

  110

  5,000 to 10,000

  140

  70

  120

  150

  220

  320

  320

  320

  10,000 to 15,000

  290

  230

  280

  360

  500

  690

  690

  690

  15,000 to 20,000

  420

  380

  430

  550

  760

  1,030

  1,030

  1,030

  20,000 to 30,000

  650

  650

  710

  880

  1,220

  1,610

  1,610

  1,590

  30,000 to 50,000

  1,910

  1,770

  1,880

  2,090

  2,480

  3,480

  3,480

  3,270

  50,000 to 70,000

  5,390

  5,570

  5,740

  5,870

  6,090

  9,610

  9,610

  9,390

  Over 70,000

  18,560

  20,880

  21,060

  21,130

  21,310

  36,310

  36,310

  36,060

  Total

  460

  420

  480

  550

  680

  990

  990

  980

  Note: All information is in terms of individual taxpayers—that is husband and wife are counted separately.

  1Excluding child tax allowances which were being phased out in 1978–79.

  2Average gains and losses are calculated by reference to the estimated number who would be liable to pay tax under the indexed 1978–79 regime assuming Independent Taxation; this number is some 1,800,000 greater than the numbers paying tax in 1990–91, some 1,400,000 in the income range below £5,000 and 400,000 in the range £5,000 to £10,000.

  Reduction in income tax compared with 1978–79 indexed regime1 (£ million)

  Range of individual's income in 1990–91 (£)

  Number of individuals paying tax in 1990–91 (million)

  1979–80

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Under 5,000

  2·9

  230

  100

  230

  270

  340

  480

  480

  480

  5,000 to 10,000

  8·6

  1,230

  640

  1,040

  1,360

  1,960

  2,840

  2,850

  2,840

  10,000 to 15,000

  6·4

  1,840

  1,450

  1,800

  2,280

  3,200

  4,390

  4,400

  4,390

  15,000 to 20,000

  3·8

  1,570

  1,410

  1,620

  2,050

  2,870

  3,860

  3,860

  3,860

  20,000 to 30,000

  2·6

  1,710

  1,710

  1,860

  2,320

  3,210

  4,230

  4,230

  4,190

  30,000 to 50,000

  1·0

  1,930

  1,790

  1,900

  2,110

  2,500

  3,510

  3,520

  3,300

  50,000 to 70,000

  0·2

  1,240

  1,280

  1,320

  1,350

  1,400

  2,210

  2,210

  2,160

  Over 70,000

  0·2

  2,970

  3,340

  3,370

  3,380

  3,410

  5,810

  5,810

  5,770

  TOTAL

  25·7

  12,720

  11,720

  13,140

  15,120

  18,890

  27,330

  27,360

  26,990

  Net Earnings
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to April the information on net earnings provided in his reply to the then hon. Member for Fulham, on 10 February 1987,Official Report, columns 177-78.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Estimates of the levels of earnings at the top 5 per cent. point of the earnings distribution are not published. The information in the table is based on estimates of those levels derived from published figures in the relevant new earnings surveys. The latest estimates available are for April 1989. Earnings levels are for men or women as appropriate paid at adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. Taxpayers are assumed to have no reliefs or allowances other than the appropriate personal allowances.

  Earnings after Tax, National Insurance Contributions1 and Child Benefit (£ per week)

  April 19794

  April 1989

  Single Man

  At current prices

  114·20

  369·20

  At constant April 1989 prices2

  240·30

  369·20

  Married Man3

  At current prices

  118·00

  381·50

  At constant April 1989 prices2

  248·30

  381·50

  526
  income tax base, or (ii) the change to independent taxation from 1989–90 to 1990–91. Information for other years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For the purposes of these calculations, the indexed regimes of 1978–79 and later years are applied directly to the income tax base of 1990–91. In practice, retention of these regimes, indexed as appropriate, would have led to changes in the income base.

  April 19794

  April 1989

  Married Man3 with two children under 11

  At current prices

  126·00

  396·00

  At constant April 1989 prices2

  265·20

  396·00

  Single Woman

  At current prices

  72·20

  234·10

  At constant April 1989 prices2

  152·00

  234·10

  1At the contracted in rate for April 1989.

  2By reference to the retail price index.

  3Assuming no wife's earnings.

  4Under the Finance Act 1979 tax regime.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to 1990–91 the information on real net earnings provided in his reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 10 April 1986,Official Report, columns 193-94.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Information is given in the tables:

  Income Tax and Income Tax and NIC as percentages of gross earnings

  Multiples of average male earnings1

  ⅔

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Single

  1956–57

  Tax

  10·4

  16·6

  24·8

  40·5

  55·2

  527

  Multiples of average male earnings1

  ⅔

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Tax + NIC

  14·0

  18·9

  26·0

  41·0

  55·4

  1978–79

  Tax

  21·0

  25·0

  29·5

  50·5

  66·6

  Tax + NIC

  27·5

  31·5

  33·7

  52·2

  67·5

  1990–912

  Tax

  17·9

  20·2

  26·4

  34·5

  37·3

  Tax + NIC

  25·3

  28·2

  31·0

  36·4

  38·2

  Married Man

  1956–57

  Tax

  5·1

  11·2

  22·0

  38·9

  54·2

  Tax + NIC

  8·6

  13·5

  23·1

  39·4

  54·4

  1978–79

  Tax

  5·4

  21·3

  27·2

  48·8

  65·7

  Tax + NIC

  21·9

  27·8

  31·4

  50·5

  66·5

  1990–912

  Tax

  13·8

  17·5

  24·2

  33·7

  36·8

  Tax + NIC

  21·2

  25·5

  28·8

  35·5

  37·8

  Changes in real net earnings after Income Tax and NIC (1956–57 = 100)

  Multiples of average male earnings1

  ⅔

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Single

  1978–79

  124·9

  125·3

  132·8

  120·1

  108·3

  1990–912

  171·9

  175·3

  184·5

  213·3

  274·6

  Married Man

  Real change in tax allowances since 1978–79

  Change in tax liability 1990–91

  Single people

  Husbands

  Wives

  Individual's income

  Total

  Average per taxpayer1

  Total

  Average per taxpayer1

  Total

  Average per taxpayer1

  £ per annum

  £ million

  £ per annum

  £ million

  £ per annum

  £ million

  £ per annum

  Less than £5,000

  270

  120

  30

  130

  170

  90

  £5,000–10,000

  640

  140

  490

  200

  270

  140

  £10,000–15,000

  390

  150

  760

  250

  110

  140

  £15,000–20,000

  150

  140

  550

  230

  50

  140

  £20,000–25,000

  60

  150

  280

  230

  20

  130

  £25,000–30,000

  40

  180

  160

  270

  10

  230

  £30,000–50,000

  40

  220

  270

  350

  10

  220

  Over £50,000

  10

  230

  110

  360

  10

  220

  TOTAL

  1,600

  140

  2,650

  240

  650

  120

  1 Individual taxpayers liable to tax when personal allowances are reduced to their indexed 1978–79 levels.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of married women in the current tax year claiming the transferable element of their husband's personal tax allowance.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 30 March 1990]: It is estimated that in 1989–90 approximately 500,000 married women, over 10 per cent. of all married women with income greater than the wife's earned income allowance, will receive part or all of their husband's married man's allowance. The estimate is based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and is provisional.

  European Community
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent advice he has had from the EC Commission about the re-assessment of the United Kingdom's contribution to the EC; and what is the effect on the recent net contribution figures.
  528

  Multiples of average male earnings1

  ⅔

  1

  2

  5

  10

  1978–79

  126·8

  123·9

  132·4

  121·1

  109·0

  1990–912

  170·8

  170·7

  183·4

  210·5

  270·4

  1 Average earnings are those for full time males working a full week at adult rates in all occupations. They are £14·40 per week in 1956–57, £92·80 per week in 1978–79 and assumed to be £303·80 in 1990–91, an increase of 9¼ per cent. in average earnings in 1989–90 and an increase of 8½ per cent. in 1990–91 (the increases used by the Government Actuary in assessing the level of the National Insurance Fund as described in paragraph 3.02 of the Autumn Statement 1989).

  2 Income tax rates and allowances used for 1990–91 are those proposed in the 1990 Budget.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the value of income tax personal allowances has increased in real terms since 1979; and how this amount has been distributed to each band of income taxpayers, both in total and in amount per taxpayer.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 30 March 1990]: Since 1978–79, the main income tax allowances have increased in real terms by over 24 per cent. If, for 1990–91, the personal, married couple's, and higher age-related allowances were reduced to levels equivalent to the 1978–79 allowances indexed to 1990–91, total income tax liability would be increased by some £4·9 billion, distributed as follows:

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 21 March 1990 at column 610.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Community Charge
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to meet the full poll tax for those retired clergy renting houses from them on a maintenance charge basis.

  Mr. Alison
  Retired clergy in the rented arm of the Church's retirement housing scheme, where the accommodation is owned by the Church of England pensions board but largely funded by the Church Commissioners, have had their maintenance charges reduced to reflect the
  529
  abolition of domestic rates. They will also receive a special addition to their pension for 1990 (£100 for full service) to help ease the changeover to the community charge system.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what negotiations the Commissioners have had with the Secretary of State for the Environment over the effect of standard community charge levels on clergy who, while living in tied accommodation in their parishes, are buying, or have bought, a home for their retirement.

  Mr. Alison
  The Bishop of London, as chairman of the Churches Main Committee representing all the major denominations, has taken this matter up with the Secretary of State as most ministers of religion in this position are being asked to pay the maximum multiplier of twice the standard community charge. This is despite the Secretary of State's advice given to local authorities last October. The Commissioners fully support the bishop's approach.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lithuania
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts Her Majesty's Government have had with the Lithuanian Government of Mr. Landbergis.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. Our criteria for recognition of a state were set out in an answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 19 March.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Ambassador has made to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding their present policy in Lithuania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have recently taken a number of opportunities to make our concerns known to the Soviet Union.

  We have emphasised that it is vital that progress should be made through dialogue between the Soviet authorities and the Lithuanians, and that a settlement should be reached which is acceptable to both sides and which enables the Lithuanian people to decide their own future. We have stressed the need for restraint on all sides.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be sending a representative to the international citizens congress for a nuclear test ban in Alma-Mata and Semipalatinsk, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in May.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received in the current year concerning the continuing commitment of Her Majesty's Government to test nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received a number of letters and appeals from various organisations and individual members of the public.
  530
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what stage negotiations over the convening of meetings of state parties to the partial test ban treaty in preparation for the meeting from 8 to 19 January 1991 in Geneva have now reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Parties to the partial test ban treaty have agreed that a preliminary meeting for the organisation of the conference will be held in New York from 29 May to 8 June 1990. Consultations on the details of the meeting are continuing.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to make it his policy to support the inclusion of talks concerning the cessation of nuclear testing at the conference on disarmament in Geneva.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Consultations are under way at the conference on disarmament about possible discussions on the subject of nuclear testing. But we have made it dear that for the foreseeable future there will be a continuing requirement to conduct such tests.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian authorities about East Timor independence demonstrations and human rights.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the Government have made to the Indonesian authorities concerning the use of violence against demonstrations in East Timor for independence and against human rights abuses.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 29 March to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has discussed with the Hong Kong Government the possibility of lowering the minimum voting age in Hong Kong to 18 years.

  Mr. Maude
  The Hong Kong Government have recently confirmed our decision, announced in the 1988 White Paper on the development of representative government, that the voting age would remain at 21.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current queues in operation at each of the following posts and the numbers in each queue(a) Bombay, (b) New Delhi, (c) Karachi, (d) Islamabad, (e) Dacca, (f) Nairobi and (g) Dar-es-Salaam.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Current queues and estimated waiting tims in months at end February 1990 were:
  531

  Post

  Queue

  Estimated

  Numbers awaiting interviews

  (a) Bombay

  1

  0

  0

  2

  6

  367

  3

  9

  449

  4

  10

  106

  (b) New Delhi

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  309

  3

  6

  214

  4

  9

  65

  (c) Karachi

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  89

  3

  3·5

  19

  4

  6

  5

  (d) Islamabad

  1

  3

  96

  2

  6

  2,312

  3

  9

  486

  4

  13

  393

  (e) Dhaka

  1

  3

  418

  2

  3

  933

  3

  3

  119

  4

  9

  884

  Note: Estimated waiting time is the time an applicant applying in February could expect to wait until interview.

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:
  Q1—Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases.
  Q2—All spouses, and all children under 18 years.
  Q3—Fiancé(e)s and others applying for the first time for settlement.
  Q4—Re-applicants.
  Nairobi —No queue. All applicants whether for visit or settlement, are interviewed within one to three days.
  Dar-es-Salaam—All applicants requiring full interview are put in one queue with a current waiting time of three weeks.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the length of time taken by each of the posts to prepare an explanatory statement following refusal of entry clearance at(a) Bombay, (b) New Delhi, (c) Karachi, (d) Islamabad, (e) Dacca, (f) Nairobi and (g) Dar-es-Salaam; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Current times taken to despatch explanatory statements from the following posts are (from date of receipt of appeal):

  Post

  Type

  Time

  Bombay

  Settlement

  4 months

  Visit

  2 months

  New Delhi

  All

  6 months

  Karachi

  Settlement

  4 months

  Visit

  2 months

  Islamabad

  Settlement

  3 months

  Visit

  1 month

  Dhaka

  All

  3 months

  Nairobi

  All

  1 week

  Dar-es-Salaam

  All

  1-2 weeks

  High Commission, India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on when the British deputy high commission in Bombay, India, is to be resited.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We hope that current leasing negotiations and subsequent fitting-out works will be completed in time for the deputy high commission to move by May 1991.

  Geneva Convention
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action he intends to take in the international community regarding the observance of article 51 of the fourth Geneva convention by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the position of former Lithuanian Russian army conscripts and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' observance of article 51 of the fourth Geneva convention.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. The Geneva convention to which the hon. Member refers relates to the protection of civilian persons in time of war.

  United States Embassy (Visa Section)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States embassy in London on the burdens imposed on the embassy visa section by travel firms who are charging for visas to visit the United States where these are no longer required.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. The United States visa waiver scheme applies only to visitors travelling by designated carriers. In other cases, visas are still required. We understand that some travel agents charge an administrative fee for obtaining visas.

  South Africa
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for British passports have been made by individuals resident in the Republic of South Africa in each month from January 1989 to the recent available date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Figures for applications received per month are not readily available but the numbers of passports issued are as follows:

  Number

  1989

  January

  1,596

  February

  1,393

  March

  1,676

  April

  2,126

  May

  1,569

  June

  3,596

  July

  2,097

  August

  2,184

  September

  1,856

  October

  1,939

  November

  2,163

  December

  1,697

  1990

  533

  Number

  January

  1,884

  February

  2,134

  March

  2,439

  These numbers include both first and replacement passports issued.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has on the number of people resident in the republic of South Africa who are eligible to be issued with a British passport for each category of citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimates that between half a million and 1 million British nationals reside in South Africa. There is no means of assessing accurately their categories of citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981. However, it is likely that the majority are British citizens.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with European counterparts about the proposals for nuclear and conventional force reductions arising out of recent developments in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has discussed these matters in a number of recent bilateral meetings with European colleagues, including in the margins of the "Open Skies" meeting in Ottawa in February. There is a further meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in June, and the implications of developments in eastern Europe for our security requirements will again be discussed there.

  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has taken a decision on the question of United Kingdom membership of UNESCO.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have conducted a thorough review of United Kingdom membership of UNESCO as part of which we have consulted a large number of organisations with an interest in UNESCO activities. We have also taken into account the views expressed by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House in its report on UNESCO dated 15 March. We have concluded that although there have been improvements at UNESCO over the past few years these are not sufficient to justify rejoining now.

  As recommended by the FAC, we shall continue to keep the situation under review and we shall continue to maintain our observer section at UNESCO. We shall also continue to participate in the UNESCO programmes with which we are now involved.

  I have today written to the right hon. Member in his capacity as Chairman of the FAC giving my detailed comments on its report. A copy of this letter has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Ivory
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress Hong Kong is making in introducing legislation to implement the CITES ban on all commercial trade in ivory before the withdrawal of the six-month reservation on 18 July 1990.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Hong Kong Government are enacting legislation to ensure that the CITES ban on international commercial trade in ivory is in force when we withdraw our reservation on 18 July. A draft enacting Bill was presented to the Executive Council on 20 March and will be introduced into the Legislative Council on 4 April, with a view to enactment in May. The legislation will come into effect when our reservation is withdrawn. In the meantime, the Hong Kong Government will continue to enforce strict licensing and monitoring arrangements to prevent any illegal trading in ivory. There has been an absolute ban on ivory imports into Hong Kong since the CITES conference last year.

SCOTLAND

  Health Boards
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health boards in Scotland were in deficit at the end of the previous financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The overall cash limit for health boards was underspent by £6,678,000 or 0·36 per cent.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details on the numbers of eye tests in Scotland in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information concerning the total number of eye tests in Scotland is not available centrally. The results of a survey on the total number of sight tests carried out in Scotland in the first quarter of 1990 compared with earlier periods should be available by the early summer.

  NHS Inflation
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the level of inflation in the Scottish Health Service in 1990; and what funding he will make available for extra costs to the Scottish health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No separate index has been constructed which relates to the movement of pay and prices within the Health Service in Scotland. Health boards will be provided with £2,061·498 million for their recurrent expenditure commitments on hospital and community health services in 1990–91, an increase of £158 million or 8·3 per cent. on the equivalent 1989–90 provision.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to stop elderly patients being evicted from private nursing homes because they cannot meet the extra charges imposed by the owners of the private homes.
  535
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the board and lodging limits under income support lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security who announced on 28 March new limits for both residential and nursing homes which will mean £45 million of additional payments being made to residents this year. My right hon. Friend is also currently reviewing the general structure and level of these limits.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last visited a private nursing home in Scotland to meet elderly patients; whether he discussed the shortfall in charges between the Government's set limit and the extra charge imposed by the private home for their accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend visited Newark Lodge nursing home for the elderly in Glasgow on 26 February 1990. During his visit he took the opportunity to discuss a range of topics with both staff and residents.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current number of(a) private nursing homes and (b) public nursing homes in (i) Inverclyde, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland as a whole; and what is the number of inspectors to check the standards of care and facilities in nursing homes in (i), (ii) and (iii).

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no public nursing homes in Scotland. The information on private nursing homes, as at 31 March 1989, is as follows:

  Number

  Inverclyde

  3

  Strathclyde

  125

  Scotland

  270

  536
  The registration and inspection of private nursing homes are the responsibility of health boards and information on the number of staff engaged on these functions is not held centrally.

  Dogs
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those organisations which responded to the consultation paper on Action on Dogs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One hundred and six organisations responded to the consultation paper. I am writing to the hon. Member with the details.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what direction his Department has given to the working group discussing Action on Dogs; and whether any representatives of the British Veterinary Association are to be invited to give evidence.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The working group's remit will be discussed at its first meeting which we hope will be held later this month. The remit will be broad and will cover not only advice on the implementation of our Action on Dogs proposals but also the investigation of other measures which could strengthen the existing legislation on dogs, including measures which could help reduce the risk of dog attacks. The British Veterinary Association has been asked to nominate a representative to serve on the group.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what date he will need to take a decision in order to ensure that the new Edinburgh dental hospital and postgraduate institute can be operative by the time of the closure of the present dental school.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This depends upon the outcome of Lothian health board's forthcoming appraisal of possible sites.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of the present financial situation of the Lothian health board on the programme for the establishment of the new Edinburgh dental hospital and postgraduate institute.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have already made it clear that the Government will meet the capital cost of providing the new dental hospital and institute. The running costs will be considered once we have the results of the Lothian health board's option appraisal. By that time I expect to have the health board's proposals for bringing their income and expenditure into balance.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors he takes into account in determining the number of dental school places.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for the Universities Funding Council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the numerical decline in the number

  Establishment

  Number of baths

  Number of shower-baths

  Access by prisoners

  Aberdeen

  2

  19

  At least once per week

  Barlinnie

  5

  74

  Unlimited access

  Castle Huntly

  —

  18

  Unlimited access during recreation

  Cornton Vale

  33

  39

  Unlimited access

  Dumfries

  5

  34

  Daily at specified times

  Dungavel

  2

  19

  Unlimited access outwith working hours

  Edinburgh

  3

  43

  Unlimited access during recreation

  Friarton

  1

  6

  Prisoners shower daily

  Glenochil:

  Adult

  1

  41

  Unlimited access

  Young offenders

  —

  30

  Daily following PT or work

  Greenock

  1

  26

  Unlimited access

  Inverness

  2

  14

  Unlimited access

  Longriggend

  1

  29

  Three times per week

  Low Moss

  —

  25

  Unlimited access

  Noranside

  4

  18

  Unlimited access

  Penninghame

  1

  11

  Unlimited access outwith working hours

  Perth

  3

  69

  Daily at specified times

  Peterhead

  4

  55

  At least once per week

  538
  of treatment consultations available from the Edinburgh dental hospital from their present annual level for each of the years of the rundown leading up to the closure of the present Edinburgh dental school.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Detailed predictions about the level of treatment consultations up to the closure of Edinburgh dental school is a matter for discussion between Lothian health board and the university of Edinburgh as part of their overall closure programme.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department announced its decision to rebuild the Edinburgh dental hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When the McCallum working party report, "Review of Dental Provision in Scotland", was published in June 1989, we welcomed the recommendation that a replacement dental hospital should be built in Edinburgh. I have already made it clear that the Government will meet the capital cost but progress depends upon the outcome of Lothian health board's forthcoming appraisal of possible sites.

  Prisons
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many baths and shower-baths there are and how often each prisoner has use of these facilities in each of Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of baths and shower-baths and how often each prisoner has use of these facilities, in each of Her Majesty's prisons is set out in the table:
  539

  Establishment

  Number of baths

  Number of Shower-baths

  Access by prisoners

  Polmont

  —

  43

  At least twice per week

  Shotts

  26

  51

  Unlimited access during association

  Total

  94

  664

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners are currently imprisoned in each of Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Her Majesty's prison

  Population at 23 March 1990

  Aberdeen

  133

  Barlinnie

  848

  Barlinnie special unit

  8

  Castle Huntly1

  109

  Cornton Vale2

  162

  Dumfries1

  137

  Dungavel

  123

  Edinburgh

  544

  Friarton

  54

  Glenochil2

  480

  Greenock

  167

  Inverness

  92

  Longriggend3

  224

  Low Moss

  313

  Noranside

  90

  Penninghame

  58

  Perth

  424

  Peterhead

  122

  Polmont1

  387

  Shotts

  429

  Total

  4,904

  1 Young offenders institution.

  2 Prison and young offenders institution combined.

  3 Remand institution.

  Agency Nurses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of agency nurses employed in the National Health Service in Scotland in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about agency nurses is collected twice yearly and the average whole-time equivalent for the quarter ending 30 September in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Whole-time equivalent

  1985

  79·8

  1986

  144·7

  1987

  193·0

  1988

  237·7

  1989

  128·4

  Information is collected centrally only on the whole time equivalent of agency nurses employed in the National Health Service.

  Children with Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children with learning difficulties are now being integrated into mainstream schools who would 540
  formerly have been placed in special schools with trained teaching staff, in total and on a regional basis; and if he will give details of how the progress of such children is monitored.

  Mr. Lang
  The table shows the latest statistics of children with records of needs based in mainstream schools. It is not possible to say how many of these children might, in previous years, have been placed at special schools. Progress of recorded pupils is monitored through reviews carried out under the terms of section 65A of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

  Recorde pupils based in mainstream schools

  Primary

  Secondary

  Borders

  10

  35

  Central

  67

  31

  Dumfries and Galloway

  111

  74

  Fife

  1

  15

  Grampian

  53

  45

  Highland

  81

  82

  Lothian

  27

  14

  Strathclyde

  328

  223

  Tayside

  9

  21

  Orkney

  6

  4

  Shetland

  6

  7

  Western Isles

  4

  8

  Total

  703

  559

  Argyll and Bute

  24

  15

  Ayr

  118

  69

  Dumbarton

  27

  17

  Glasgow

  41

  12

  Lanark

  31

  59

  Renfrew

  87

  51

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specialist assistance is being provided for children with learning difficulties who have been or are being integrated into mainstream schools; and what is their position regarding testing at the ages of eight and 11 years old.

  Mr. Lang
  Education authorities are responsible for ensuring sufficient specialist assistance is provided for children with learning difficulties. This will vary according to the needs of each individual child.

  So far as the testing of children with learning difficulty is concerned, the Government recognise that there are pupils whose records of needs may suggest that their inclusion within the arrangements for national testing would be inappropriate. It will, therefore, be left to the discretion of the education authority, in consultation with parents, to decide in such cases whether or not a child should participate in the tests.

  Lafferty Group
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many projects involving the failed Lafferty Group were funded by the Scottish Development Agency;
  541
  what was the total amount of public money paid to the firm; whether any legal action has been taken over uncompleted contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Three projects involving F. Lafferty (Civil Engineering) Company Ltd., and two projects involving Lafferty Construction Ltd. were funded by the Scottish Development Agency. The amount of money paid is a commercial matter between the agency and the companies involved. The five projects carried out by F. Lafferty (Civil Engineering) Company Ltd. and Lafferty Construction Ltd. have all been completed.

  Schools and Colleges (Finance)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what information he bases his decision about the level of capital financing for Scottish schools and colleges.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The amount of the resources made available for distribution to local authorities for capital expenditure on schools and colleges is determined after taking account of the financial plans and representations submitted by the authorities and of information obtained during school and college inspections. The amount provided for grant aided colleges takes account of their institutional plans and of professional advice.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye of 21 March,Official Report, column 647, when he expects to be able to reply to the specific questions raised with him by the Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen in their original letter of 3 May 1989 with regard to the grounds on which the claim for compensation by the Ullapool Boat Owners Association has been classed as an application for operating aid and as to why the claim for compensation conflicts with community law; and when he expects to be able to supply the documents requested by the federation in their letter of 3 May 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Any assistance provided to industry to compensate for changes in circumstances is regarded by the European Commission as an operating aid. This ruling derives from the Commission's interpretation of sections 92 and 93 of the treaty of Rome. The Commission has made it clear that any derogation by them in favour of such an aid would only be given where the aid had a structural purpose. This would not apply in the case submitted by the Ullapool Boat Owners Association. A formal reply was sent to the Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen on 13 March 1990.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will explain the criteria for the distribution of non-HRA allocations for 1990–91, with specific reference to the sums allocated to Orkney Islands council and Shetland Islands council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Non-HRA capital allocations for 1990–91 were
  542
  determined on the basis of relative housing needs taking account of the authorities' own plans and priorities for tackling these needs. On this basis, Orkney Islands council has received an allocation of £1·15 million and Shetland Islands council has received £0·45 million, the latter meeting the council's request for resources virtually in full.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if all the research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy is being concentrated under the consultative committee run by Dr. David Tyrrell; and if he will list where the £12 million for research over the next three years is to be spent;

  (2) if it is the intention of the consultative committee under Dr. David Tyrrell to publish at least annual reports into their activities in the future.

  Mr. Gummer
  A research consultative committee of scientific experts chaired by Dr. Tyrrell was asked by my predecessor and the Secretary of State for Health to advise on the research work in progress, and additional work required into the disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and to set out priorities for further work. I announced the Government's response on 9 January.

  My Department has committed £6·1 million over the next three years to spongiform encephalopathy research at the Central Veterinary Laboratory, at the Institute for Animal Health, AFRC/MRC Neuropathogenesis Unit, Edinburgh; and at the Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms. In the same period, the Department of Education and Science has provided for expenditure of £6·3 million on similar research through the Agriculture and Food Research Council at the neuropathogenesis unit and other research establishments.

  The Secretary of State for Health and I have decided to reconstitute the research consultative committee as the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee. Dr. Tyrrell has agreed to continue as chairman. The other members are Professor F. Brown, former deputy director (scientific) of the Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, Dr. R. J. Will, consultant neurologist at the Western general hospital, Edinburgh, Dr. R. H. Kimberlin, an independent consultant, and Dr. W. A. Watson, former director of the Central Veterinary Laboratory. Mr. R. Bradley of the Central Veterinary Laboratory will act as an observer and observers from the Medical Research Council and the Agriculture and Food Research Council will participate as necessary.

  The new committee will be asked to advise my Department and the Department of Health on matters related to spongiform encephalopathies. Its work and reporting will therefore be on an ad hoc basis.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the estimate of the Southwood committee of the level of reporting of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; what is the current level of reporting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Southwood working party did not predict the level of reporting of suspect BSE cases. At present, around 380 new suspected cases of BSE are being subjected to restrictions each week.
  543
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what significance he attaches to the rising incidence of confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases; when he expects the number of confirmed cases to stop rising; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  All available evidence on BSE point to a common source epidemic, through feed infected with scrapie, which has been cut off since July 1988. Although the number of suspect cases being notified is continuing to rise at present it is still expected that, provided cattle to cattle transmission does not occur, the incidence of disease will fall after 1993 as the proportion of animals which will have been fed ruminant protein diminishes.

  Pesticides
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what use he has made of his powers to ban the export of toxic pesticides which are already banned from use on agricultural products in the United Kingdom; and if he will consider taking powers to ban the import of any food that has been treated with a pesticide, the use of which has been banned in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom participates in the United Nations environment programme's (UNEP) notification scheme under which we notify the importing country of any exports of pesticides which are banned or severely restricted here. A pesticide which is not approved in the country may legitimately be permitted in other countries, since usage, climatic conditions and soil types all have an important influence on safety. In the United Kingdom statutory maximum residue levels have been set for some pesticides which are not approved for use here.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the regulatory process by which pesticides are approved.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following is the answer:

  1. The statutory framework for the approval of pesticides is laid down in Part III of the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 and under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. A system of Departmental and independent assessment of data ensures that only pesticides found to be safe are approved for use. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, supported by the scientific subcommittee, take account of risks to humans, animals and the environment in making recommendations to Ministers on approvals.

  2. The introduction of statutory controls on pesticides under FEPA has led to a significant increase in the volume of work in MAFF's and HSE's Evaluation Units. Although the waiting time for applications to extend uses of approved products has been halved over the past year, two key tasks remain: to review to current standards those products approved some time ago, and to speed up the consideration of applications for new pesticides. These are objectives to which consumer, environmental and industry interests attach great importance.

  3. To meet these challenges my colleagues and I are providing for further substantial increases in resources in order to improve the effectiveness of the evaluation process. Within the MAFF Evaluation Unit the numbers of scientific staff in post have risen from 25 in April 1986 to 54 currently. In the coming 12 months we shall increase
  544
  these by a further 60 per cent. to 86. We have introduced special pay scales to recruit and retain the specialised scientific staff required.

  4. The physical resources available to the Unit are also being enhanced. New accommodation is being acquired, which will bring the Unit together on a single site, at the AFRC's Harpenden complex. This will be the first MAFF office to be equipped in 1991 with computerised office systems, costing about £1 million, to enhance efficiency.

  5. In addition to recruiting extra scientists, we are planning to contract out discrete blocks of work in order to increase throughput. Several independent laboratories have been approached and specimen contracts will be issued shortly as a pilot exercise. The contract work will of course be subject to close monitoring for quality assurance. The internal resources saved will be switched to the highly demanding emergency reviews.

  6. Because of the high standards of safety which we apply, and the complexity of modern regulatory work, the training of the new staff will be given high priority. Although this will absorb significant resources we nevertheless aim to increase threefold the capacity to process new pesticides, from eight in 1990–91, to 12 in 1991–92, 20 in 1992–93, and 25 per year thereafter. This is a realistic plan and these targets are stretching but achievable.

  7. Similarly the number of reviews of older pesticides, full and partial, will rise from 12 in 1990–91 to 29 in 1991–92, and 37 in 1992–93. The total number of pesticides registered in the United Kingdom before 1981 is over 250 and all these will be reviewed, subject to a priority ranking exercise which is being established, with the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. For agricultural pesticides, we intend this work to form part of a co-ordinated 10-year European Community programme for the review of older pesticides. Indeed, what we have proposed will more than match our likely share of the Community programme. We always of course check as a matter of urgency any approved pesticides against which doubts have been cast. On non-agricultural pesticides the United Kingdom Government has taken the lead in pressing the EC for a harmonised approach similar to that proposed for agricultural pesticides.

  8. We have already approached all approval holders to alert them to the review programme and to ask whether or not they hold data packages for their products which are capable of meeting modern standards. Those who have not replied will shortly have their approvals withdrawn.

  9. To ensure that such a large review programme does not recur we have decided that in future all approvals will be time-limited, so that regular reviews will be required automatically if re-approval is sought.

  10. Inevitably the increase in resources will give rise to an increase in fees for the approval of a new active ingredient. The increase from £7,000 to £30,000 has taken effect from yesterday. The pesticides industry as a whole has made public its willingness to pay for the additional resources necessary to provide a better service.

  11. A key element in maintaining public confidence in the safety of approved pesticides is the advice from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides which is impartial and of the highest level of expertise. My colleagues and I have decided that all evaluations prepared by the Committee and the data underlying them will be made available for public scrutiny in as open a way as anywhere in the world.
  545
  12. Although our data indicates that our food generally contains very low levels of pesticide residues I have been examining how we might obtain further reassurance on the safety of our food. The Government already carries out an extensive programme of testing food, feedingstuffs, human tissues and wildlife, costing £1·5 million per year. We have approached representatives of food manufacturers, retailers, and local authorities who also perform a significant number of tests and they have in principle agreed to make their results available to the Government. This will greatly enlarge the data available on residues. For example, we know already that the number of samples of wheat available to us will be multiplied at least ten times.

  13. In relation to non-agricultural pesticides there is also a good story to tell. Since April 1987 the numbers of HSE scientists dealing with pesticide approval have increased from 6·6 to 18·5. This will further increase to 25·5 in April 1990, and it is intended to reach the complement of 31·5 by April 1991. However, as with MAFF, this will require that the training of staff is given a high priority and there is no significant loss of staff to outside organisations.

  14. Thus it is envisaged that by 1994 evaluation work of new active ingredients will start immediately an application for approval is received.

  15. HSE plans to have completed its review programme of older non-agricultural pesticides within the next 10 years. Reviews have already been initiated on a number of active ingredients on which there has been public concern, and a review programme drawn up for the rest.

  Salmonella
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the pasteurisation of eggs from salmonella enteritidis infected flocks in the United States of America; and whether he has any information on the incidence of food poisoning from pasteurised eggs from salmonella enteritidis infected flocks in the United States of America.

  Mr. Maclean
  Very little information has been published on either pasteurisation of eggs from infected flocks or the incidence of food poisoning from pasteurised egg produced from eggs from infected flocks in the United States of America.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will describe the procedure through which pasteurisation of eggs from infected flocks can encourage cross-contamination in circumstances where raw liquid egg is commonly contaminated by salmonella.

  Mr. Maclean
  The risk of cross-contamination exists in any food processing plant and therefore the use of contaminated raw materials should be avoided as far as possible. The possible routes of contamination will depend on several factors, including plant design, hygiene procedures etc.

  Irradiated Potatoes
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the effect on the production and identification of solanin in potatoes exposed to irradiation.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1986 the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods assessed extensive data relating to the irradiation of potatoes and found no evidence of adverse effects.

  Nitrates
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the book, "Nitrates: The Threat to Food and Water", by Nigel Dudley, published by Green Print.

  Mr. Curry
  We have already done so.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the pilot nitrate scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following extensive consultations on the pilot nitrate scheme, I have decided, subject to Commission clearance under article 93,3 of the treaty of Rome, to confirm that 10 areas should be designated as nitrate sensitive areas (NSAs), and that intensive advisory campaigns should be conducted in a further nine areas.

  This important new pilot scheme is aimed at tackling the problem, experienced throughout Europe and elsewhere, of unacceptable levels of nitrate leaching from farmland into water sources. It will provide valuable insights into a problem which is not scientifically fully understood, and point the way for future policy. I hope the scheme will be a major success and that it will receive the high level of support which it deserves.

  As indicated in earlier announcements, payments will be made to those farmers in nitrate sensitive areas who voluntarily undertake to observe restrictions on their agricultural practices. I hope that as many farmers as possible will enter our basic scheme under which payments will be made for restrictions on all their NSA land which, while substantial, will enable them broadly to maintain current farming patterns. These payments will vary depending on the nitrate sensitive area in line with overall differences in the costs of compliance between different areas.

  Farmers who participate in the basic scheme will in addition be able to enter the premium scheme, by converting some or all of their arable land to various forms of grassland. Payments will vary depending on the nitrate sensitive area (since overall assessments of the costs of compliance differ), the option chosen, and the proportion of a farmer's land affected, (since the latter affects the fixed cost savings). The premium scheme requirements will help to protect the environment generally and promote conservation.

  The areas, basic rates of payment, and premium rates for conversion of arable to unfertilised ungrazed grassland are as follows, (£/ha):
  547

  Nitrate sensitive areas (NSAs)

  Basic

  Premium [percentage of total holding]

  0–25

  25–75

  75–100

  1. Sleaford (Lincolnshire)

  85

  380

  290

  200

  2. Branston Booths (Lincolnshire)

  95

  380

  290

  200

  3. Ogbourne St. George (Wiltshire)

  55

  380

  290

  200

  4. Old Chalford (Oxfordshire)

  55

  330

  265

  200

  5. Egford (Somerset)

  55

  380

  290

  200

  6. Boughton (Nottinghamshire)

  75

  280

  240

  200

  7. Wildmoor (Hereford and Worcestershire)

  70

  280

  240

  200

  8. Wellings (Staffordshire and Shropshire)

  65

  280

  240

  200

  9. Tom Hill (Staffordshire)

  70

  280

  240

  200

  10. Kilham (Humberside)

  55

  330

  265

  200

  Premium rates (which are paid in addition to basic rates) will be adjusted, in relation to those shown above, as follows:

  £

  For unfertilised grazed grass

  30/ha less

  For grass with up to 150 kg N/ha

  110/ha less

  For grass and woodland

  100/ha less

  Though for the latter, payments under the farm woodland scheme should also apply.

  Intensive pig and poultry farmers will receive individually assessed payments towards the cost of additional storage (pig farmers only) and/or transport requirements calculated against number of livestock.

  The advisory areas will be as follows:

  1. The Swells (Gloucestershire)

  2. Bircham and Fring (Norfolk)

  3. Hillington, Gayton and Congham (Norfolk)

  4. Sedgeford (Norfolk)

  5. Fowlmere (Cambridgeshire)

  6. Far Baulker (Nottinghamshire)

  7. Dotton and Colaton (Devon)

  8. Cringle Brook (Lincolnshire and Leicestershire)

  9. Bourne Brook (Warwickshire)

  All farms in the advisory areas will be visited by an ADAS officer and encouraged voluntarily to follow practices designed to reduce the risk of nitrate leaching at little or no cost to themselves or even a small benefit.

  Committee

  Councils

  NRA

  Ministers

  Total

  Cornwall

  13

  1

  12

  26

  Cumbria

  7

  1

  6

  14

  Devon

  10

  1

  8

  19

  Eastern

  10

  1

  9

  20

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  0

  4

  8

  Kent and Essex

  10

  1

  7

  18

  North Eastern

  18

  1

  15

  34

  Northumberland

  10

  1

  9

  20

  North Western and North Wales

  18

  1

  16

  35

  Southern

  10

  1

  8

  19

  Sussex

  10

  1

  9

  20

  South Wales

  10

  1

  9

  20

  The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 requires that those persons appointed by Ministers must be acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing interests of the district. Persons are not appointed, however, on the basis of their representing particular organisations. At the present time there are no vacancies amongst the Ministers' appointees.
  548
  Full details of the measures and payment rates have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Secretary of State for the Environment and I shall be laying before the House in due course a statutory instrument designating the NSAs and setting out the measures and payment rates under the basic and premium schemes. Our intention is for the order to come into effect by 1 June.

  Bass
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to introduce his proposals for nursery areas for the conservation of bass.

  Mr. Curry
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Sea Fisheries Committees
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list the membership of each sea fisheries committee; how many vacancies there are in each committee; and what organisation each member of the committee represents.

  Mr. Curry
  The membership of sea fisheries committees is made up of persons separately appointed by county or metropolitan district councils, the National Rivers Authority and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Wales. The relevant numbers appointed to each committee are currently as follows:

  Agricultural Workers
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average number of hours worked weekly by agricultural workers in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested, based upon continuous surveys of the earnings and hours of hired agriculture workers conducted by the agricultural departments, is shown in the table.
  549

  Average weekly hours of regular whole-time hired male workers, 20 years and over, in agriculture, United Kingdom 1979–89

  Year

  Average weekly hours

  1979

  46·2

  1980

  45·7

  1981

  46·3

  1982

  46·1

  1983

  46·5

  1984

  46·2

  1985

  46·9

  1986

  46·7

  1987

  46·5

  1988

  46·6

  11989

  46·5

  1 Forecast.

  Sources: Agriculture in the United Kingdom, 1989 White Papers on the Annual Review of Agriculture 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average level of gross weekly earnings for agricultural workers in each year since 1979 in cash, constant prices and as a proportion of national average manual earnings.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested, based upon continuous surveys of the earnings and hours of hired agricultural workers conducted by the agriculture departments, is shown in the table.

  Average weekly earnings of regular whole-time hired male workers, 20 years and over, in agriculture, United Kingdom, 1979 to 1989

  Average earnings of agricultural workers

  £/week

  Index in real terms (a)

  As a proportion of average manual earnings (b)

  1979

  71·8

  89·3

  78

  1980

  86·0

  90·7

  78

  1981

  96·3

  90·8

  80

  1982

  105·4

  91·5

  80

  1983

  116·6

  96·8

  82

  1984

  122·6

  96·9

  80

  1985

  134·1

  100·0

  82

  1986

  140·8

  101·5

  81

  1987

  148·0

  102·5

  80

  1988

  155·4

  102·6

  77

  11989

  166·0

  101·6

  76

  1 forecast.

  Notes: (a) Deflated by the retail prices index (1985=100).

  (b) Based on the average earnings in April of each year of full-time manual male employee on adult rates of pay, earnings not affected by absence, from the new earnings survey.

  Sources: Agriculture in the United Kingdom, 1989.

  White Papers on the Annual Review of Agriculture, 1984.

  Land Drainage
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will indicate the arrangements which will need to be applied, following the introduction of the community charge, to precept drainage rates for those internal drainage boards which are not properly constituted under the Land Drainage Act 1976.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Internal Drainage Boards (Finance) Regulations 1990 which were laid before Parliament on 23 January, modify the powers of internal drainage boards to make and levy drainage rates under and in accordance 550
  with provisions of the Land Drainage Act 1976 or the provisions of any local Act. They apply to the raising of expenses for financial years commencing 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements currently exist to ensure that internal drainage boards do not levy precepts on domestic dwellings that would otherwise be disproportionate to the resources devoted to agricultural land drainage; and whether any new arrangements will apply following the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  The arrangements for financing internal drainage boards have been modified in the light of the new system of local government finance operative from 1 April: the changes, including the proportions of a board's expenses to be raised by drainage rates on the agricultural sector and special levies on the non-agricultural sector via charging authorities, are set out in the Internal Drainage Boards (Finance) Regulations 1990 which were laid before Parliament on 23 January. Provision has been made for boards to continue to be able to levy differential amounts in respect of areas (sub districts) considered to benefit less from their operations. Also charging authorities will be entitled to appoint members to the boards to which they contribute by virtue of special levies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Allocations)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he applies in determining the allocation of police to each county in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend considers applications for increases in police establishments on the basis of the demonstrated needs of forces and in the light of advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The general criteria which govern assessment of applications for increases are set out in Home Office circulars 114/1983 and 106/1988, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Imprisoned Mothers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider allowing imprisoned mothers to have day parole to visit their children.

  Mr. Mellor
  Powers already exist for the temporary release of sentenced prisoners for this purpose and they are used in appropriate circumstances.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to make all police and Government reports and associated papers available to the coroner's inquest into the deaths of those aboard the Marchioness.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Secretary of State does not have power to direct the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or other Government Departments to disclose reports to a coroner's inquest, but in this particular case I am not aware that the coroner is experiencing any difficulties in obtaining the information that he needs.

  Deportation
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been served with the notice of the intention to make deportation orders against them on the grounds that this would be conducive to the public good for reasons of national security in the past 12 months; and if he will provide a breakdown of their countries of citizenship.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 28 March 1989, 14 Iranians and one Iraqi have been served with notice of intention to make deportation orders against them on these grounds.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington on 6 March,Official Report, column 560, at which institutes of education the 15 deported Iranian citizens involved in education were studying.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Seven were studying at the university of Manchester institute of science and technology, two at South Bank polytechnic, one each at Brunel university, the polytechnic of Central London, the City of London polytechnic, the university of Bradford and Middlesex polytechnic. The remaining student had previously studied at Hatfield polytechnic.

  Asylum
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the Turkish Kurdish asylum seekers who sought entry in May and June 1989 whom he was minded to refuse have since been granted refugee status;

  (2) how many of the Turkish Kurdish asylum seekers who sought entry in May and June 1989 and who were initially granted one year exceptional leave to remain have since been recognised as refugees.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 240 of the Turkish nationals who sought asylum on arrival in April, May and June 1989 have been recognised as refugees. Central records do not distinguish at what stage of the procedure applicants were granted refugee status and this could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries are made into the political affiliations and background of interpreters before they are used in asylum cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All prospective interpreters are interviewed by a chief immigration officer or more senior officer to assess their linguistic qualifications and personal suitability. Other checks may be made if necessary.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the length of time it is taking to process applications to vary one year exceptional leave to remain permits to refugee status under the 1951 convention on refugees.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These applications are dealt with as quickly as possible by the refugee section of the immigration and nationality department. Priority is however being given to resolving outstanding applications for asylum made by some 3,700 Turkish nationals on arrival in April, May and June 1989.
  552
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the length of time it is taking for decisions to be reached on whether to grant entry clearance to the dependents of Turkish Kurdish asylum seekers who have been granted one year exceptional leave to remain.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no provision in the immigration rules for this purpose. Dependents are normally admitted to join a person granted exceptional leave if he is still in the United Kingdom after four years. However, all applications for entry clearance in these cases are referred to the Home Office to consider whether there are special circumstances which would justify earlier admission. Decisions on these applications are reached as soon as possible.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the training manual for immigration officers who interview asylum seekers and (b) any written instructions that are given to interpreters.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no single comprehensive training manual for immigration officers who interview asylum seekers. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given in reply to a question by him on 14 November 1989 at column 205. On the question of instructions for interpreters, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given in reply to a question by him on 14 November 1989 at column 203.

  Interpreters
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the immigration service is still utilising the interpreting skills of Mr. Gurdenez.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there has been any change in selection and training procedures for interpreters following the case of Mr. Gurdenez.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No, but an interpreter employed for the first time is now required to give a written undertaking that he will translate faithfully and to the best of his ability.

  Suicide
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a month by month breakdown of the information given in the table in his answer of 12 March,Official Report, columns 18-21, in respect of inmates in Armley prison, Leeds, for suicides and attempted suicides in 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table gives the number of inmates who were found at an inquest to have committed suicide, and who attempted suicide, at Leeds prison in each month during 1989.

  Suicides and attempted suicides at HM prison Leeds in 1989

  Month

  Suicides

  Attempted suicides

  January

  —

  5

  February

  1

  13

  March

  —

  4

  553

  Month

  Suicides

  Attempted Suicides

  April

  —

  18

  May

  —

  4

  June

  —

  —

  July

  —

  5

  August

  —

  5

  September

  —

  2

  October

  —

  —

  November

  1

  —

  December

  —

  2

  Total

  2

  58

  Sir Charles Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many suicides and how many

  Table A

  Suicides at Prison establishments 1980 to 1989 and attempted suicides 1985 to 1989

  Establishment

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1 2

  1989

  Acklington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (—)

  Albany

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Ashford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (1)

  Ashwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Askham Grange

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Aylesbury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Bedford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  (—)

  Birmingham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  (24)

  Blundeston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Bristol

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (3)

  Brixton

  5

  3

  1

  4

  5

  2

  2

  3

  1

  1

  (21)

  Brockhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Camp Hill

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (2)

  Campsfield House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Canterbury

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  2

  (7)

  Cardiff

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (5)

  Castingdon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Channings wood

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (4)

  Chelmsford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (5)

  Coldingley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  (1)

  Cookham wood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Dartmoor

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (3)

  Deerbolt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Dorchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (2)

  Drake Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Durham

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  1

  2

  (15)

  Eastwood Park

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Erlestoke

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Everthorpe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Exeter

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  (19)

  Featherstone

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Feltham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (9)

  Ford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Frankland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (4)

  Full Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Garth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (3)

  Gartree

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Glen Parva

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  (6)

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Grendon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (6)

  Guys Marsh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Haslar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Hatfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Haverigg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Hewell Grange

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Highpoint

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (5)

  Hindley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (23)

  Holloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (12)

  Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (28)

  Kingston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Kirkham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Kirklevington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (3)

  Latchmere House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (7)

  Leeds

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  4

  2

  (58)

  Leicester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Lewes

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (7)

  Leyhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  554
  attempted suicides have taken Place in Penal establishments in each of the last 10 years; and how many of these were (a) remand prisoners, (b) female prisoners, (c) Prisoners under 21 and (d) prisoners from ethnic minorities;

  (2) how many suicides and how many attempted suicides have taken place in each individual penal establishment in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply of 12 March at column 18] : I now understand that the figure of 64 given for the number of attempted suicides at Leeds prison during 1989 Sir was incorrect. The correct figure is 58. The table is an amended version of table A in my earlier answer.
  555

  Establishment

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1 2

  1989

  Lincoln

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  (2)

  Lindholme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (6)

  Littlehey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  (11)

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (19)

  Long Lartin

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (4)

  Low Newton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (16)

  Maidstone

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (—)

  Manchester

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  3

  (26)

  Mount

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  New Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  North Sea Camp

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Northallerton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Norwich

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (12)

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Onley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Oxford

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Parkhurst

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Pentonville

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  (4)

  Portland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Preston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  (12)

  Pucklechurch

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (6)

  Ranby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Risley

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  4

  —

  (9)

  Rochester

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  (—)

  Rudgate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Shepton Mallet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (4)

  Shrewsbury

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (15)

  Spring Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Stafford

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (6)

  Stoke Heath

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  (2)

  Styal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Sudbury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Swaleside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (4)

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (6)

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Usk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  The Verne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Thorn Cross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Thorp Arch

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Wakefield

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  (2)

  Wandsworth

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  1

  1

  (2)

  Wayland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Wellingborough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Werrington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Wetherby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Winchester

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  (10)

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  (4)

  Wymott

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Total

  21

  16

  17

  21

  23

  23

  17

  40

  30

  28

  Notes:

  1 Figures in brackets are for attempted suicides.

  2 Inquests have yet to be held on seven inmates who died in 1989 and whose deaths are thought to have been suicides. These deaths occurred at Her Majesty's prisons Brixton, Cardiff, Long Lartin, Manchester, Rochester and Swansea and at Her Majesty's remand centre Risky.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the presently proposed fees for(a) firearms certificates and (b) shotgun certificates cover the administration of both the 1968 and 1988 Firearms Acts;

  (2) what proportion, or amounts of the presently proposed fees increase for (a) firearms certificates and (b) shotgun certificates are related to the Firearms Act 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The proposed fees do not include any costs arising from the administration of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. These will be assessed during the course of the multi-force scrutiny being undertaken by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he consulted the Firearms 556
  Consultative Committee before proposing increases in fees for firearms and shotgun certificates and their renewal or variation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. It is for the Government to decide the level at which firearms fees should be set based on its policy of full recovery of the costs of administering the firearms licensing system. However, any views that the Firearms Consultative Committee may wish to put to the Home Secretary about the way in which firearms controls are administered will be carefully taken into account.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will place in the Library a copy of the views of the Firearms Consultative Committee on his proposals to increase fees for the issue, renewal or variation of firearms and shotgun licences.
  557
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Firearms Consultative Committee is an independent statutory body. It is for the committee itself to decide whether any views which it may have on the proposed fees increase should be included in the annual report which it is required to make to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and which, once made, will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to introduce further increases in the fees for(a) firearms certificates and (b) shot gun certificates this year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We propose to adjust the fees for both firearm and shot gun certificates in the light of the findings of a multi-force scrutiny of the firearms licensing system being undertaken by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The results of the scrutiny should be known later this year, though it is not possible at this stage to say whether any further increases in fees will be introduced in 1990.

  Tape Recorded Evidence
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of charges has been set, and on what basis, for the supply of copies of tape recordings made in the course of police investigation of criminal matters; and on what date such charges were introduced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Whether charges are made and the level of those charges are matters for individual chief officers to determine.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that those representing defendants in contested criminal matters are supplied with copies of tape recordings made during investigations; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Home Office circular 76/1988, which gives guidance to the police about tape recording interviews with suspects, gives the suspect and his legal representative a right of access to a copy of the master tape if he is to be prosecuted. In practice he will either receive a copy of the tape or be afforded facilities to listen to one at a police station.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: The Home Office spent approximately £3,404,000 on management and computer consultancies, excluding hardware and software purchases, in 1989. The Home Office has budgeted to spend approximately £3,729,000 in the current year. The following contracts were awarded to management and computer consultants in 1989:
  558

  ABT Books Inc.

  Provision of Seminar

  Admiral

  Accounting and Financial Management Information System

  Admiral

  Computerised Course Control Project

  Admiral

  Technical Assurance

  Barton

  Fee for Membership of PNC Board

  Batalas

  Quality Assurance

  BBN

  Drugs Unit Experiment System

  BIS

  Government Network Security

  BIS

  Magistrates Court Contingency Planning

  BIS

  LAFIS—Local Authority Financial Information System

  BIS

  Structured Cabling

  BIS Applied Systems

  BASIS Stores System

  Bransom

  Development of Batch Retrieval Programs

  British Print Federation

  Review of Production Control Procedures

  CACI

  Household Occupancy re. Public Protection

  Captain Hannant

  Standard System for Control of Police Aviation

  Clark, Neville

  Consultancy on Quality Systems

  Claymore Services Ltd.

  Provision of INFOMAP (Police Mapping Package) tutorial days

  Clayton, J. K.

  Review of Voluntary Effort in Civil Defence

  Cogitaire

  Review of Information Desk Computer Network Systems Requirement

  Computer Sciences (CSC)

  Network Design

  Computer Sciences (CSC)

  PNC2—Interim network

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Review of the Suitability and Performance of PIMIS in the Glasgow and Liverpool Passport Offices

  Data Logic

  Improved Man/Machine Interface For the Holmes (major enquiry) Project

  Data Logic

  Local Area Network Strategy

  Datasolve

  Technical Support for PNC2

  Daton Systems

  Help Desk Consultancy

  DBI Associates

  General Consultancy Support

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Warehousing and Distribution Study

  559

  DLP Consultancy

  Feasibility Study into Capacity Building and Networking of Voluntary Organisations

  Dowty

  Fire Brigade Mobilisation communications

  Eosys

  Police National Network

  Ernst and Young

  Automatic Fingerprint Recognition Requirement

  Ernst and Young

  A Review of the Management and Funding of the Community Transport's Central Administration Unit

  Ewbank Reece

  Microwave Communications

  Grafton

  Provision of Staff for Application Development Team

  Iliffe, A. Esq.

  Production of Selection Test Item Block

  ISL

  Finance Information System

  JSB Computer Systems

  POLINDEX—Animal Experiment Index

  Kermon Associates

  HOUSE—Strategic UNIX Project

  Kermon Associates

  Procurement Workshop

  Kermon Associates

  Project Management

  Lawrence and Lawrence

  PNC Board Member/Attendance at Committees

  Leicester Polytechnic

  Criminal Statistics Profiling

  Logica

  Fire Brigade Mobilisation and Control

  Logica

  Suspect Index

  Management Exchange, The

  Project Management Course for PRSU Police Officers

  McDonald Associates

  Design of Counselling Training Modules

  National Centre for Information Technology

  Production of an Advisory Booklet to Police Forces

  Oracle

  Commissioning and Configuration of SRDB's Oracle Accounting System

  Oracle

  Further Tailoring work of SRDB's Accounting Software

  Oracle

  Magistrate's Courts' Standard Specification

  PA

  Police National Computer Replacement Project

  PA

  Project Management

  PA Consulting

  Data flows in the CJS

  PA Consulting

  Management Review of Forensic Science Service

  PA Consulting

  Prison Service Organisation Review

  560

  PA Consulting

  Provision of Project Support Office Staff

  Paradis

  Fingerprint Imagery

  PE Inbucon

  Issue of TV Licenses and Saving Stamps by the Post Office

  Philo, G. Esq.

  Drafting Management Selection Exercise

  Price Waterhouse

  Options for the Privatisation of the Terrestrial Transmission Service in the United Kingdom

  REDE

  Quality Assurance Programme

  Recognition Research

  Recognition Research

  St. George's Medical School

  TICTAC—Pill Identification

  S D Europe

  Study into Police Use of Aircraft

  Skills With People

  Overview of Four Race Relations Projects

  Smith Associates

  Study into the Evalution of Maintenance Options

  Smith Associates

  Evaluation of Tender Responses

  Software AG

  Technical Management

  Software Services

  Immigration Service Intelligence Unit

  Sopwell House

  Subsidiary fees for ABT Books

  Sudbury Consultants

  Leadership Training

  System Assurance

  Security Review

  Touche Ross

  Financial and Management Accountancy System

  Touche Ross

  Police National Computer Replacement Project

  Touche Ross

  Management Accounting System

  Touche Ross

  Management Information Strategy

  Touche Ross

  Professional Advice in Project Management

  Touche Ross

  Strategy Study

  TSC Limited

  Software Support for Operational Development

  University of Aberdeen

  EFIT—Face Recognition

  Watts, Reginald

  Marketing of Fire Service College

  Yale Data

  HOUSE—Strategic UNIX Project

  Yale Data

  Feasibility Study

  Overseas Travel
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many People travelled overseas for the years ended September 1988 and September 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.
  561
  It is estimated that United Kingdom residents made 28·1 million trips abroad in the year ending September 1988 and 30·8 million trips in the year ending September 1989.

ENVIRONMENT

  Coventry City Council
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an investigation into the conduct of the Coventry city council housing committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to intervene.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that there is no use of undue or illegal pressure on tenants of Coventry city council in relation to their right to determine whether to transfer to alternative landlords.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to intervene.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the conduct of Coventry city council in relation to its tenants and the prospective establishment of housing associations; what response he has made; and if he will bring forward proposals for legislative powers to allow investigation of alleged malpractice in respect of the provisions for enabling local authority tenants to transfer to other landlords.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: It has been suggested to me that Coventry city council is opposed to its tenants exercising tenants' choice. Alternative landlords under tenants' choice are approved by the Housing Corporation in many areas of the country, including Coventry.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress Britain is making towards implementing the Montreal protocol on chlorofluorocarbon reductions.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 March 1990, c. 667]: I regret that my earlier reply incorrectly stated that the United Kingdom had reduced production and consumption of CFCs by 50 per cent. when the statement was true only in respect of consumption. Production has been significantly cut since 1986 but not yet by that much. The difference between reductions in production and consumption is largely accounted for by United Kingdom exports of CFCs and the fact that our trading partners have not been able to match our performance in the reduction of CFC consumption.

  Planning Policy Guidance Notes
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the new planning policy guidance notes to replace the existing PPG3, "Land for Housing".
  562
  Mr. Moynihan
  In the late spring or early summer.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each criterion used to assess the standard spending assessment for Kirklees council for the year 1990–91; how the appropriate level of Government grant is then calculated for each individual criterion; and what is the total amount of Government grant actually awarded to Kirklees council for each individual criterion.

  Mr. Chope
  The standard spending assessment (SSA) for Kirklees is calculated according to the formulae set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) approved by this House on 18 January. Revenue support grant is distributed so that all authorities, including Kirklees, could set a community charge of £278 (before the safety net and special grants) in 1990–91 if they and the authorities' precepting on the collection fund in their area spent at the level of their standard spending assessments. In addition to revenue support grant for 1990–91 Kirklees will receive £37 million or £132 per adult from the combined effect of the safety net and the special grant for low rateable value areas.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there are any community charge havens around the coast apart from Caldey Island.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The Caldey Island Bill, about to come before Parliament, would make residents of Caldey Island subject to the community charge.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of financial support towards revenue expenditure to be provided by central Government for the first year of the new local government finance system in England.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Central Government are providing over £15 billion of financial support towards revenue expenditure for the first year of the new system.

  In 1990–91 aggregate external finance of £23·1 billion will be provided to local government to finance local authority services in England. The redistributed proceeds of the new business rate pool will be £10·43 billion, while central Government are providing approximately £12·7 billion in financial support, made up of £9·4 billion of revenue support grant and £3·2 billion in specific grants.

  Central Government are also providing around £2 billion for community charge benefit in England, which is in addition to the £0·4 billion cost (estimated on an England only basis) of the once-for-all uprating of income support in April 1989 to provide help towards the remaining portion of the charge. Local authorities are to be reimbursed in full for the cost of transitional relief, which in England in 1990–91 will be £350 million (part of the £810 million the Government will provide in the first three years of the new system).

  Help will be provided towards councils' administrative costs for the transitional relief scheme amounting in 1990–91 to £21 million.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet made regulations relating to the use of new economic development power for local authorities in section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
  563
  Mr. David Hunt
  I recognise the important role that local authorities have to play in this area. Local authorities have been invaluable in supporting start-up businesses where venture capital from the private sector could be less readily obtainable.

  I know of many examples of existing good practice in economic development by local authorities, in many cases working with central Government or European Commission programmes. Regulations will ensure that local authorities' proposals are well-targeted and used in an effective and sensible way.

  I have now laid before Parliament the Local Government (Promotion of Economic Development) Regulations 1990. The power for local authorities to take steps for the promotion of economic development came into force on 1 April 1990. Where local authorities choose to use their existing powers to promote economic development the regulations will not apply until 1 July 1990. Transitional provisions are also included for commitments entered into before 1 April 1990.

  Section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provides a general power for local authorities to take steps for promoting the economic development of their area. It specifies a wide range of activities that a local authority can undertake for that purpose, but without prejudice to the generality of the power. The power also will enable local authorities to make grants to voluntary bodies to assist in the task of promoting economic development. However, there are certain activities that the Government consider are not appropriate for local authorities:

  Local authorities will not, subject to certain important exceptions, themselves be able to undertake banking, investment business, insurance, estate agency, auditing, conveyancing, valuations, manufacturing or trading (regulation 5). They will, however, be able to assist others to do so.

  There is no geographical restriction other than that on the power to give grants, loans and financial guarantees to undertakings conducted with a view to a profit, but only where that assistance exceeds £10,000 per annum to any one business (regulation 7). Where it does exceed that level the power to give such assistance is limited to those authorities in parts of the country which already receive some form of central Government priority, or where they form part of a travel-to-work-area with above average unemployment.

  The regulations contain no restrictions on the giving of grants or subsidies to trainees or to the providers of training. However, with effect from 1 April 1991, the provision of training or education services by local authorities that are not education authorities, other than for their own members or employees, must be in line with a broad programme of such services agreed with the education authorities (regulation 8(2)). This will prevent conflict or unnecessary duplication of effort between authorities.

  Direct wage subsidies to commercial undertakings are not permitted (regulation 6(2)) but there are specific exemptions. These cover grants towards the cost of employing persons who have been unemployed immediately before becoming employed by the grant recipient and grants towards the cost of employing trainees and those with particular skills. The regulations do not restrict such grants given as part of a central Government or European Commission scheme.
  564
  The regulations do not, otherwise, prevent the doing of anything connected with the provision of training facilities, the construction or maintenance of buildings or the management of any land in which the authority has an interest, the promotion of tourism or the provision of information to the public (regulation 5(2)).

  Separate regulations will be made covering the procedures for the notification to the European Commission of local authority aid to industry under articles 92–94 of the treaty of Rome. Those regulations will not come into force before 1 July 1990.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on community charge liability for seafarers and offshore workers.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend on 21 March 1990 at column 660.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total budgeted local government expenditure in England and Wales for 1990–91; and how much of this will be raised by(a) the community charge, (b) the uniform business rate and (c) Government grant;

  (2) what was the total budgeted local government expenditure in 1989–90 for England and Wales; and how much of this was raised by (a) domestic rates, (b) non-domestic rates and (c) rate support grant.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Total budgeted local government expenditure in 1989–90 for England is £29,564 million. Domestic rate income, non-domestic rate income, and rate support grant are £9,679 million, £9,680 million, and £9,577 million, respectively. Total budgeted expenditure for all English authorities in 1990–91 is not yet available. Information relating to Welsh local authorities is a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Residuary Body, London
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many buildings have been in the ownership of the London residuary body since the abolition of the Greater London council; how many of these have been sold to sitting tenants; how many have been transferred to the local borough council; how many have been transferred to Bromley borough council for onward sale; and what has happened to each of the remaining buildings.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Around 7,000 properties or managed units were vested in the London residuary body on abolition of the Greater London council. Without a case-by-case examination of all transactions, the number of sales to sitting tenants cannot be estimated. Some 550 properties have been transferred to borough councils and a further 50 to other public authorities. Schedule 2 to the London Residuary Body (Transfer of Property etc.) Order 1990 lists properties to be vested in the London borough of Bromley provided they had not already been disposed of when the order came into force on 29 March, and schedule 3 to the same order lists properties that have not otherwise been disposed of to be retained by the London residuary body.

  Sewerage
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many short sea outfalls known to his Department discharge untreated sewage into the sea around the coast of England.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are 344 short outfalls—those less than 500m in length—in England which discharge to coastal or estuarial waters. At most of these sewage is discharged either with no treatment or with screening of gross solids only.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be publishing the results of his research into the survival of viruses in sewage-polluted bathing waters.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The research project by WRC on rotaviruses in sewage discharges is proceeding satisfactorily and we expect to receive the final report of the study shortly.

  Complaints
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the last 10 years (a) the number of complaints made against his Department to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, (b) the number of complaints upheld and (c) the action he took on (b).

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The number of complaints(a) made and (b) upheld for the last 10 years is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  Complaints made

  Complaints upheld

  1989–90

  1

  1

  1988–89

  51

  11

  1987–88

  64

  1

  1986–87

  57

  2

  1985–86

  47

  1

  1984–85

  53

  1

  1983–84

  44

  4

  1982–83

  63

  3

  1981–82

  57

  4

  1980–81

  70

  5

  1 Figures not yet available.

  When the PCA upholds a complaint it is departmental practice to provide an appropriate remedy.

  EPOCH
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made in the European Communities climatology and natural hazards research programme; and how many institutions from the United Kingdom currently participate in EPOCH.

  Mr. Trippier
  The European Communities climatology and natural hazards research programme EPOCH runs for four years from its adoption on 20 November 1989. The European Commission has invited research proposals which are still undergoing selection with the advice of member states; it is not yet possible to say how many United Kingdom institutions will participate.

  Association of London Authorities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings he has had with the chairman of the environment committee of the Association of London Authorities; and if he has any plans for a meeting.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no such meetings recently and has no plans for any. However, he is always willing to consider any representations the association may wish to put forward about environmental issues.

  Low-level Waste, Warrington
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the reasons notified to him as to why certain low-level radioactive wastes are being deposited at Arpley meadows, Warrington, rather than at Drigg.

  Mr. Trippier
  The proposals made comply with the criteria published in "Radioactive Substances Act 1960, A Guide to the Administration of the Act", as suitable for disposal at landfill sites other than Drigg. I remain satisfied that such disposals are safe.

  Fisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking over the agrochemicals company Fisons in respect of damage to(a) over 60 acres of peat bog at Thorne moors and Hatfield moor near Doncaster and (b) 62 acres on the north-west of Thorne moors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that:

  (a) The incident of damage to some 62 acres of peat bog occurred some two years ago. Contrary to recent media reports, the NCC has resolved the issue by discussion with Fisons plc. Negotiations to establish a nature reserve agreement over an area of land with the required potential for restoration are under way.

  (b) Fisons plc is operating on Thorne moors with the benefit of planning consent. The NCC and Fisons plc have made considerable progress towards an agreed plan of working and restoration methods to be used. It would be a matter of considerable regret if precipitate action by either party should jeopardise this dialogue.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what applications for import licences have been received in respect of ivory exported from Zaire in June 1988 by Mr. Shiraz Virji of Ealing.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has received no such applications.

  European Environment Agency
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made in setting up the European Communities European Environment Agency; and what communications he has received from the chairman of the European Parliament's Environment Committee on the scope of the agency.
  567
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Amendments put forward by the European Parliament to the draft regulation on setting up the European Environment Agency were to a large extent agreed at the Environment Council on 22 March 1990, including a proposal to review the future scope of the agency in two years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment met the chairman of the European Parliament's Environment Committee on 20 February and the scope of the agency was fully discussed. It is hoped that the regulation will be formally adopted at the next Environment Council this June.

  Most member states have offered to host the agency's headquarters. The United Kingdom has nominated Cambridge as an ideal site but a decision on location has yet to be made.

  Water Pollution Reports
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in his departmental library copies of research reports 1 to 11 in the water pollution report series of the European Commission's environment research programme within Directorate-General XII.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  These reports contain proceedings of a number of technical workshops organised by the European Commission under its environmental protection research programme and have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Environment Research
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial or other resource commitment the United Kingdom has made towards the newly founded European environmental research organisation.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. It is our view that the European Environmental Research Organisation, which has very broad aims, should work within the framework of existing national and international bodies.

  MIRAGE
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role is played by(a) his Department and (b) United Kingdom scientists in the European Communities MIRAGE programme on the migration of radionuclides in the environment; and what benefits are expected to accrue from this programme for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department contributes to United Kingdom participation in the MIRAGE programme. United Kingdom scientists carry out research as part of this programme leading to an improved understanding of the mechanism and processes that control the migration of radionuclides in the geosphere.

  EC Director-General (Environment)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Director-General for the Environment (DG-XI) of the European Commission; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Director-General for the Environment (DG-XI) was present at the meeting of the Environment Council which my right hon. Friend 568
  attended on 22 March. The outcome of the discussions was reported in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 27 March.

  Council House Sales, Norwich
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further information he has on the determinations of the district valuer on council house sales in Norwich and the prices quoted by Norwich city council to update the information given in his written answer to the hon. Member for Norwich, North of 13 February,Official Report, column 186.

  Mr. Chope
  In the three months to 31 March, the district valuer made 36 determinations of value under section 128 of the Housing Act 1985 on the application of tenants of Norwich city council. The value determined was lower than the council's opinion of value in 33 cases by an average of £4,204 or 8 per cent. and the same in three cases.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of European Council directive 87/217/EEC on asbestos in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  As regards emissions to air, the Control of Asbestos in the Air Regulations 1990, which come into force on 5 April, give statutory force to the emission limit contained in the directive and impose a general duty not to cause significant environmental pollution by asbestos. All industrial plants involving the use of asbestos, as defined in the directive, are already subject to control by the relevant national air pollution inspectorates.

  The statutory powers necessary to secure compliance with the directive's requirements on discharges of asbestos to water are contained in the effluent discharge requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Trade Effluent (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1989.

  The disposal of waste containing asbestos is controlled according to the directive's requirements by the site licence system under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988 and the Control of Pollution (Special Wastes) Regulations 1980, and by the containment and labelling requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987.

  The directive is being implemented through parallel legislation in Northern Ireland.

  Council of Environment Ministers
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the European Council of Environment Ministers on 22 March.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 27 March at columns 117–18.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures on the arrears of rent outstanding to each local housing authority in England.
  569
  Mr. Chope
  I have today arranged for this information to be placed in the Library.

  Waste Damage (Civil Liability)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received a copy of the European Commission proposal for a Council directive on civil liability for damage caused by waste, COM (89) 282 Final Syn 217; and what consideration has been given to the proposals.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: The Secretary of State received a copy of the draft European Commission proposal in late September 1989. The Government's initial consideration was incorporated in an explanatory memorandum put before Parliament on 27 October 1989.

  Environmental Education
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department makes to the Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: The Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe (FEE Europe) is a voluntary organisation based in Holland. As a result my Department does not contribute to it.

  Toxic Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any notification from Leigh Environmental Ltd. for the development of a toxic waste disposal facility at Todmorden in the Pennines.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: The Secretary of State has received no such notification. It is initially for the appropriate local planning authority to consider any application for the development of a waste disposal facility.

  College Green (Demonstration)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to whom, for what purpose and for how long he has granted permission to people to mount a demonstration on College Green.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Permission was given to four people to hold a protest against the community charge on Abingdon street gardens during park opening hours (5 am until midnight) from 9 am on 26 March until noon on 31 March.

  EC Environmental Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the European Council of Environment Ministers last discussed progress in implementation of the fourth environmental action programme; and what matters remain outstanding in the programme.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 30 March 1990]: On 19 October 1987 the Council of Ministers agreed a resolution on the European Community's fourth environmental action programme, which emphasised the importance of
  570
  concentrating on certain priority areas. Since then Ministers have not specifically discussed the action programme, but all the priority areas have been addressed in meetings of the Environment Council.

  Tourist Information
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reviews his Department is undertaking in respect of privatising local authorities' tourist information points; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department is not undertaking any such reviews.

  Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the transitional arrangements for occupational pensions of employees of the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers which will apply between the date of sale and the provision to be made by the new employers.

  Mr. Chope
  Occupational pension schemes will be effective from the date of sale or the start of trading as a wholly-owned Government company, as appropriate. The staff will be asked whether they wish to join the relevant scheme, and if so, whether they wish to transfer to it any benefits they have accrued in the principal civil service pension scheme.

  Water Privatistion
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the administrative costs of the sale of the 10 water public limited companies.

  Mr. Trippier
  The costs to the Government in 1989–90 of the water share offers are estimated to be as follows:

  £ million

  United Kingdom offers

  Underwriting

  33·2

  Selling and broking commission

  6·7

  Marketing

  17·5

  Share information office

  7·2

  Prospectus production and distribution

  11·5

  Receiving banks

  17·7

  Advisers' fees

  18·7

  Total (United Kingdom offers)

  112·5

  Overseas offers

  15·4

  Total (United Kingdom and overseas offers)

  127·9

  These costs represent about 2·5 per cent. of the proceeds from the sale of shares in the water share offers, which are estimated at £5,113 million. The costs exclude stamp duty and VAT on services provided to the Government which are not net costs to the Exchequer.

  The figures above also exclude the overall net capital injection into the plcs of £1,499 million, as explained by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in reply to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 26 October 1989 and the costs incurred in earlier years which totalled £6 million (excluding VAT) as provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reply to the

  571
  question from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 12 March 1990, Official Report, column 103.

WALES

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure, including for privatisation, of his Department and public bodies for which his Department has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department's records show expenditure on its own promotional material in 1979–80 as £85,000. The estimated expenditure in 1989–90 is £2,169,000.

  Promotional expenditure by the Welsh Office

  Year

  Radio advertising

  Television advertising

  Newpaper advertising

  Other

  £

  £

  £

  1979–80

  Nil

  61,000

  24,000

  1980–81

  Nil

  62,000

  22,000

  1981–82

  Nil

  100,000

  44,000

  1982–83

  Nil

  99,000

  28,000

  1983–84

  Nil

  108,000

  34,000

  1984–85

  Nil

  66,000

  100,000

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  31,000

  92,000

  1986–87

  Nil

  27,000

  49,000

  331,000

  1987–88

  Nil

  39,000

  191,000

  615,000

  1988–89

  Nil

  64,000

  112,000

  1,105,000

  1989–90

  Nil

  57,000

  354,000

  1,758,000

  The total provision for promotional expenditure in 1990–91 is £2,772,000.

  HIV Infection
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the last five years by health authority (a) the total number of people who are HIV positive as the result of contaminated blood transfusions and (b) the number of haemophiliacs who are HIV positive as the result of contaminated blood transfusions.

  Mr. Grist
  No. For reasons of confidentiality, the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 requires health authorities to report cases numbering between one and nine (inclusive) as "less than 10". In Wales, the number of those infected by contaminated blood transfusion is small and to publish in the form requested could lead to the identification of individuals.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any patients in Wales have become ill as a result of drinking water containing nitrates at levels above that specified in EEC directives.

  Mr. Grist
  No information is collected either by the Department or by district health authorities which would identify whether patients in Wales have become ill as a result of drinking water containing nitrates. The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 1147) incorporate the EC limits relating to nitrates and I am not aware of any case of excess being reported.
  572
  Planned expenditure on publicity by public bodies for which my Department is responsible was about £8 million in 1989–90. Comparable figures for 1979–80 are not available.

  The Department contributed to the cost of the sale of the 10 water authorities in 1989. The overall costs of this sale have been outlined in a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 March 1990, c. 14-16]: The table sets out corrected information:

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether there has been any cases in Wales whereby hepatitis E has been contracted from faecally-infected drinking water.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Cardiac Technicians
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will meet representatives of cardiac technicians to discuss their role in health provision in Wales;

  (2) what information he has on the relative pay levels of cardiac technicians in each district health authority in Wales;

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the pay of cardiac technicians; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  An agreement was reached last year in the professional and technical "B" Whitley council for the introduction by 1 April 1990 of a single pay and grading system for a number of technician groups including cardiac technicians. As an interim measure, from 1 September 1989 cardiac technicians will have been automatically transferred, on the basis of their existing grades and pay codes to a new common pay spine ranging from £4,743 to £14,223. Employing authorities are currently reviewing the posts of all staff concerned in order to assign them to grades in the new structure by 1 April 1990. This review enables management to take account of the individual requirements of the different technician groups with the result that pay levels within each district authority will vary according to the needs of their own
  573
  services. No representations have been received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this connection and I have no information about grading decisions taken by health authorities in Wales. I would consider that a meeting with representatives of cardiac technicians would be of relatively little value at the present time.

  Hospices
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospices there are in Wales; and what plans he has to increase the number of hospices in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  There is one voluntary hospice in Wales providing in-patient care and one joint NHS-charitable trust continuing care unit for the terminally ill. Additionally, there are four organisations providing services in the community for terminally ill people and their families. Plans for expansion of this type of care are for individual health authorities and the voluntary sector.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Sales of Local Authority and New Town dwellings to sitting tenants Wales

  Number

  1980

  2,080

  1981

  8,810

  1982

  16,361

  1983

  9,337

  1984

  5,815

  1985

  5,711

  1986

  5,455

  1987

  5,710

  1988

  9,623

  1989

  12,793

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will update the figures given in his reply of 16 November 1989,Official Report, column 462, on council house stocks and sales, to the latest available date.

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

  Sales of local authority dwellings May 1979 to December 1989

  Estimates of local authority stock April 19891

  Aberconwy

  1,614

  2,826

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,682

  5,213

  Arfon

  1,295

  5,015

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,119

  10,422

  Brecknock

  1,360

  2,834

  Cardiff

  7,366

  20,168

  Carmarthen

  1,185

  3,554

  Ceredigion

  1,371

  3,475

  Colwyn

  839

  2,631

  Cynon Valley

  1,346

  5,351

  Delyn

  1,719

  4,750

  Dinefwr

  785

  2,590

  Dwyfor

  339

  1,461

  Glyndwr

  1,172

  2,984

  Islwyn

  3,532

  6,128

  574

  Sales of local authority dwellings May 1979 to December 1989

  Estimates of local authority stock April 19891

  Llanelli

  3,131

  6,946

  Lliw Valley

  1,655

  5,203

  Meirionnydd

  846

  2,080

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,117

  6,863

  Monmouth

  2,183

  4,963

  Montgomeryshire2

  1,353

  2,973

  Neath

  2,234

  5,653

  Newport

  4,044

  13,253

  Ogwr

  4,274

  9,756

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  3,308

  6,110

  Preseli

  2,112

  5,829

  Radnorshire

  536

  1,171

  Rhondda

  636

  4,995

  Rhuddlan

  844

  2,722

  Rhymney Valley

  3,363

  10,117

  South Pembrokeshire

  897

  2,873

  Swansea

  3,618

  17,382

  Taff-Ely

  3,609

  7,535

  Torfaen3

  6,112

  13,724

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,266

  6,209

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,022

  16,096

  Ynys Mon

  1,471

  5,732

  Wales

  82,355

  237,587

  1 Revised. District stock estimates are only available at 1 April

  2 Excludes dwellings in Newtown

  3 Includes dwellings in Cwmbran. Records of sales in Cwmbran are only available since 31 March 1980.

  Self-employed Persons
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the number of self-employed persons in Wales; what were the corresponding figures for 1980 and 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In September 1989 there were estimated to be 192,000 self-employed persons in Wales. The corresponding figures for September 1980 and September 1985 were 118,000 and 148,000 respectively.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of Government funding methods which involve housing associations finding a portion of their cash in the private sector on the median rents in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The rent levels of housing provided under mixed funding is a matter for individual housing associations. Mixed funding, which was pioneered in Wales, has enabled Welsh housing associations to provide a record number of additional homes for people in need this year.

  European Commissioner for Regional Development
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has met the European Commissioner for Regional Development.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I met Commissioner Millan as part of the discussions on the eligibility for EC aid of industrial areas. My officials regularly visit the regional policy directorate in Brussels.

  Dampness (Housing)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to tackle dampness in houses in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Dampness which is prejudicial to health could render a house unfit. The current home improvement grant arrangements provide help towards the cost of dealing with severe dampness. Under the new renovation grant arrangements which replace this system on 1 July mandatory grant will be available to enable properties to meet the fitness standard. The new arrangements will ensure that maximum assistance goes to those in greatest need.

  Teachers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what were the number of head teachers and deputy head teachers in Wales resigning or opting for early retirement in each year from 1985 to 1989;

  (2) what were the numbers of mid-career school teachers resigning in each year from 1985 to 1989.

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

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to meet teachers from Wales to discuss their salary levels.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Responsibility for teachers' pay rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is currently undertaking consultation on the recommendation of the interim advisory committee report on school teachers' pay and conditions for 1990–91.

  A55 Expressway
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the estimated completion dates on each of the sections of the A55 expressway currently under construction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  The contract completion dates on each of the sections of the A55 north Wales coast road currently under construction are:

  Date

  A55 Travellers Inn improvement

  October 1990

  A55 Conwy crossing

  August 1991

  A55 Pen-y-Clip

  November 1993

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the earliest date for the completion of the Conwy A55 expressway tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  As stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 2 April 1990 the contractual date for the completion of the A55 Conwy crossing is August 1991. Progress to date has been good with five of the six tunnel units in place. The bypassing of Llandudno junction is expected later this year.

  Examinations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people sat(a) GCSE and (b) A level examinations in (i) politics, (ii) British constitution and (iii) political history in 1989.

  Mr. Roberts
  A total of 332 candidates sat GCSE and 279 sat A-level WJEC examinations in politics and government in 1989. The WJEC does not offer separate examinations in British constitution or political history. No information is available centrally on other candidates in Wales who sat examinations set by other examination boards.

  School Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which(a) infants schools, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools have closed in Wales in each of the last 10 years in each local education authority.

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

  Art Colleges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the art colleges of Wales; and what is the cost to the Exchequer and local government of educating a student at art college who completes the course.

  Mr. Roberts
  There are no monotechnic art colleges in Wales. Courses in art are available at the following institutions:

  South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  Gwent College of Higher Education

  West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  North East Wales Institute of Higher Education

  Carmarthenshire College of Technology and Art

  Llandrillo Technical College

  Gwynedd Technical College

  Coleg Powys

  Pembrokeshire College of Further Education

  Crosskeys Tertiary College

  Pontypool Tertiary College

  Ebbw Vale Further Education College

  Newport Further Education College

  Pontypridd Technical College

  Bridgend College of Technology

  Ystrad Mynach College of Further Education

  Merthyr Technical College

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  Barry College of Further Education

  Afan Tertiary College

  Gorseinon Tertiary College

  Neath Tertiary College

  Swansea Tertiary College

  Information on the cost of individual art courses is not available centrally.

  High Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the high schools he has visited in Wales.

  Mr. Roberts
  Since September 1988 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I have visited 11 maintained secondary schools in Wales.

  I hope to visit a further three maintained secondary schools during this school year.

  Parent-governors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales it he will list the number of parent-governors of local education authority schools he has met.

  Mr. Roberts
  Welsh Office Ministers regularly meet parent-governors during official and constituency engagements.

  Porthcawl Town Council
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish any recent correspondence he has received from Porthcawl town council about Dunraven Court flats.

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

  Flood Damage
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if expenditure on financial assistance to farmers whose land has been affected by sea water will require access to the Contingencies Fund.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes. As I announced on 14 March, parliamentary approval for this exceptional measure will be sought in a revised estimate for the agricultural services, etc. Wales vote (class XVI, vote 2). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £150,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what spending increases Welsh local authorities have budgeted for 1990–91; whether he intends to use his powers to limit the charges set by any Welsh authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today made a statement about charge limitation in England. He indicated the criteria used to decide whether to designate authorities. Similar criteria have been adopted for Wales; under those criteria, no Welsh authorities are selected for designation.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House tables showing the spending decisions of each county and district council, its community charge and associated information. Collectively Welsh local government has in this first year of the new system decided to set budgets which exceed the settlement by over £100 million. The result is that the community charge will average £232, rather than the £173 which I consider would have been necessary to maintain existing service levels and meet unavoidable new pressures.

  There is a considerable variation in the position of individual authorities. While some have had the good sense to moderate their spending increases, to the great advantage of their charge payers, a number have decided on spending increases which are unnecessarily high and impose significant extra burdens on their charge payers. Councils which have imposed unnecessarily high charges will now have to account to their charge payers for their decisions. It is for Welsh charge payers to seek explanations for these high spending increases: it is for then to judge whether the explanations they are given are acceptable.
  578
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number of people in Wales who will become eligible for a community charge rebate following the rise in the capital disregard to £16,000.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available. Sufficient data are not available to provide a reliable estimate for Wales only.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: We estimate that our expenditure on management and computer consultancies in the financial year 1989–90 will be £434,650. Details of those consultancies awarded in that year are as follows:

  Firm

  Subject of Assignment

  South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  Review of Mudiad yr Meithrin (MYM)

  Price Waterhouse

  Management arrangements at the Polytechnic of Wales Training Needs Analysis Option appraisal of arrangements for the provision of nurse education in Wales

  Peat, Marwick and McLintock

  Review of the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal

  Ernst and Young

  Setting up and launch of Welsh Health Planning Forum Final Performance Test on new finance computer

  Leslie Hayes Consultancies Ltd.1

  Evaluation of Regional Enterprise Grant (REG)

  Deloittes

  Review of cancer treatment service in North Wales

  Touche Ross

  Management Review of NHS Directorate

  Wales and South West Regional Research Laboratories

  IT strategy for the Department's Social Services Inspectorate

  BIS Ltd.

  Feasibility study into IT strategy for Welsh Office Agriculture Department

  Budgets for 1990–91 have yet to be finalised.
  1 Jointly commissioned by DTI, Scottish Office and Welsh Office.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Force Survey
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, from Labour Force survey evidence for the years 1984 to 1989, by male, married
  579
  female and non-married female, the number of people in Great Britain classed as economically inactive according to ILO/OECD definitions in each of the categories (i) student, (ii) long-term sick or disabled, (iii) looking after family/home, (iv) retired from paid work, (v) believes no jobs available, and (vi) any other reason, by whether they stated they would like a regular paid job at the moment

  Economically inactive (ILO definition) persons aged 16 or over—time series1 Great Britain, Spring each year

  Thousands

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Men

  Married women3

  Non-married women4

  Men

  Married women3

  Non-married women4

  Men

  Married women3

  Non-married women4

  Would like work, available to start within 2 weeks, of which:

  427

  605

  273

  402

  621

  236

  457

  623

  240

  Student

  38

  6—

  34

  35

  6—

  29

  38

  6—

  33

  Long-term sick or disabled

  65

  25

  18

  58

  19

  17

  68

  25

  20

  Looking after family/home

  6—

  419

  78

  10

  448

  88

  13

  441

  90

  Retired from paid work

  82

  25

  23

  92

  36

  22

  100

  38

  21

  Believes no jobs available

  114

  64

  37

  122

  50

  38

  140

  42

  29

  Other inactive5

  120

  68

  94

  84

  67

  43

  96

  77

  46

  Would like work, not available to start within 2 weeks, of which:

  374

  472

  273

  356

  402

  254

  361

  388

  251

  Student

  114

  6—

  97

  129

  6—

  103

  106

  6—

  96

  Long-term sick or disabled

  138

  59

  35

  105

  43

  28

  119

  38

  28

  Looking after family/home

  15

  325

  84

  12

  267

  71

  16

  254

  80

  Retired from paid work

  6—

  6—

  6—

  16

  6—

  6—

  11

  6—

  6—

  Believes no jobs available

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Other inactive5

  94

  75

  53

  89

  77

  45

  105

  84

  41

  Would not like work, of which:

  4,140

  5,489

  4,140

  4,238

  5,521

  4,214

  4,337

  5,477

  4,213

  Student

  544

  18

  443

  461

  22

  385

  488

  28

  346

  Long-term sick or disabled

  532

  239

  158

  527

  233

  155

  528

  224

  168

  Looking after family/home

  33

  2,513

  287

  37

  2,342

  273

  39

  2,290

  279

  Retired from paid work

  920

  390

  229

  985

  454

  234

  1,013

  451

  228

  Believes no jobs available

  32

  18

  18

  34

  17

  12

  49

  14

  12

  Other inactive5

  2,080

  2,310

  3,004

  2,195

  2,452

  3,155

  2,221

  2,470

  3,181

  Thousands

  1987

  1988

  21989

  Men

  Married women3

  Non-married women4

  Men

  Married women3

  Non-married women4

  Men

  Married women3

  Non-married women4

  Would like work, available to start within 2 weeks, of which:

  362

  568

  231

  370

  544

  224

  362

  495

  233

  Student

  41

  6—

  32

  43

  6—

  30

  31

  6—

  24

  Long-term sick or disabled

  68

  27

  16

  65

  34

  20

  78

  28

  26

  Looking after family/home

  13

  400

  100

  15

  394

  100

  12

  349

  105

  Retired from paid work

  92

  34

  26

  92

  34

  20

  106

  34

  26

  Believes no jobs available

  84

  35

  20

  71

  20

  18

  61

  22

  17

  Other inactive5

  94

  69

  38

  85

  59

  36

  72

  52

  33

  Would like work, not available to start within 2 weeks, of which:

  389

  382

  231

  392

  406

  251

  443

  458

  325

  Student

  117

  6—

  85

  108

  6—

  77

  122

  6—

  88

  Long-term sick or disabled

  116

  42

  30

  161

  60

  30

  164

  71

  46

  Looking after family/home

  16

  250

  76

  22

  253

  90

  21

  279

  114

  Retired from paid work

  16

  6—

  6—

  12

  6—

  6—

  15

  11

  6—

  Believes no jobs available

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Other inactive5

  116

  77

  35

  87

  82

  46

  119

  90

  68

  Would not like work, of which:

  4,445

  5,411

  4,263

  4,406

  5,298

  4,247

  4,335

  4,952

  4,198

  Student

  480

  27

  361

  447

  30

  347

  430

  31

  355

  Long-term sick or disabled

  607

  243

  173

  515

  272

  168

  634

  254

  175

  Looking after family/home

  39

  2,125

  279

  52

  2,014

  281

  46

  1,797

  300

  Retired from paid work

  1,044

  456

  232

  1,080

  467

  228

  1,059

  469

  218

  Believes no jobs available

  29

  15

  11

  27

  13

  6—

  23

  6—

  6—

  Other inactive5

  2,246

  2,545

  5,206

  2,185

  2,501

  3,214

  2,143

  2,395

  3,143

  1 Time series estimates, adjusted for cases where some information was not known.

  2 Preliminary estimates (1989 only).

  3 Includes those legally married and those who consider themselves to be married (1989 only). In earlier years marital status was based on self-assessment.

  4 Single, widowed, divorced or legally separated.
  580
  and were free to start work within two weeks, would like a regular paid job but were not free to start work within two weeks and would not like a regular paid job at the moment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates from labour force surveys, as requested, are shown in the following table:
  581
  5 Includes those on TOPS not working or seeking work, men aged 70 or over and women aged 65 or over, those who did not want/need employment, not yet started looking, other reasons and no reason given for not looking for work.

  6 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has conducted on assessment of the likely impact on the tourist trade of displaying danger signs on beaches where the water fails the European Economic Community pollution levels for safe bathing.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has not conducted any such assessment.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many basic inspection visits were paid by the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last five years to Shell Stanlow; and what precise qualifications the inspecting inspectors possessed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following table shows the number of preventive inspection visits paid by Health and Safety Executive inspectors to Shell Stanlow in each of the last five years.

  Year 1 January to 31 December

  Number of inspection visits

  1985

  6

  1986

  9

  1987

  6

  1988

  9

  1989

  17

  The formal qualifications held by the inspectors who carried out the inspections are: honours degrees in chemistry, special chemistry, applied chemistry and geology; master's degree in combustion and explosion, PhDs in kinetics, and polymer chemistry; post-graduate diplomas in occupational safety and health.

  In addition, during the same period, a total of 156 visits were paid to the site for other purposes, for example, to give advice, to check specific issues of compliance and to investigate accidents.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fully trained and qualified inspectors the Health and Safety Executive Bootle area office chemicals group currently has; and if he intends increasing their number in the fiscal year 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are seven trained inspectors with inspection responsibility for the chemical industry based in the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Merseyside area office. There are no immediate plans to increase this number, but HSE keeps the allocation of inspectors to area offices and industry groups under review.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many improvement and prohibition notices have been issued to Shell Chemicals at Stanlow, whole site, in the last five years by the Health and Safety Executive; and if any prosecutions for non-compliance with health and safety legislation have been initiated.
  582
  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has not issued any improvement or prohibition notices or initiated any prosecution against Shell Chemicals, Stanlow, in the last five years.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when Shell United Kingdom Ltd., Stanlow, submitted to the Health and Safety Executive the safety case required under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Shell, Stanlow, which includes Shell United Kingdom Ltd, submitted the first part of the Safety Report required under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on 3 March 1989. The fourth and final part was received by HSE on 7 July 1989.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Executive began examining the safety case submitted by Shell Stanlow; and when the Health and Safety Executive expects to complete its vetting and approval of the safety case.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) began examining the safety report submitted by Shell, Stanlow, in March 1989. This examination is continuing.

  HSE does not approve safety reports. They are used as working documents to aid future inspection.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing by standard category the unemployment levels in Greater Manchester at the latest available date and at the same period five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information contained in the following table is available from the Library.

  Unadjusted unemployment in Greater Manchester metropolitan county

  February

  Unemployed claimants

  1990

  94,368

  1985

  180,525

  1980

  73,558

  Note: Direct comparisons over time are affected by various changes to the count and in particular the change in October 1982 from a count of registrants at jobcentres to one of claimants at unemployment benefit offices.

  Hotels and Guest Houses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by tourist board area the latest information he has on the mean percentage change in charges by(a) hotel and (b) guest house owners following the introduction of the uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Wages Inspectors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report,, column 59, what was the number of wages inspectorate officers in the divisional offices with responsibility for Wales, by grade, for each year since 1979.

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

  Grade

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Senior executive officer

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Higher executive officer

  3

  3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  5

  5

  5

  Executive officer

  5

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  16

  18

  18

  Administrative officer

  4

  4

  5

  3

  2

  3

  3

  3

  10·5

  9·5

  7

  Administrative assistant

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  Typist

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  0·5

  TOTALS

  14

  13

  12

  10

  9

  11

  11

  10

  36·5

  36

  33·5

  Employment Training
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many filled employment training places there are in the borough of Ogwr; and what percentage this represents of the original departmental projections.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 9 March, the latest date for which information is available, there were 370 people on employment training in the borough of Ogwr. Departmental projections are for internal management purposes only.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure on the £10 employment training trainee allowance in December 1989 for the borough of Ogwr.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of unemployed receiving enterprise training within employment training between September 1988 and December 1989 for the borough of Ogwr.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available for the borough of Ogwr and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is to be the face value of the credits he announced for the pilots in youth training; and in which geographical areas the pilots will take place.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 27 March, I published a prospectus inviting training and enterprise councils to bid to run pilot schemes of training credits for young people. It will be for the councils in their bids to propose the face value of credits in their area. At this stage, however, I think it is unlikely that any credit would carry a value of less than £1,000.

  I will be looking for a geographical spread of pilots throughout Great Britain. The actual range will depend on the quality of bids received.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the level of expenditure on youth training.
  584
  Until 1987, wages inspection in Wales was administered from a divisional office in Cardiff and the table shows the number of staff based there.

  The Cardiff office closed in that year as part of a nationwide rationalisation of inspectorate offices. Responsibility for wages inspection in Wales transferred to Manchester and Bristol, but it is not administered separately from the other areas covered by those offices. The figures for 1987 to 1989 are, therefore, the totals employed at Manchester and Bristol in those years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Planned expenditure on YTS is set out in the Public Expenditure White Paper, a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend announced in a statement in the House on 27 March increases in expenditure for training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland to run pilot training credit schemes from April 1991 (Official Report, column 211).

  Second Languages
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has undertaken any recent research into the demand by employers for British employees to have a command of a second language.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has not undertaken any such recent research.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will explain how rule 8 of the rules governing acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants was applied from autumn 1988 to the three civil servants who are directors of Astra Training Services Ltd.; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether the rules on acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants applied to the three civil servants who are also directors of Astra Training Services Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Members of the management buyout team did not form a company and become directors of it until May 1989. This was after my right hon. Friend's statement to the House of 13 March 1989 about the privatisation of STA, in which he announced the existence of a management buyout team.

  The rules on acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants do not cover the particular circumstances of a management buyout; nevertheless—as I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 27 March—measures were taken in April 1989 to remove the three officers concerned from direct responsibility for sensitive decisions, well before they formed a company.
  585
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 27 March, why he is unable to provide the honourable Member for Bradford, South with the amount of fees and expenses paid to Deloittes and other advisers until summer 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member on 27 March at column 158. Total fees and expenses paid to all advisers from the start of the feasibility study in December 1988 up to 26 March 1990 were £514,850. This figure excludes VAT.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the grades and range of duties of the three civil servants forming Astra Training Services Ltd.

  Mr. Eggar
  The duties and grades of the three civil servants are: head of skill centre operations grade 5, head of finance and accounting service grade 6, head of product development grade 6.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the investment in plant and machinery allowed for in the next financial year to each skill centre being purchased by Astra Training Services Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The plans made by Astra Training Services Limited for those parts of the Skills Training Agency they will purchase include investment of over £11 million in the first three years of operation. The precise details of their intended investment is a matter for Astra.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the price to be paid by Astra Training Services Ltd. for the training college at Letchworth; why it is to be relocated at Milton Keynes; what is to happen to the existing premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have agreed terms of sale with Astra Training Services Limited covering 46 skillcentres, together with the Skills Training Agency's head office, mobile training service, sales teams and colleges, and involving a payment from the Government to Astra of some £l1 million. Any value Astra may have ascribed within the sale package to individual units such as the training college at Letchworth is a matter for them. It is Astra's decision to relocate the business to Milton Keynes. The existing premises at Letchworth will be offered for sale by the Government in due course.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who were the official advisers to the three civil servants who became directors of Astra Training Services Ltd. from autumn 1988; and who paid the fees involved.

  Mr. Eggar
  The three members of the management buyout (MBO) team who formed Astra Training Services Limited, appointed Coopers and Lybrand to advise on their bid for the Skills Training Agency and Irwin Mitchell to provide legal advice. As envisaged in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on 13 March last year (Official Report, column 23), the Government offered the MBO team financial assistance to make a bid. That assistance will be repayable to the Government when the sale is concluded, leaving Astra to finance the full cost of advisers' fees as part of the costs of the acquisition.

  Earnings
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average level of gross weekly earnings for(a) agricultural workers and (b) manual workers in the manufacturing industries in each year since 1979 in cash, constant prices and as a proportion of national average manual earnings.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information for Great Britain, on the average gross weekly earnings of full-time manual male adult employees by industry in April of each year, is published in table 4 of part A of the annual new earnings survey reports, copies of which are in the Library. Information on the retail price index (all items) to deflate the cash figures to constant prices is published for April of each year in table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average number of hours worked weekly by(a) agricultural workers and (b) manual workers in the manufacturing industries in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information for Great Britain on average weekly hours worked in April of each year by full-time manual male adult employees, by industry, is published in table 4 of part A of the annual new earnings survey reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Child Care Allowance
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many single parents are on each Government training scheme; how many single parents on those schemes take up the child care allowance available; what is the total annual cost of the child care allowances scheme; and what is the estimated cost of providing child care allowance on training schemes for all married women who could potentially enter those schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information about the number of single parents on training schemes run by the Training Agency is not available. Only single parents on employment training may claim child care allowances. At the end of December 1989, the latest date for which information is available, about 3 per cent. of all trainees on employment training were receiving child care allowances at an estimated annual cost for 1989–90 of £l5 million. An estimate of the cost of providing child care allowances for all married women on training schemes could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled People (Employment Review)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department originally commissioned the ministerial review on employment services for people with disabilities; when his Department originally intended to publish the review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: The review of services provided by my Department for the employment of people with disabilities was commissioned in March

  587
  1988. It was always intended that the results would only be published after a thorough consideration of all the issues concerned.

  As announced in my reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 12 March 1990 (Official Report, column 135], the preparation of the consultative document which will give the results of the review is almost complete. It will be published as soon as account can be taken in it of the results of the survey of people with disabilities in the labour market which my Department has commissioned. We currently anticipate that this will be during the course of June 1990.

DEFENCE

  Weapons Projects
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons development procurement projects have exceeded their original estimates by more than 10 per cent.; and what is the total amount of overspend involved.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons development procurement projects have exceeded their original estimates by more than 10 per cent.; and what is the total amount of overspend involved.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons development procurement projects have exceeded their original estimates by more than 10 per cent.; and what is the total amount of overspend involved.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons development procurement projects have exceeded their original estimates by more than 10 per cent.; and what is the total amount of overspend involved.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Three major weapons projects currently in development or production have, in real terms, exceeded their original estimate by more than 10 per cent.; the total amount involved, in current prices, is £383 million.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the proposed pull-out of Soviet forces from Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the proposed pull-out of Soviet forces from Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the proposed pull-out of Soviet forces from Czechoslovakia.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the proposed pull-out of Soviet forces from Czechoslovakia.
  588
  Mr. Tom King
  We warmly welcome the planned withdrawal of Soviet forces from Czechoslovakia, in keeping with the wishes of the Czechoslovak people, and hope that this will contribute to enhanced security for all European nations. The United Kingdom remains firmly committed to the NATO Alliance which offers the best guarantee of maintaining peace and security in Europe.

  Nuclear Submarine Bases
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the Labour party in Scotland on nuclear submarine bases on the Clyde.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has had from the Labour party in Scotland on the removal of nuclear submarine bases on the Clyde.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the Labour party in Scotland on nuclear submarine bases on the Clyde.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the Labour party in Scotland on nuclear submarine bases on the Clyde.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any.

  Arms Conversion
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider establishing an arms conversion agency.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider establishing an arms conversion agency.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider establishing an arms conversion agency.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider establishing an arms conversion agency.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. As I informed the hon. Member for Leeds, West on 6 March, British industry is responsible for determining its product ranges, not the Government.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up a meeting between officials in his Department and Mr. Peter Broderick to consider the case of Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. I understand that Mr. Calcutt is in touch with Mr. Broderick about matters relevant to Mr. Wallace's appearance before the civil service appeal board. If Mr. Broderick has other information about Mr. Wallace's case which he believes should be considered by the authorities, he should submit it to the authorities.

  Short-range Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is NATO's current policy on the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.
  589
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is NATO's current policy on the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is NATO's current policy on the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is NATO's current policy on the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Tom King
  NATO allies are agreed that our peace and security will continue to depend on nuclear deterrence; for this policy to be effective, nuclear systems will need to be kept up to date where necessary.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consultations he has had with his European counterparts in NATO about the deployment of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend meets my NATO counterparts on a regular basis to discuss matters of mutual interest, including nuclear issues. They will next meet at the nuclear planning group meeting in Canada in May.

  West Germany
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West German counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West German counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West German counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West German counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Tom King
  I last met Dr. Stoltenberg during the Anglo-German summit on 30 March. We discussed a range of current defence issues, including the security implications of German unification.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the West German Defence Minister; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following their discussions during the Anglo-German summit last week, my right hon. Friend next expects to meet Dr. Stoltenberg at the nuclear planning group meeting on 9 to 10 May.

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to meet his United States counterpart to discuss the strategic defence initiative.
  590
  Mr. Tom King
  I expect to see Secretary Cheney at NATO ministerial meetings in May when we will be discussing a wide range of defence issues.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received in respect of low-flying aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  During February 1990 the Ministry of Defence received 389 inquiries and complaints about military low-flying training in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he expects any change in the need for low-flying exercises over the United Kingdom due to changes in the role of NATO.

  Mr. Neubert
  For the United Kingdom to maintain a modern and effective air force, there will be a continuing need for low-flying exercises in the United Kingdom. Future training requirements will, however, naturally reflect force structures which, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, will need to take account of international developments and progress in arms control negotiations.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representation he has received about the extent of low-flying training in northern England and the Borders.

  Mr. Neubert
  Between 1 January and 28 February 1990 the Ministry of Defence received 225 inquiries and complaints from northern England and the Borders about military low flying.

  Central Europe
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment his Department has made concerning the Soviet Union's ability to launch suprise, large-scale offensives in central Europe.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment his Department has made concerning the Soviet Union's ability to launch suprise, large-scale offensives in central Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 2 March 1990,Official Report, column 382.

  Radiation
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken following studies on radiation exposure in the Ministry of Defence work force since 1978.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken following studies on radiation exposure in the Ministry of Defence work force since 1978.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken following studies on radiation exposure in the Ministry of Defence work force since 1978.
  591
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken following studies on radiation exposure in the Ministry of Defence work force since 1978.

  Mr. Neubert
  In the 11 years since 1978 radiation exposures have been kept under continuous review to ensure exposures are authorised only on the basis that they are justified, comply with statutory limits, and are"as low as reasonably practicable"

  (ALARP). This review is MOD policy and will continue.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has considered any recent studies on the effects of radiation upon individuals and their children; and what implications these may have for armed service personnel and defence workers involved in nuclear defence.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has considered any recent studies on the effects of radiation upon individuals and their children; and what implications these may have for armed service personnel and defence workers involved in nuclear defence.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has considered any recent studies on the effects of radiation upon individuals and their children; and what implications these may have for armed service personnel and defence workers involved in nuclear defence.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has considered any recent studies on the effects of radiation upon individuals and their children; and what implications these may have for armed service personnel and defence workers involved in nuclear defence.

  Mr. Neubert
  We have noted the preliminary advice on the Gardner study given to the Department of Health by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). We accept COMARE's view that it is not possible for it to make specific recommendations on reducing risks until the results of other studies are known and there is further information on possible causal mechanisms.

  The Ministry of Defence will, therefore, continue its current policy of authorising exposures to armed service personnel and defence workers only on the basis that they are justified, comply with MOD and statutory limits, and are
  "as low as reasonably practicable"

  (ALARP).

  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in the royal dockyards in(a) Plymouth and (b) Rosyth have had more than a 100 milliSieverts lifetime dose since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are currently 96 employees at Devonport and 136 at Rosyth who have radiation dose records maintained by the approved dosimetry service (the defence radiological protection service), showing cumulative or lifetime radiation exposures in excess of 100 milliSieverts since the date of first starting radiation work.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning the future of RAF Greenham Common.
  592
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning the future of RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning the future of RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the answer given to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), at column 615 of Hansard dated 6 March.

  Foxhunter Radar
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Foxhunter radar is currently performing according to its original specifications.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Foxhunter radar is currently performing according to its original specifications.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on compensation paid to nuclear test veterans in other countries.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on compensation paid to nuclear test veterans in other countries.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on compensation paid to nuclear test veterans in other countries.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on compensation paid to nuclear test veterans in other countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are aware that procedures exist in certain other countries by which compensation may be paid to nuclear test veterans in accordance with the laws and benefits systems in force in those countries.

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now in a position to announce the outcome of his review of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Procurement
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the organisation of his procurement services of the activities of the defence contractors' lobbyists.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the organisation of his procurement services of the activities of the defence contractors' lobbyists.
  593
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the organisation of his procurement services of the activities of the defence contractors' lobbyists.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the organisation of his procurement services of the activities of the defence contractors' lobbyists.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None. I would regard the representations of the defence contractors' lobbyists as being of a lower level of importance than those of right hon. and hon. Members with a constituency interest.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on programmes for joint procurement for equipment within NATO.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are many programmes for joint procurement of defence equipment between NATO nations. The conference of national armaments directors (CNAD) and the independent European programme group (IEPG) have an important role to play. In addition, groups of NATO nations may decide on a joint programme outside these formal structures. A current list of joint procurements in which the United Kingdom participates is published annually in the statement on the Defence Estimates.

  East Germany
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the result of the East German election.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the result of the East German election.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the result of the East German election.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg).

  Defence Review
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the additional resources required to undertake a defence review.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the additional resources required to undertake a defence review.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson).

  NATO Nuclear Planning Group
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters he expects to discuss at the next NATO nuclear planning group meeting.
  594
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters he expects to discuss at the next NATO nuclear planning group meeting.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters he expects to discuss at the next NATO nuclear planning group meeting.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on 2 April,Official Report, column 445.

  Argentina
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contacts there have been between British and Argentine naval officers in the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British and Argentine naval officers have met under official auspices on one occasion in the last five years. This took place on 22 February 1990 when HMS Endurance made a good will visit to the Argentine Antarctic base Jubany during her routine deployment to the Antarctic treaty area.

  Military Doctrine
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department made to the military doctrine seminar held in Vienna under the confidence and security-building measures negotiations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The British representatives made a substantial and well-received contribution to the military doctrine seminar in Vienna, including several presentations on United Kingdom military doctrine and defence policy.

  NATO Secretary General
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Secretary General of NATO; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 6 March at column 620.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Secretary General of NATO; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the Secretary General of NATO. Their next scheduled meeting is at the NATO nuclear planning group in Canada on 9 to 10 May when a range of defence issues will be discussed.

  Comprehensive Concept (NATO)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is still working within NATO's comprehensive concept.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is still working within NATO's comprehensive concept.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to the process of verification within the arms control process.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to the process of verification within the arms control process.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence plays a part, as the United Kingdom is the host nation, in the reception of inspections of the United States facilities at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth conducted by the Soviet Union under the intermediate nuclear forces (INF) treaty; and conducts and receives inspections of activities under the Stockholm document. The Department is also making a full contribution both nationally and within NATO to the development of

  Planned United Kingdom participation in major NATO exercises 1990–91

  Name

  Dates

  Location

  Remarks

  1990

  1. Open Gate

  2 to 12 May

  West approaches to Mediterranean

  Maritime exercise

  2. Dragon Hammer

  3 to 16 May

  West Mediterranean

  Maritime exercise including amphibious operations

  3. Central Enterprise

  3 to 7 June

  Central region

  Live air exercise

  4. Teamwork 90

  6 to 23 September

  North Atlantic

  Major Tri-MNC amphibious operations

  5. Bold Guard 90

  24 September to 5 October

  Jutland

  Major reinforcement exercise in BALTAP

  6. Elder Joust 90

  2 to 4 October

  United Kingdom

  United Kingdom air defence exercise

  1991

  7. Battle Griffin

  25 February to 27 March

  North Norway

  Reinforcement exercise in Norway

  8. Alert Express

  Spring

  Southern region

  AMF(L) contingency exercise

  Planned United Kingdom national exercises in 1990–91

  Name

  Dates

  Location

  Remarks

  1990

  Jolly Roger

  17 to 26 April

  Gibraltar sea areas and Mediterranean

  Submarine training exercise

  Stone Warrior

  4 to 26 May

  Salisbury Plain training area

  5 AB Brigade

  JMC 902

  15 June to 2 July

  North Sea. Waters around Scotland

  Joint maritime exercise

  Panthers Punch

  20 July to 8 August

  Salisbury Plain training area

  19 Brigade field exercise

  Keystone

  1 to 25 September

  BAOR

  2 Infantry Division reinforcement exercise

  Quarter Final

  5 to 28 October

  BAOR

  4 Armoured Division field exercise

  JMC 903

  2 to 19 November

  North Sea. Waters around Scotland

  Joint maritime exercise

  1991

  JMC 911

  14 to 25 January

  North Sea. Waters around Scotland

  Joint maritime exercise

  Hard Fall

  January to March

  Norway

  Training of United Kingdom element of AMF

  Planned United Kingdom participation in out of area exercises

  Name

  Dates

  Location

  Remarks

  1990

  Suman Warrior

  October

  Malaysia

  Five power defence arrangements (FPDA) command post exercise

  596
  proposals for the verification requirements of a conventional forces in Europe (CFE) treaty and a chemical weapons convention; and for the further development of confidence and security building measures (CSBMs) and related initiatives such as the proposed open skies treaty. The steps being taken to establish the joint arms control implementation group (JACIG) were described in my answer of 7 March 1990 to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), column 622.

  Training Exercises
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what major training exercises are planned for the next 12 months; and if he will give details of their timing and location.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the proposed contractorisation of atomic weapons establishments.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since the announcement on 5 December 1989 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, further progress has been made towards the contractorisation of the atomic weapons establishment.

  An implementation support group has been formed at AWE. Its first task is preparation for the initial phase, in which a contractor will be appointed to strengthen the management of AWE by bringing in a small number of experienced managers from the private sector. Invitations to tender will be issued shortly.

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been made of the effect on British military forces of a successful agreement at the CFE talks.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been made of the effect on British military forces of a successful agreement at the CFE talks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's answer of 6 March to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright),Official Report, column 712.

  Service Personnel
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to retain trained service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss).

  Maritime Measures
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has considered any proposals on maritime confidence-building measures.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has considered any proposals on maritime confidence-building measures.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has considered any proposals on maritime confidence-building measures.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).

  Disarmament Conference
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to the conference on disarmament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence contributes in a number of ways to the conference on
  598
  disarmament, particularly through the provision of military, technical and scientific staff and advice to the United Kingdom delegation in Geneva.

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent contacts members of his Department have had with Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 29 March,Official Report, column 283.

  Threat Assessment
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has altered its threat assessment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 6 February 1990,Official Report, column 600.

  Military Assistance
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military assistance his Department has provided to overseas Governments in the past year.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military assistance his Department has provided to overseas Governments in the past year.

  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military assistance his Department has provided to overseas Governments in the past year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on 6 March 1990,Official Report, column 619.

  F15E Aircraft
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been taken on basing the F15E aircraft in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been taken on basing the F15E aircraft in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been taken on basing the F15E aircraft in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).

  United States Defence Secretary
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the United States Defence Secretary; and what issues he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the United States Defence Secretary; and what matters he proposes to discuss.
  599
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he next plans to meet the United States of America Defence Secretary; and what issues he expects to discuss.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the United States of America Defence Secretary; and what issues he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 6 February 1990 at column 597.

  Nerve Agents
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the deployment of United States binary nerve agents on British soil.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 24 July 1986 at column 490, to which I have nothing to add.

  Lance Missile
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are any plans for a replacement for the Lance missile to be deployed.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are any plans for a replacement for the Lance missile to be deployed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The NATO Alliance has agreed to leave a decision on a replacement for the Lance missile until 1992.

  Conventional Weapons
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made concerning Soviet production of conventional weapons over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet Union continued to produce large numbers of conventional weapons in 1989, although in certain categories, especially tanks and fighter aircraft, we believe there were significant reductions in output.

  Vickers Factory, Leeds
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning his visit to Vickers plc tank factory in Barnbow, Leeds, on Friday 16 March.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend visited Vickers Defence Systems factory at Barnbow, Leeds, at the company's invitation as part of his series of visits to major defence contractors.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in defence expenditure he has now planned for the financial year 1992–93.
  600
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to Cm. 1001, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93," chapter 1, where the information requested appears in table 1.1.

  Soviet Navy
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the modernisation programme for the Soviet navy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Modernisation of the Soviet Navy continues in all key areas and its capability continues to improve with the acquisition of new and more up-to-date warships and submarines with modern, technologically advanced weapons systems.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the degree to which recent developments in eastern Europe have affected the requirements for the defence of the United Kingdom home base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We welcome the recent developments in eastern Europe which have in large part been brought about by NATO's policy of dialogue and deterrence. We continue to believe that defence of the United Kingdom home base is best achieved by maintaining our commitment to the NATO alliance, which provides the best guarantee of peace and security in Europe.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed the future of the European fighter aircraft with his German and Italian counterparts.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Ministers of Britain's partners in the European fighter aircraft programme; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend met both his German and Italian counterparts during March. Useful discussions were held on a number of topics, including the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to announce his decision on the choice of radar for the European fighter aircraft by oral statement to the House.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The manner of such an announcement will be decided at the time that a decision on the radar is reached.

  Mr Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year it is planned to bring the European fighter aircraft into service; and what is the current planned production offtake.
  601
  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member on 15 January, columns 125-26, on 28 February, column 354, and on 26 March, column 24.

  Trident
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest progress on the Trident nuclear missile programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Trident programme continues to progress to time and budget towards its in-service date of the mid-1990s.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received over the past 12 months about the Trident nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received a number of letters from individuals and organisations over the past year about the Trident programme.

  British Aerospace (Strike)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the effect on deliveries to the services of the recent British Aerospace strike; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The strike at British Aerospace has disrupted the delivery schedules of the Tornado and Harrier aircraft with seven Tornados and six Harriers delayed so far.

  Action is in hand to recover the situation on Tornado which is produced at the company's Lancashire sites, where normal working was resumed earlier this month. But industrial action at the Kingston plant continues to affect the production of the Harrier.

  There is as yet no impact on our operational capability.

  Submarines
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to put proposals for the extremely low-frequency transmitter at Glengarry forest to the Highland regional council planning authority.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 19 February, column 573.

  Brawdy
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar at Brawdy, Wales, will be assigned to NATO.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what links are proposed between the projected relocatable over-the-horizon radar at Brawdy and the United Kingdom regional air operations centre.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what links are proposed between the relocatable 602
  over-the-horizon radar at Brawdy and the United Kingdom national joint ocean surveillance information centre.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It would be premature to consider the possible operational assignment of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom before the results of its planned two-year trial have been fully assessed.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date agreement was reached with the United States authorities on the sharing of costs for construction of a relocatable over-the-horizon radar at Brawdy, Wales; what is the agreed apportionment of costs; and what will be the total cost to the United Kingdom defence budget of the construction of the facility.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The arrangements agreed with the United States authorities to cover the two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom are that the United States Government will supply the radar; the United Kingdom Government will provide and prepare the operational sites; and the running costs of the trial will be shared. These arrangements are encapsulated in a memorandum of understanding to be signed shortly. The total cost to the United Kingdom defence budget of the installation of the radar and the running costs of the trial will be about £15·5 million over the entire period.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the decision was taken to select Brawdy as the site for the United States Navy relocatable over-the-horizon radar.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The locations selected for the two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom are St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, as the transmitter site, and Blakehill radio station, Wiltshire, as the receiver site. A formal decision to select these two locations for the trial was taken recently, following a survey of possible sites which began in 1987.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for conducting an environmental impact assessment on the proposed construction of an over-the-horizon radar facility in Wales.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 30 March 1990 at column 328-29.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the proposed location of(a) the transmitter facility, (b) the receiver facility and (c) the operations control centre for the relocatable over-the-horizon radar proposed for construction in Wales; what is the total land area required for each site; and what proportion of the required land is already owned or leased by his Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The locations selected for the two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom are St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, as the transmitter site, and Blakehill radio station, Wiltshire, as the receiver site. The trial operations will be conducted from Blakehill. Both sites are owned by the Ministry of Defence. St. David's airfield is more than sufficiently large for the installation of the transmitter; at Blakehill, we will need to acquire some additional land adjacent to the present MOD boundary to accommodate the receiver.

  Procurement Executive (Relocation)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for dispersal from London of the headquarters of his Department's procurement executive; and how his Department's policy has altered on this matter since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  The reasons for the relocation of procurement executive staff were set out in my reply of 27 March, col.101, to the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Thompson).

  As in 1979, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and affordability are key factors in our decisions on such projects. A wide range of other considerations, including regional issues, are also given due weight.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the decision to disperse the procurement executive headquarters of his Department to Keynsham, near Bristol.

  Mr. Neubert
  No. The conclusion of the studies into the relocation of procurement executive staff were subject of comprehensive review before the decision I announced on 27 March, column 101.
  604
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the dispersal of his Department's procurement executive headquarters from London to Keynsham, near Bristol, refers to the same block of employees as were to be dispersed to St. Mellou's, near Cardiff, in 1978, pursuant to the Hardman report of 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The 1978 proposal included moving the procurement executive's land and air systems controllerates to Cardiff. These controllerates form the bulk of the staff that it has now been decided to relocate to Keynsham; however, the ordnance board and London-based defence contracts staff are now also included.

  Select Committee on Defence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the provision of information to the Select Committee of Defence.

  Mr. Tom King
  It is my policy to respond as helpfully as possible to requests from Select Committees.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation from the Prime Minister to attend a lunch in honour of the President of India on Wednesday 4th April. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for that date.

Libya: Chemical Weapons Production
2.35 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Libyan Government has resumed the production of chemical weapons at Rabta; and what action they propose to take.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have no doubt that the Rabta plant is intended to produce chemical weapons on a large scale. It remains unclear what has been the effect of the reported fire on 14th March. Regarding measures to control proliferation of chemical weapons, we continue to co-ordinate with other industrialised countries strict export controls on certain precursor chemicals. We also continue to discourage UK exporters of plant and equipment from involvement in projects in Libya and elsewhere which may be linked to chemical weapons production.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he add a little information regarding the market that the product of that work is intended to supply?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. We are certain that the plant is capable of producing chemical weapons. We are firmly opposed to the production of chemical weapons, and I think it unlikely that the Libyans will tell us where they are intended to go.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say what third world countries are in a position to produce chemical weapons? Can he also say what his response is to the horrifying report in the Daily Telegraph today that the Iraqi president has threatened the Iranians with chemical weapons?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give a list of third world countries capable of producing
1248
chemical weapons; obviously Libya is one and Iraq is another. We condemned the Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf and against the Kurds. We equally condemn the statement reported in today's paper. We remain anxious about the development of offensive capabilities in other countries, and we made our views clear regarding the need for the complete removal of the facility at Rabta.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not a fact that there are about 2, 000 plants in different parts of the world, and about 10, 000 precursor chemicals which could be used to produce chemical weapons of one sort or another? Can the Minister assure us that the West European chemical industry is doing all it can to co-operate with the non-proliferation discussions currently taking place in Geneva?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, only a comprehensive effectively verifiable ban on the development, production, possession and use of chemical weapons, which is now being negotiated at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, can provide the final answer. We and our European partners are members of the Australian group of 20 industrialised countries which prevent the export of the nine chemicals on the core list, and also maintain a warning list of a further 41 chemicals. Exporters are invited to seek government advice when faced with dubious orders for those chemicals.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord reply more fully to my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs? Her question was: whether the Government had knowledge about which countries and installations were capable of producing chemical weapons? One must assume— must one not?— that the Government possess that information. I understand that the Government may not wish to reveal that information, but perhaps the Minister can clarify the point and advise us of the Government's position.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Question specifically concerns the Libyan position regarding chemical weapons production. I do not have a list of other countries which might be in the same position as the Libyans; even if I had, I am not sure that I would be able to give the noble Lord the information that he requires.

Easter Act 1928
2.40 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether the proviso in Section 2 (2) of the Easter Act 1928 that "regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body" continues to inhibit the implementation of that Act, whereby Easter would be celebrated during the first half of April in every year.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am obliged for that very full reply. Do the Government accept that Easter is commonly regarded as the first outdoor holiday of the year? Do they also accept that Easter in March is not popular because the weather is too unreliable, but that a later Easter in April runs up against the May Day Holiday? Therefore did not our elders and betters in Parliament in 1928 get it about right?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had the same Question, to my certain knowledge, for the past 20 years. I admire the intellectual gymnastics of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in tabling the same Question hoping for a different Answer but knowing perfectly well that he will get the same Answer. Whatever the noble Lord may say regarding Easter being the first outdoor Bank Holiday, Good Friday and Easter Day are the most solemn dates in the Christian calendar and it is a theological issue which transcends frontiers. If the Churches agree on a fixed date for Easter, then the Government should be happy to consider incorporating the Easter Act.
Lord Soper: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently the Patriarch of Moscow became an elected member of the Supreme Soviet? Is it not then likely that a new approach might be made to the problem which has vexed the united Churches for so long, with the coming together of the Patriarch of Moscow with the authorities in the Anglican Church in order to promote at least the possibility of a fixed Easter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have to say that I did not know that the Patriarch of Moscow had become a member of the Supreme Soviet. If that is so, I am sure that it will do the Supreme Soviet a great deal of good. The problem is that the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which was way back in AD 325, had, as one of the documents of the Greek Orthodox Church said, as its timely goal the bringing about of Christian unity through the common celebration of Easter. I know that some time has elapsed since the date when the church first came to that conclusion, but I lope that the inauguration of the Patriarch of Moscow into the Supreme Soviet will have some effect— but I am not sure what the effect will be!
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, does the Minister accept that with the vagaries of the British climate it is extremely unlikely that an April Easter would have given a finer Sunday than we had last Sunday, which will be Easter Day next year? Therefore, does he agree that the way forward might be to restore the greatly valued link between the spring holiday and Whitsun which was so unfortunately broken some years ago?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield on working out when Easter falls next year. I find it difficult to know when it falls in the current year. I certainly hope that we shall have the weather that he hopes we will have.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many years ago— 25 to be precise, when I first
1250
came to this House— the reply given was that Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon following 21st March? I have not heard that repeated, but that seems to have nothing whatever to do with the Christian calendar and more to do with the stars or the weather.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is exactly what it is to do with, because the Greek Orthodox Church said in a document that all Orthodox Churches following the First Ecumenical Council were bound to celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. That is the way in which the Churches fix the date of Easter and it goes back for many years.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, which calendar are we working on? Is this country using the Gregorian or the Julian calendar? Whichever it is, why does the Greek Orthodox Church refuse to contemplate any change?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Greek Orthodox Church is on the Julian calendar and we are on the Gregorian calendar. The United Kingdom changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 by omitting 11 days. Your Lordships may remember— at least your Lordships' knowledge of history might remind you— that there were then riots because we lost 10 days. The new year changed from 25th March and 3rd September became 14th September. That is why we are now on the Gregorian calendar.
I can only tell my noble friend that the reason why the Greek Orthodox Church will not change is a matter for that Church, but if it did change these matters would be far simpler.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is that not an explanation of why the Orthodox Christmas is different from our Christmas, in that the Orthodox Christmas follows the Julian calendar whereas we follow the Gregorian calendar? However, that has nothing to do with Easter Day because that is a lunar calendar. That is the answer to the question put to the Minister by his noble friend.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may be so, but some Orthodox Churches have made modifications by adopting the new calendar and they observe the Gregorian calendar for fixed feasts and the Julian calendar for movable feasts. For that reason the complications are even greater.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, is it not far more interesting and in a way more fun for us that Easter is movable? Further, is it not far better that Easter is distinctly a Christian day of festival not tied up with a secular one, so that it can be seen by all and for Christians to show that it is a day to revere, respect and honour? I believe that it is far better that Easter is movable. I hope that it stays that way and the Christians will show that it is a day to respect and observe, not tied up with any secular matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as one who is always having to answer questions suggesting that there

1251
should be an alteration, perhaps I may say that my noble friend's intervention is most helpful.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, although I am not sure whether this has anything to do with the Question, may I ask the Government whether they are aware as a matter of interest that it is not only the Greek Orthodox Church which keeps to the Julian calendar? Certain parts of the Shetlands also keep to the Julian calendar and celebrate old Christmas and old New Year— as well, I may say, as new Christmas and new New Year.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that merely confirms my view that the Scots are even more idiosyncratic than I expect them to be.

An Ageing Population: Economic Effects
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What studies they are conducting into the longer term implications of an ageing population for the economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government draw on a wide range of information, including demographic factors in considering the implications of the elderly population on the economy. Many other sources of valuable information, including the general household survey, the family expenditure survey and the occupational pension scheme survey, contribute to the Government's appreciation of this subject.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is it not a fact that debates so far on the implications of an ageing society have focused primarily on the social security burden and the prospects of meeting the financial costs of the demographic change? Does not the Minister's reply seem to indicate that what is needed is a government-sponsored comprehensive survey of all the aspects and implications of an ageing society; and is not the best way of doing that to set up a Ministerial committee to look at the effects of an ageing society on the economy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we know that the ageing part of the population is going to expand. It is fairly easy to predict the size of the elderly population for a number of years. Similarly, we know how many entrants there will be into the workforce for at least 16 years. Thereafter it becomes a matter of speculation because the issue depends entirely on the number of children who are born. It is very difficult to make predictions about the size of the birth rate.
There are various estimates that the ratio between those of working age and those of pensionable age is falling. We accept that that will have an effect on the economy. It is very difficult to make any precise estimate as to what extent the ratio will fall because it is difficult to know how many children we shall have.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not all old people are a burden on the rest of the community? Instead of retiring, a great many people continue with their active lives. I ask that the Government do everything possible, if necessary by offering financial incentives, to ensure that as many old people as possible make the greatest contribution they can for as long as they can.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that the elderly are not a burden now or in the future. I accept that the elderly have contributed much to the economy and public life, particularly in this House, during their working lives and as of now. My noble friend will also know that we have recently abolished the earnings rule. We hope that this may encourage a great many elderly people back into the labour market.
Lord Somers: My Lords, being part of the ageing population myself, I ask that the Government do something for the slightly more ageing part of the population. The Government seem very ready to deal with the over-60s, but can they make a few more concessions for the over-80s?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that last October we announced improvements in income support for the over-75s. That was a package worth an extra £ 200 million a year for the less well off elderly pensioners.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as one of the longer-term implications of an ageing population a recent independent report has calculated that there will be a need for an extra 81, 000 places in residential and nursing homes in England alone by the year 2000? Is he further aware that less than 10 per cent. of elderly people will have sufficient income to pay for that care without public support? In the light of those figures, does the Minister not agree that it is extraordinary that the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which we shall be discussing later today includes deliberate financial disincentives for placing old people in local authority homes and deliberate financial incentives for placing them in the private sector?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord has quite rightly said, we shall have time to debate these matters this afternoon. In fact, we shall be debating them at very great length. My understanding is that there will be a great many occasions when there will be positive incentives to produce a package that will provide both better care for the elderly staying at home which will not only cost less but will also provide better value for money and a better service.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I say to the Minister that the term "elderly" is inappropriate because by Act of Parliament one becomes elderly when one is over 80 years of age but one is ageing when one is over 60. Indeed, one can be ageing when one is over 50.
A Noble Lord: Or over 30!
Baroness Phillips:— or over 30 or even when you are born! Is the Minister aware that many of us feel that there is a great need to use much more the talents and skills of the older people instead of always talking about them being a burden? They are an asset and it would be very foolish for us to waste that asset.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a shining example of that asset and I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from her in this House.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister did not reply to or did not accept my suggestion for an inter-departmental ministerial committee. The supplementary questions have all tended in that direction. Will the Minister not now reconsider and support the proposal for this inter-departmental ministerial committee to look at all aspects of this problem?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take on board the noble Lord's suggestions. I shall pass them on to my right honourable friend, but I make no promises.

World Heritage Sites
2.55 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, before publishing any more decisions on applications to develop hotels, theme parks and other tourist attractions at World Heritage sites, the Secretary of State for the Environment will visit all of them accompanied by his statutory advisers, English Heritage.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is able to make balanced and well-informed planning decisions without making site visits in person. Planning decisions are based on evidence presented by the parties and the assessment of an inspector who will have visited the site. An essential feature of the decision-making process is that each principal party will be fully aware of the representations made by other parties and have the opportunity to comment on those representations. Oral evidence proffered outside the context of public inquiry and written representation procedures is inadmissible.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the House probably knows that. Is the noble Lord aware that at the World Heritage site at Avebury (population 120) there will have been four major public inquiries in two years into development proposals? Does the Minister not agree that, prima facie, that is an extraordinary waste of public money and of official time? One assumes that it must be the case that the same kind of thing is happening at all the other World Heritage sites in the country. In those circumstances does the Minister not agree that it would be a possible notion for the Secretary of State to get a personal feel for what is going on in order the better to be able to put into effect government policy, which has been announced as "the present law is good enough", to protect these World Heritage sites?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I must repeat the point. Were the Secretary of State to visit the sites of proposals currently before him for decision, whether he was accompanied by his statutory advisers on the subject of heritage or not, he could be lobbied by anybody present, including the appellant or anyone else with an interest, and his decision would be open to challenge on the ground of partiality.
As regards the other point raised by the noble Lord concerning Avebury and the number of inquiries that there have been, I am sorry that amenity groups and local people have been put to so much trouble in giving evidence at these inquiries. It is unfortunate that there have been so many affecting Avebury within such a short period of time. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no control over the number and frequency of the appeals he receives. An appellant has the right to expect an inquiry to be held as quickly as possible.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the Secretary of State should pay an announced visit to a place where the result of a public inquiry was pending. However, can the Minister say what would prevent him from taking a look? He need not tell anyone that he is coming. The Secretary of State will then begin to understand what the issue is all about.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I repeat that in our view it would not be proper for the Secretary of State to visit sites for which proposals are currently before him for decision.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we appreciate that the Minister in charge cannot visit every site. However, does he not, as part of his responsibilities, get around the country to make site inspections of all kinds of installations involving planning considerations? I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there are not many sites which fall within this category which would inhibit the Minister from visiting every site. Does the Minister not agree that if the Secretary of State were to visit a site he would not only be able the better to assess the report from the inspector but he would then be able to convince all concerned in the matter that when he finally gave his decision he would know what he was talking about?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was talking about— I think I was asked about— sites for which proposals were currently before the Secretary of State for decision. That is certainly the case concerning Avebury. As regards other sites, my noble friend Lord Hesketh, who has particular responsibility for heritage matters, has in the course of his duties visited several World Heritage sites and sometimes he has been accompanied by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who is chairman of English Heritage. I am sure that my noble friend will continue to make such visits in the future.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that it is not only World Heritage sites which are under severe pressure from those who would develop them for commercial purposes for the tourist industry: I point out to the Minister that

1255
there are other designated areas such as national parks which are also affected. I ask the Minister to ensure that his right honourable friend bears carefully in mind how easy it is for the tourist industry— to use an expression which is perhaps not entirely apt, but expressive— to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point.

Business of the House: Debates, 18th April
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Stanley of Alderley and the Earl of Radnor set down for Wednesday 18th April shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate— (Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is an important Bill and an important debate, not least because we have two maiden speakers, who I am pleased to see have chosen this debate to address your Lordships for the first time.
As a starting point, we all appreciate and are proud of our National Health Service, but if the National Health Service is to continue to flourish into the next decade and the next century it needs both continuity and change: continuity with the ideals which inspired its founders, of all political persuasions; ideals which continue to inspire its staff, the Government in whose charge it is placed and, I am sure, many on all sides of this House. But change is also needed. Continuity without change is not a recipe for preservation but a recipe for stagnation. No healthy organisation can be expected to use the management and funding structures of the 1940s to address the issues of the 1990s.
The National Health Service has rightly not cocooned itself away from major technical changes in medicine, and we believe that the proposals in this Bill will ensure that it faces the challenges of the coming years with a similar, forward-looking, dynamic approach to the delivery of care to all its patients. The reforms introduced by this Bill build upon the founding principles of the NHS. In no way do they alter them. But we do not ignore the fact that there is a strong body of opinion which recognises the need for change. This includes many in the medical
1256
profession, including the BMA and the royal colleges, who freely acknowledge the need for change and the viability of many if not most of our proposals.
I want to emphasise immediately that the Bill's main purpose is to improve the quality of care. I am sure this is of concern to us all and we will debate this at length both today and subsequently. Of course, because we are looking at structures much of the detail of the Bill is concerned with details of funding and management systems. But these do not exist in isolation. Their only purpose is to ensure that the National Health Service has the right tools to deliver care. The key elements are greater delegation and freedom of action for staff at all levels, a more flexible approach to funding, which puts the patient, not the system, first, and the creation of a climate which allows all doctors, nurses, managers and other professionals to put quality right at the head of their agendas.
The continuity I spoke of is there because the basis of the NHS is unchanged and will remain so. It will remain free at the point of use. It will remain funded out of general taxation. I hope it is generally recognised that we are in the business of renovation, not demolition.
The present Government have been the custodian of the NHS for 11 years, during which time it has flourished. These proposals take further the action already initiated to improve the service since 1979. In many ways they are a direct descendant of the introduction of general management following the report by Sir Roy Griffiths in 1983. Moreover, the changes are part of a wider programme of action outlined in our three White Papers — Promoting Better Health, Working for Patients and Caring for People. The legislation we seek to introduce is merely a further step to complement the non-legislative action taken, for example, to introduce a more effective contract for general practitioners, to introduce medical audit in the hospital and family doctor services, to increase the number of consultants, to delegate functions from regional and district health authority headquarters to the operational level and to provide guidance to local authorities in improving their management of community care services. The legislation does not stand apart from all these other changes, but it does provide the motor which will allow these benefits to be fully realised in the future.
A similar evolutionary approach applies to the implementation of the changes. Our proposals both in the NHS and community care services are continuing to evolve in the light of parliamentary discussion and in the light of discussions with those who deliver care in the field. For example, we wish to make further changes to the community care sections of the Bill at Committee stage by introducing requirements for statutory complaints procedures. This was very forcefully urged upon us in another place. I feel sure your Lordships will fulfil the second Chamber's reviewing role by giving us much else on which to ponder both today and in the coming weeks.
The Government believe firmly that this is the correct way to pursue implementation of change.

1257
There will not be a big bang on 1st April 1991. This is because many of the proposed changes derive from action already under way. In other areas, such as NHS trusts and GP fund-holding practices, the running will be made by enthusiasts and volunteers. There is, I wish to emphasise, no question of anybody being compelled to participate unwillingly. We anticipate that those NHS trusts and GP fund-holding practices which may be set up as a result of the Bill's proposals will represent the most promising of those that have already expressed an interest. There are likely to be a few dozen NHS trusts in the first wave and a few hundred GP fund-holding practices. These will in effect be pilot projects and we can learn from and build on that experience. There will be ample opportunity for our proposals to be refined and developed in sophistication.
The Government have begun this process throughout the past year, as they have continued to discuss and revise their proposals with the many interested parties. There have been well over 100 meetings with representatives of the medical profession alone, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has invited representatives of the medical royal colleges and others tomorrow to discuss their specific concerns about how standards and quality of service can be assessed as the reforms are implemented. Knowledge in the health service, helped by central guidance, is becoming increasingly detailed and increasingly sophisticated as we learn from each other in taking the work forward.
We will be engaging in a similar process of dialogue with all interested parties in the field as work on implementing the caring for people agenda also begins to develop momentum, and, as my honourable friend the Minister for Health made clear in another place, we will be issuing detailed guidance in a large number of areas central to that agenda in the course of the coming year. These will build on the pioneering work already carried out by the Social Services Inspectorate in many areas.
I believe that this represents a sensible approach to the management of change. It does not seek to isolate artificially one or two areas to act as a test-bed for the proposals. That would breed uncertainty; indeed, cause planning blight, destroy staff morale, delay real benefits to patients and produce results of doubtful validity. But we are not seeking to run before we can walk. Instead, as I have said, the Government through the NHS management executive are taking a realistic approach to the implementation of the plans, listening and responding to valid concerns, learning from experience and, above all, keeping the main objective of an enhanced service for all patients and users firmly in view.
I shall now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill, first, as it affects the National Health Service. Part I of the Bill deals with our proposals for England and Wales. Part II makes similar changes in Scotland and this of course takes account of the different legal and organisational framework north of the Border. My noble friend Lord Sanderson, who is listening to our debate today, will be dealing with specific Scottish issues as they arise during later stages. In
1258
addition, Part V contains some proposals which cover Great Britain as a whole.
Effective local leadership is one of the keys to achieving the higher quality, more responsive National Health Service of the 1990s. We are reforming health authorities and the renamed family health services authorities to ensure that they can meet the enhanced roles which we see for them. The former will take the lead in identifying the health needs of its population and securing access to a comprehensive range of services for them. The FHSAs, if I may so call them, will be taking the lead in planning and delivering primary care services. Similar changes are being made to the constitution of health boards in Scotland.
The authorities in future will be leaner and more effective bodies, made up of a mixture of executive and non-executive members. The membership will ensure that they have a range of skills available to them, both from their own officers and from the wider experience contributed by the chairman and non-executive members.
In the case of districts with significant teaching responsibilities, the membership will also include representation from the relevant university or medical school. Clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill provide for further changes to the role of Scottish health service bodies, in particular enabling the creation of a new special health board to spearhead health education. We are also acting to remove unduly bureaucratic obstacles, which can delay effective service developments. Clauses 1 and 2 open the way for a more effective consultation procedure on mergers and other changes to the boundaries of health authorities.
I have already mentioned the enhanced role of district health authorities. In future, districts will secure services for their patients through a system of National Health Service. Clauses 3, 4 and the parallel Scottish clause, Clause 29, provide the legal basis for this exciting change to operate. In short, NHS contracts allow money to flow freely across administrative borders and so overcome the so-called "efficiency trap" where successful hospitals feel the pinch as a result of their high activity levels. Instead, hospitals— and other units— will be funded directly for the patients that they treat.
I emphasise the fact that we are not talking about a commercial activity here. As those who have seen our guidance entitled Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts will know, NHS contracts will not be commercial in form but will represent specific service agreements between health authorities and units which are all part of the NHS family. They will not therefore be legally binding in the sense that they will not be the subject of lengthy litigation in the courts at the expense of patient care. However, the Bill provides for the speedy resolution of any dispute which may arise within the service.
The new National Health Service trusts permitted by Clauses 5 to 11 in England and by Clauses 30 to 32 in Scotland will be key participants in the new funding system. These clauses set out how the bodies may be established, their specific powers and freedoms, how staff will transfer to them from health authority employment and the detailed

1259
arrangements for their financial regime. I emphasise that the trusts will be fully part of the National Health Service. Their funding will derive from NHS contracts. The Secretary of State and regional health authorities will appoint their non-executive directors and there are reserve powers to ensure that they fully meet all their NHS obligations.
On establishment, the Bill provides that the trusts will have boards of directors, including both executives and non-executives. Their executive membership will include a senior doctor and a senior nurse and, where needed, there will be special provision for medical school or university representation on the board. The Bill also describes the freedoms which NHS trusts will enjoy. They will be able to employ their own staff, to conduct research, to provide facilities for medical undergraduate and postgraduate education and other forms of training. They will own their own assets and have power to borrow within an external financing limit. The Bill also contains safeguards in the form of reserve powers of direction over NHS trusts. These allow the Secretary of State to direct all trusts— for example, on matters of safety or ethics— or, in exceptional circumstances, an individual trust where there is justified cause for concern.
It is the Government's firm intention that National Health Service trusts will play their full part in medical education and research. I know that that aspect is a concern of many of your Lordships. Indeed, a thriving education and research base will be seen as a demonstrable mark of high service quality and will help to encourage NHS contracts to flow to the hospital concerned. I believe that it will enhance the reputation of hospitals, the service they offer to the community and the job satisfaction of their staff.
Let there be no doubt: the Government are fimly committed to an effective research programme and to high quality medical education throughout the National Health Service not just in NHS trusts. The work of the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education, chaired by Sir Christopher France, the recent improvements to the funding systems for education and research and our decision to appoint a chief of research and development to spearhead research in the NHS, all bear witness to that commitment. Nothing in the Bill's proposals jeopardises that commitment. Nothing will be allowed to jeopardise it in the future.
I turn now to the family health services authorities. The proposals in Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill will make FHSAs accountable to RHAs for the first time. The proposal will signifcantly improve collaboration between primary and secondary care, particularly in the field of prevention. At the same time, the changes will preserve the different character of the family practitioner services and avoid the unnecessary distraction that wholesale merger of health authorities and FHSAs would produce. It is a desirable change which builds on the progress that we have already made in strengthening family health services authorities in recent years; for example, through the appointment of general managers.
1260
Clauses 14 to 17 and the parallel Scottish clause, Clause 33, make provision for fund-holding GP practices. Practice funds will give GPs who apply for them their opportunity to provide their patients with the high quality care they want and need by giving them greater control over all the resources which they deploy. I am pleased to say that GPs have responded with enthusiasm to the invitation to express interest in taking part in the scheme and the Government are confident that many of the 850 practices which have expressed interest will be successful participants as the scheme develops. We shall build on the experience of those in the first wave as I have already described.
The Bill provides the framework for the scheme to get under way. It sets out how applications for the scheme will be handled, the technical arrangements for allocating practice funds and for their withdrawal for whatever reason, should that prove to be necessary. The Bill will also allow for the eventual delegation of functions relating to practice funds, which will be rightly located at regional level in the early years, to FHSAs in the fullness of time.
The proposals for indicative prescribing budgets contained in Clauses 18 and 34 of the Bill provide a framework for more effective prescribing by all general practitioners. The budgets will offer a guidline to GPs to help them examine their prescribing practice carefully and professionally. Patients will of course continue to receive all the medicines they need, as the medical profession now fully accepts. Indicative budgets are not cash limits but a management and professional tool to improve prescribing.
Improved value for money and improved quality of service need to go hand in hand. The proposals in Clause 20 and Schedule 4 to allow the Audit Commission to take over the statutory audit of the NHS from the health departments will enable us to make even further progress in that respect.
Clauses 21, 22, 37 and 38 enable the relevant Secretary of State to specify the maximum number of GPs to be added to the medical list in any one year and to make consequential provision in relation to the Medical Practices Committee and its Scottish opposite number. The Government fully expect the implementation of changes flowing from Promoting Better Health, the new GPs' contract and Working for Patients to make the use of these reserve powers extremely rare.
We will, however, be using the new power in Clauses 24 and 39 of the Bill in relation to dentist numbers. We will make regulations allowing the implementation of the new contract agreed with the British Dental Association, in particular the new scheme for early retirement. The contract represents a considerable step forward for the profession and the health service.
Clauses 57 and 58, together with Schedule 7, also remove virtually all the remaining crown immunity in the National Health Service. Both NHS trusts and directly managed services will therefore be subject to the same demanding statutory standards across the full range of their activities and will face the same penalties if they do not come up to the mark.

1261
The Bill contains provision for a small number of remaining immunities— in the field of taxation, for example— and makes transitional provision in some other cases.
I turn now to the community care sections of the Bill. Part III contains our proposals for England and Wales and Part IV for Scotland. I believe your Lordships will agree that they deserve separate, detailed description in their own right rather than being seen as an adjunct to the NHS proposals.
Once again I pay tribute to the work of Sir Roy Griffiths, whose report underpins many of our proposals in Caring for People. As with our changes in the National Health Service, the framing of our proposals has rightly taken time and careful consideration. It is right therefore that we now move ahead smartly with putting the necessary legal and operational framework in place to ensure that the benefits we expect to achieve through our proposals are realised quickly, taking full account of debates on our proposals, as we do so.
For too long community care has been a victim both of the confusion which has developed in recent years as to where responsibility for the public support for people in residential care and nursing homes should be and the low priority given by some local authorities to the development of high quality home care services. The proposals in the Bill are an important step in the programme to get community care right. Its provisions lay new responsibilities on local authorities, give new emphasis to identifying and planning to meet the needs of individuals and provide new power to the centre to see that those responsibilities are properly discharged.
The provisions on arranging services illustrate this point clearly. Local authorities already have extensive powers to provide services in their own right and to arrange services through voluntary agencies. Those powers remain largely unchanged. But Clauses 40 and 53 of the Bill supplement and augment them by making it possible for the local authority, with the health authority's agreement, to arrange the provision of private or voluntary nursing home care. The Bill is thus a key part of the machinery by which we will place responsibility for arranging residential and nursing home care of people in private and voluntary homes firmly in the hands of local authorities. So this will provide the clear identification of responsibility for the funding and management of community care urged by Sir Roy and others.
The Bill also deals with the position of existing residents in residential and nursing home care. Your Lordships will be aware that this was a subject of much debate in the other place. During debate on the Social Security Bill my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was able to respond to the legitimate concerns raised by announcing extra resources for an interim uprating of income support levels for those residents.
Under Clauses 44 and 49 of the Bill local authorities will be expected to publish community care plans and to consult with a wide range of interests, including voluntary bodies providing services to people with special care needs and their carers. This
1262
was made clear in an amendment we accepted in another place. I hope that the preparation of community care plans will stimulate a vigorous local debate about the best forms of community provision.
These plans need to be based on identification of community care needs. Assessment will be vital in achieving this. In accordance with the evolutionary nature of our proposals the process of assessment will develop and play an increasingly important role in evolving plans. Clauses 45 and 52 provide that it will be a duty of the local authority to assess anybody for whom it could provide services and for whom it appears community care is needed. This means that anyone referred to the authority's attention as someone who might need community care has to be assessed. That applies to people being discharged from hospitals too. Where this happens we expect that the health authority will collaborate with the local authority to see that an assessment is carried out and services put in place before the individual leaves the safety of the hospital to be cared for in the community.
The form the assessment takes will be left to the local authorities. But it will depend largely on the care needs of the person concerned. When these needs include health care the local authority would be expected to involve the health authority in the assessment. We are looking closely at the pertinent point made in another place that apparent housing needs should also be notified to the appropriate authority where these are identified in the course of an assessment.
Taken together, the community care proposals present a strong package of action for better local management, a clearer central role and, above all, improved care for people who need it, better fitted to their individual needs.
I have spoken at some length in introducing the Bill. I believe that this is warranted because of the major improvements its proposals will make to the delivery of care in both the National Health Service and the social services. We are aiming to achieve what will in many ways be a revolutionary change, but revolution achieved through evolution rather than destruction. As I said at the outset, there is agreement on all sides about the importance of preserving the ideals of our caring services and the Bill does just that. I hope that this agreement on objectives will be kept firmly in mind as we debate our proposals in more detail. The Government believe in those ideals. They are what have inspired our proposals and they run all the way through them. We believe that they are the best possible recipe for continued growth and progress into the coming decade and beyond, and in that spirit I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time— (Baroness Hooper.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear and low key explanation of what I believe to be the most important legislation introduced by the Government in this Parliament. I welcome much of what she said.

1263
I look forward to hearing the two maiden speeches. In ray view, if the Bill proceeds without amendment it will be seen as a much greater affront to the public interest than the introduction of the community charge or any of the series of privatisation measures.
I welcome the invitation of the noble Baroness that your Lordships should seek to make changes in the Bill to provide some busy work for another place to undertake. She spelt out the stated aims of the legislation— to improve services to patients and clients, to provide better value for money, to improve management in health and community care and to increase patient's choice. These are all unexceptional. However, regarding the health service hardly anyone believes that the methods proposed in the Bill will achieve these fine objectives. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I concentrate on the National Health Service in my speech and leave my noble friend Lord Carter who is winding up to concentrate on community care. There is no implication here that there are not extremely important issues to be considered in Clauses 40 to 55, issues which concern me deeply.
Of all the proposals for change, by far the most serious are those which challenge the basic principles of the National Health Service which have been accepted by all governments for 43 years. The consensus is being broken by this Government if they proceed with the Bill. I wish to dissuade this chronically, and maybe terminally, unpopular Government from plunging the health service into another painful reorganisation based on principles thought up by political dogmatists with loyalty to Adam Smith but no experience of the delivery of health care.
Those who are behind this measure— their names were never listed and we never discovered who put forward the proposals, except for some names which leaked out— seem not to understand the motivation of the vast majority of health service workers. Although those workers are fully entitled to a fair wage, they do not view the National Health Service or community care as a challenging source of private profit. Let us remember that before the White Paper on which the Bill is based was published there had been no consultation with health service workers or doctors, nurses and therapists. They read that document with great incredulity. They could not believe that politicians and their political advisers could really think that they knew best. The criticisms by health service workers of what is contained in the Bill have been dismissed with derision.
Over the weekend I read a paper which was delivered to the University Hospitals Association in Southampton. It was written by Professor John Dickinson who is the professor of medicine at Bart's Hospital. He wrote:
"Personally I find the market place proposals distasteful in the extreme".
He considered,
"the consumption of scarce public resources on a massive accountancy exercise within what is still claimed to be a National Health Service to be appalling".
I have had a similar reaction but, more importantly, so did most of those who work in the
1264
National Health Service. A document entitled The Way Forward for the National Health Service was published a few days ago. It was written by the leaders of 25 professional organisations, including all the royal medical colleges, the Royal Colleges of Nursing and of Midwives and eight of the colleges for professions allied to medicine. It was a unique document and is quite unparalleled. Never before have the colleges come together in order to state their case. They stated:
"There is no evidence that personal gain provides a better incentive to ensure a high standard of care than does dedication to a properly organised and financed NHS".
Yesterday I received a faxed statement from another 14 professional groups, including health visitors, hospital physicists, community psychiatric nurses, hospital pharmacists, ambulance workers and district nurses. I am sure that the Minister has met those groups, but she did not comment upon them. When we reach the Committee stage I shall read several statements made by COHSE and NUPE, which are the two principal unions representing ancillary workers and others, including clerical workers, whose work is absolutely essential to those who provide the care.
There are some 978, 000 people employed in the National Health Service. That includes nurses, doctors, ancillary staff, administrative and clerical staff, ambulance officers and crews, paramedical grades, professional and technical grades and scientific and professional staff. Of those, well over 90 per cent. have recorded their opposition to the main proposals in this Bill. That is the central situation that we have to face. The vast majority of those who work in the National Health Service have through their representative organisations expressed extreme criticism, grave doubt and indeed fear of the way in which the Government propose to move. I quote again from the statement made by the royal colleges:
"We are ready to support proposals (if properly costed and funded) which can be shown to provide a better service. But we do not support untested proposals which we seriously believe will damage a service whose main defects are due to historic underfunding rather than defective organisation".
Yesterday's staff statement had this to say:
"If quality of care and professional standards of service cannot be maintained, and underfunding continues, there is likely to be a deterioration in the service to patients and worsening staff morale. Under these conditions the long term prognosis for the NHS is poor".
We must face that threat too. Any Secretary of State who thinks he can make fundamental changes to the National Health Service in the face of the absolute opposition of the staff who work for and care for it is a danger both to the NHS and to his party.
Yes, I know that there is a small group of managers, accountants and business men and women who see significant profits to be made in this huge market. They include those holding political appointments which were made either publicly or surreptitiously by the Secretary of State, who wants to start the process of privatisation of a great national service. Most of those people are new to the National Health Service and its motivation.
Maude Storey, the president of the Royal College of Nursing, who is known to many of us in this

1265
House, put the case very well at the RCN annual conference last week when she said that the Government's,
"narrow preoccupation with financial structures threatens to alienate nurses and marginalise their role".
She said that the legislation,
"had failed to create an environment which acknowledges and cherishes the contribution of nursing to the health care team".
That statement came from the president of the Royal College of Nursing. One could apply those sentiments equally to midwives, speech therapists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, ambulance workers and NHS ancillary workers. Then one would begin to understand why the vast proportion of health service workers have given the thumbs down to so much of the Bill that is before us today.
Maude Storey referred to disillusioned nurses drifting away from the profession. I have received over the past few days letters from general practitioners who have resigned from their NHS posts. Some of those practitioners I know and some of then I greatly admire. I fear that this is the beginning of a worrying trend unless something can be done in this House to cause the other place to think again.
All NHS staff want to see improvements in NHS performance. They are not Luddites. They are prepared to work long hours and make personal sacrifices to bring about improvements. They do not want to stand still, but none of them is convinced that these important, costly notions of US-style NHS trusts to administer self-governing hospitals, GP fund-holding practices and the introduction of an internal market where health authorities buy and sell services by contract will be improvements.
I mentioned how many organisations are opposed to the Bill. I challenge the Minister to say what organisations are in favour of it. Who in the National Health Service is in favour of making these fundamental changes without trial and without testing? The statement made by the royal colleges is emphatic:
"There is no evidence that any of these radical proposals will improve patient care or patient access to care … there is no evidence that forcing teaching hospitals and medical schools to spend large sums on costing and billing to replace the present system of freely given mutual assistance will improve either patient care or medical education and research".
Those procedures will certainly put up costs but that is a problem we shall have to face.
Apart from challenging the claims made by the Secretary of State, and indeed by the noble Baroness, the royal colleges further stated:
"to introduce these changes across the whole of the NHS in 1991 is completely unrealistic … a rapid and widespread introduction could seriously damage the service".
Why are those views ignored? The Minister made a nice speech but she did not touch for a moment on any of the criticisms, worries or concerns that have been expressed.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened with his usual attention to what I said, he would have heard many instances when I referred to the allegations that he has made.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Baroness. Of course I accept her word that she referred to those statements, and perhaps in that case she is giving evidence in my favour. Perhaps she will say what organisations in the National Health Service have supported these proposals.
The costs of the Government's programme are enormous. In 1990–1991 the Government accept that the cost of these changes will be more than £ 300 million. That is on top of the £ 85 million already spent on preparing the way for the changes. That is also before Parliament has even approved the legislation required to make the changes. A flood of new people has been brought in. They are men and women of undoubted financial wizardry. Some of them no doubt come from firms which may have gone bankrupt under the stress of high interest rates. I am not running down any of those people, but they are new to the National Health Service. Seminars have been held in five-star hotels, at the taxpayers' expense, to plan the takeover.
Some of your Lordships might suppose from what I have said that I am about to seek to defeat the Bill. That is not so. First, it would be wrong so to do. There are parts of the Bill which in Committee I shall support strongly. It may be that the new concepts that have caught the imagination of the Secretary of State and the noble Baroness have some potential for improvement. Fairness demands that we try them out in a controlled experiment. How can I or anyone else possibly reach a firm conclusion either for or against since there have been no pilot studies, no controlled experiments, no research and no systematic evaluation? The six hospitals which have been trying out the internal market concept for 18 months or so say with one voice that it is far too early to draw any conclusions.
The Government propose to enable new NHS trusts to run self-governing hospitals outside the health authorities, without trial and even without the approval of those involved. In every test of staff opinion in the units concerned there has been a massive reaction against the opt-out plans. At Guy's 90 per cent. were against; at St. Thomas', 82 per cent. were against; at the North Middlesex Hospital, 96 per cent were against; at Nottingham University Hospital, 97–1 per cent. were against; at Lewisham Hospital, 90–2 per cent. were against; at St. George's Hospital, Stafford, 93–5 per cent. were against; and at the Royal Scottish National Hospital, 94–5 per cent. were against. The turnout in most of those polls was 80 per cent., which is higher than in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election.
The leaders of the professions said last week that in their view it was wrong to impose new structures and sets of principles on the NHS when there was no evidence that the changes will improve health care. The vast majority of those with direct experience of working in the health service consider that the changes will endanger both standards of care and the availability of the service to all who need it. The 35 health service organisations to which I have referred represent well over 90 per cent. of those who work in the health service. They speak for almost all of those who work in the NHS.

1267
The colleges propose that the Government's novel proposals, rather than being introduced all over the country without testing, should be properly and systematically tested in a newly-established evaluation programme. They have even suggested the principles on which the evaluation should be conducted: health outcome; patient choice and satisfaction; implementation of service priorities; improvements in quality of care and value for money; staff job satisfaction and staff development; facilities for education and training of medical, nursing and other professions together with facilities for medical research; the development of effective measures of performance; and development of the research recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Time does not permit me to do so now, but in Committee I should like to read the statements that I have received from a great many individuals and a great many representative organisations.
The colleges propose that the evaluation should be carried out through the recently created post of chief of research and development. That proposal owes much to the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford. The noble Lord is abroad today, but he welcomes the proposals and hopes to take part in later debates.
We shall propose, on an all-party basis, that the new department becomes responsible for evaluation, research and development. We shall also recommend that the chief officer is strengthened by a widely representative advisory council. We recommend that the Secretary of State's proposals should be thoroughly evaluated in two pilot regions, to be determined by the Secretary of State, and should not be extended to other regions until three years of systematic evaluation have been concluded. That is a carefully thought out plan making use of existing machinery.
The objective is not to resist change or improvements but to identify and foster those changes which can be shown to be beneficial and to introduce modifications where necessary. The creation of such a department would be a guarantee to the Government, the professions and the public, that resources are being wisely spent in the interest of health for all.
What serious arguments can be set against those proposals, which come from the politicians, and the proposals which come from the professions— all those whose lives have been spent in the health service devoted to the task of delivery of care to patients? I know that the Secretary of State and the noble Baroness this afternoon have spoken of continuous evaluation, a procedure of trial and error. That is quite different from a systematic evaluation.
On March 27th Mr. Clarke said:
"Trying them out in only one part of the country"—
which is not what we propose—
"would be impracticable, creating uncertainty and further delay which would have a demoralising effect on staff".
Similar words were used by the noble Baroness.
1268
The opposite is the truth. It is the proposals themselves which are creating uncertainty and having a demoralising effect. As I have already proved, if those ideas were good and sound and had been proven they would be welcomed by those who work in the health service.
Can we say that those people, who have come forward with detailed and carefully thought out proposals, do not know what they are talking about? Of course not. They are the doyens of the profession. They have worked on the statement for three and a half months. Can it be said that they speak for only a small majority? No indeed. They speak for the vast majority of these who work in the health service. There is a small minority who take a different view— and I am looking forward very much to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who is one of those who has made a deep commitment. Are those people out of touch with public opinion? Nothing could be further from the truth. It is they who work face to face with clients, patients and the public.
If one looks at public attitudes, it can be seen that the Gallup Poll published on 5th March showed that 71 per cent. of the population disapproved of hospitals becoming self governing; 82 per cent. disapproved of GP fund holding; 70 per cent. wanted to see pilot studies before any of the proposals were implemented. Interestingly enough, a massive 77 per cent. of Conservative voters, higher than the average for all those polled, with their greater knowledge of business methods, called for pilot studies.
No businessman in his right mind would put on to the market a product that had not been tried and tested. No Secretary of State would make available for use in the health service medicines that had not been tried and tested. Why should we take a different attitude in terms of structures and organisation in the National Health Service? I do not argue that we should reject the proposals. I argue that they should be tested before they are introduced across the country, successfully or otherwise.
Perhaps the noble Baroness, or the noble Lord when he replies, will explain why the Secretary of State is so sure that he is right and that everyone else is wrong. For the moment we must rely on the Secretary of State's own words. On 27th March, the day when The Way Forward for the National Health Service was published, he accused the Royal Colleges and other organisations of,
"trying to persuade unelected peers to put a spoke in legislation late on, after it had passed through the House of Commons".
Let us look at that statement by the Secretary of State. First, if it is the collective and considered view of those who work in the NHS that,
"from their experience, [they] fear that these proposals will, if introduced nationwide, very seriously disrupt the NHS [and] become the subject of a gigantic and costly experiment with a high risk of failure"
— I quote from their statement— are they not right to address themselves to noble Lords? Let us remember that those professional bodies have put foward their views to the department and the Secretary of State with no response. Let us remember that there has been no meaningful consultation either before the publication of the Government's proposals or

1269
subsequently. Let us remember that they had sought a meeting with the Prime Minister to explain their views, but their request was refused. Can any of your Lordships say that in all those circumstances the colleges were wrong to address noble Lords? Is there one here who feels that he has the knowledge to challenge the conclusions? We shall find out in Committee.
What about Mr. Clarke's reference to passing through the House of Commons? Of course, he is right. In a Conservative-controlled Standing Committee, only two amendments out of 800 were accepted. All the rest were voted down. On Report, when other Members normally have a right to debate the measure, the guillotine allowed 285 minutes of debate for 212 amendments and 40 new clauses. In those circumstances, we are right to take our debates here in Committee and on Report as seriously as the noble Baroness encouraged us to do. That is our responsibility. Even 100 amendments proposed by the Government themselves went through undebated on a single block vote. That cannot be right in a democratic society dealing with a Bill as important as this. It was a quite unprecedented and unjustified clamp-down on the rights of elected Members.
Mr. Clarke is right: we are not elected. We know that we are not elected, but we have a constitutional role. The legislation must go through this House as well as through the House of Commons. We have a role which we must properly fulfil. As a proud Member of this House, I am determined that all of us should do our duty.
Mr. Clarke says that it is now too late for us to influence the Bill. This is the first opportunity that we have had of even discussing it. It might have been nice to have the Second Reading two or three months ago, but we could not. Certainly, we have not been able to debate the community care part because the Bill was published four days after the White Paper was published and there has been no opportunity for consultation, so we must look seriously at the proposals that have been put before us.
If Mr. Clarke says that it is too late, it is because he has jumped the gun by authorising appointments to be made and is spending money as if his unpopular ideas had received parliamentary approval. It may not be illegal, but in my view it is wrong. I believe that the House has a moral and constitutional responsibility to consider the Bill as seriously as it can and, if it is our will that we should put forward other ideas for another place to consider, then so be it.
I also understand that a growing number of managers are expressing concern about the pace of change demanded by Mr. Clarke. Last week's edition of the well-informed Health Service Journal stated:
"Senior managers are said to be pressing the NHS management executive to draw up contingency plans to restrict full scale implementation of the reforms to a small number of districts thought to have the greatest chance of success. These are likely to be the five or six districts, still to be named."
That is very interesting. It is evidence in our favour. I believe that there will be massive support in the National Health Service and in the country for many
1270
of the proposals which will be introduced on an all-party basis in Committee here.
I have only touched on some of the issues and I have a list of others that will come up in debate, but time does not permit me to deal with them now. In the last few minutes left to me I want to make two or three other points. As I have said, the Bill is already massively unpopular with the voting public. But, like the dreaded community charge which came into effect on April Fool's Day, the time for public outrage is not when the legislation is passed. Let us remember the cheering and the waving of Order Papers when the legislation to abolish the equally dreaded rating system went through. Let us remember the applause across the country and in both Houses and the euphoria for Nigel Lawson's 1987 "miracle" budget which is largely responsible for today's inflation rate and historically high mortgage rate.
The trouble comes when the chickens come home to roost. If only there had been a simple evaluation of the community charge, how much better off they might be; indeed, how much better off all of us in the country might be.
The NHS is already in a financial crisis as serious as that in 1987 when the Prime Minister set up her secret working party which produced this largely wretched Bill. A survey by the National Association of Health Authorities, soon to be published, shows that 35 per cent. of all health authorities have not been able to budget for any growth at all to meet the rising needs of the elderly. Moreover, health services across the country are now planning cuts. So, as we move up to April 1991 and the 12 months that follow, we shall find the National Health Service facing grave cuts. We shall find it having to spend massive sums of money on reorganisation which the people involved in it, except for a small minority, are against.
What will be the situation in the country at that time? It is my humble view that the community charge is a peripheral issue compared with the future of the National Health Service. We can adjust it by a few billion pounds to soften it up a bit for next year when we come up to the election. However, if you do that, you cannot have tax cuts, but nor can you put extra money into the National Health Service. What we have seen in terms of demonstrations has been deplorable and sad, but I believe that the depth of feeling in the country from 1st April 1991 and thereafter will be much more serious and more fundamental. It is not likely to attract violence because nurses are not accustomed to violence.
I believe that a government who, with all their current problems, press ahead with the Bill are committing suicide by the most painful way possible. If they do so, they have taken leave of their senses. Why, some of my friends and some of my enemies alike have asked, throw a life-belt, a means of postponing instant drowning? I want the Government to be defeated. I am a member of my own party and I must honestly say here and now that I put the health of the nation as my top priority. This is one of those occasions when Members of this

1271
House have a chance to display their greater wisdom and experience than some of those in another place who seem to have lost their way.
Our handling of this great issue may give the House one of its finest hours. I believe that the country, and certainly the 950, 000 who work in the National Health Service and millions of their patients who share their concerns, now look to this House for a lead. In my view, it is up to us to show courage.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him this question. What about the poor old patient? Anyone, listening to the noble Lord's speech would have the impression that the National Health Service was run for its employees. I did not hear the noble Lord mention the patient. What about the poor old patient?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I simply say very briefly that I referred to patients throughout my speech. I talked about patients' choice, patients' views and patients' relationships with doctors and nurses. It is largely the patients who are opposed to these proposals. Can the noble Lord not recognise that? The words are clear; the polls are clear. Every time the patients are asked for their views, out it comes, clearly and boldly.
4 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I speak as one of those to whom the noble Lord referred— the poor old patient. When I had the honour to join your Lordships' House some years ago it did not enter my head that I had been sent to this Chamber to do the work of the other place. But that is precisely what we are called upon to do today.
We have before us a Bill large parts of which were never debated in the other place. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, some 200 amendments to the Bill were made without discussion. So we have a heavy duty. We must discharge that duty not only in our own interests but also in the interests of all those who work in the service and those who depend upon it as patients. Some of us here are more dependent upon it than are others.
I believe that we should have had two Bills, one dealing with the National Health Service and the other dealing with community care. Not having had two Bills, it might have been helpful if we had been able to spend two days on Second Reading, one day devoted to the National Health Service and the other to community care. However, that is water under the bridge. As a consequence we have a huge list of speakers.
It behoves those of us who are privileged to speak early to be as brief as possible. That means that I must omit reference to the 30 or 40 briefing papers which, like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I have received from all kinds of professional and other bodies and from all manner of organisations on a whole variety of subjects. However, I should like to assure those who prepared those briefing papers, with great care and clearly with a great deal of
1272
thought, that their efforts have not been in vain or wasted. They will be absolutely invaluable to us during the later stages of the Bill. I believe that all the people in those different organisations to which reference has been made deserve our thanks for providing an example of what I regard as democracy in practice. So I hope it will prove after we have completed the later stages of this Bill.
My noble friend Lady Seear will deal later with community care. I shall therefore concentrate on that part of the Bill which deals with the National Health Service. I merely raise one point on community care. The noble Baroness will remember that I have been in correspondence with her about the appointment of hospital social workers. At the moment there is a difficulty. The noble Baroness explained to me how that difficulty arose. It means that in many hospitals social workers are not being appointed. The noble Baroness spoke particularly about the need for assessment in the community care of patients and also in respect of hospital patients. In the absence of the implementation of Section 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, if later we do not have enough hospital social workers in place, we shall be in desperate difficulties. I raise that matter now not in the expectation of an answer but to give notice that I shall return to it again and again until I receive an assurance that the problem has been solved.
It would be nonsense to suggest that after 42 years the National Health Service cannot be improved. Of course it can. It would also be nonsense not to realise that we must have learned a great deal during those 42 years and that we must use such knowledge. I personally accept the need for reform. However, I must make clear that I accept unequivocally the Secretary of State's repeated assertion that he has no intention now or in the future to privatise the National Health Service or to abandon the principles upon which that service has always been based. I accept that assertion unequivocally. There are those on this side of the House who may think that I am not all that wise to do so and that my trust will prove later to have been misplaced. I hope not.
It seems to me that we have a choice of two different ways in which to employ our speeches in today's debate and in the later stages of the Bill. First, we could seize the opportunity to discomfit the Government. That is quite tempting and would be quite easy; in the end it would be quite enjoyable. But I do not think that it would prove fruitful or be profitable for the wellbeing of the National Health Service about which we are all concerned. Alternatively, we can try to improve the Bill and make it workable. That is the course that I have chosen. Therefore I hope that the Government will accept that my remarks today are designed to assist rather than the reverse.
I have previously asked the Government to note that we have assembled in this House, in all parts of the Chamber and from all parties, a wealth of experience and expertise on health matters which excels that of any other forum, perhaps even the Department of Health itself. I hope therefore that the Government will heed the advice given in this debate from distinguished professionals such as the

1273
noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Hunter, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and many other noble Lords whom I shall not name. In view of the importance of the consumer aspect and the fact that it is not fully represented at the moment in the Bill, I include the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who is very knowledgeable on those matters. I hope that the advice of those very distinguished professionals whom we are fortunate to have in this House will be listened to and heeded. Like other noble Lords I greatly look forward to hearing the two maiden speeches which I am sure will be relevant.
It would be out of order now to talk about the new GP contract. Again, that is water under the bridge. But perhaps I may just say that if, when I entered genereal practice in the National Health Service many years ago, I had been told how often I should examine certain patients, I would have given a fairly sharp answer. And if I had been told in detail how I should do my work, I should have taken it rather amiss.
I am very much in favour of screening patients, provided that the screening is cost effective. For example, in our population there are many undiagnosed diabetics; yet diabetes is easily treated. It is easy to test urine and to diagnose a diabetic. That should be done. However, what if I am to take the blood pressure of every elderly patient every so many months? The concept of symptom-free pathology is one that I do not fully accept. If one finds that the blood pressure is raised, one has to treat it. If one starts treating it, one has to continue to treat it for ever. I am doubtful about the cost-effectiveness of some of the new procedures which have come in with the new contract. However, I shall leave that matter at the moment. Perhaps I may add that the reversion to payment largely by capitation I consider to be both regressive and regrettable for reasons which I have explained before.
As to the other proposals, particularly those concerning hospitals, it is worth noting that running through all the briefing papers that we have received is the theme of evaluation, caution, taking time and making sure that the changes will work before they are applied universally. It was, I think, my noble friend Lady Seear who said to your Lordships some time ago that no government ever get everything right the first time. I doubt whether even the great Liberal government of 1906 got everything right the first time. When one makes major changes in a structure which has served the nation well for 42 years, one should not merely conceive them. We should try out some of the procedures. But how should it be done and done in such a way as to get meaningful answers? Those are the kind of problems with which we are faced today.
With regard to the general question of hospital self-governing status, the establishment of hospital trusts is a crucial reform. Noble Lords may recall an earlier speech I made in a similar context. I had just come out of Manchester Royal Infirmary, the teaching hospital where I trained. In the debate I said that I personally believed that Manchester Royal Infirmary had no option. It had no choice other than to opt for self-governing status. Some noble Lords
1274
on this side of the House looked somewhat askance at that statement. Why did I make it? I made it because at the moment in that distinguished hospital, which has a very fine history, an old hospital is being demolished while a new one is being built inside it. The corridors and wards are full of bulldozers. There are ladders poking through the windows. The conditions are absolutely intolerable.
I believe that the major structural problems with which that hospital is faced in order to re-establish itself are too great to be solved by the normal procedures that the health service has established over the years. They can be solved only by a new procedure such as a trust with self-governing status, provided that that trust is properly constituted and has proper representation of the university, the medical school, the City and the public in that area. I believe that, given the opportunity to do things in its own way, Manchester Royal Infirmary could succeed.
I accept that there are possible advantages for the establishment of self-governing hospitals with hospital trusts. But we cannot find that out by undertaking an experiment with one hospital. We have to find out the consequences of having a self-governing hospital for other hospitals that are not self-governing and for other aspects of the service— the general practitioner service and various other factors. One cannot undertake an experiment with one hospital.
What are the problems with regard to the proposals put forward by the royal colleges? I regard the proposals as quite exciting. I shall be very interested to consider them further at the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I foresee that the Government will advance certain objections. Who chooses the regions? What happens to people who are not in the regions that are chosen? There are hospitals which have already spent a great deal of time, money and effort on preparing for self-governing status. Perhaps they should not have done so; perhaps they have jumped the gun. If they are not in one of the regions that is selected, they will shout, "Foul. Why have we been left out when we are nearly ready to go ahead?"
Those are the difficulties that I foresee. I do not believe that they are insurmountable. There may be many ways to overcome them. I should like to see some evaluation process, if not by the suggestion put forward by the royal colleges, perhaps by another method. We need a monitoring and evaluation process. I should like to see an independent National Health Service inspectorate established, but that is another matter which is not immediately related.
We then have points to raise about the so-called core services, as they used to be called. They are now called "designated services". They are services which have to be provided in every region. I do not quite know what they are. I raised this matter some weeks ago and was told by a physician from Cheltenham that there are two hospitals there and because care for AIDS comes within the alleged designated service they have to provide for it. But there are no sufferers from AIDS in Cheltenham, yet both hospitals have to provide for it. My point is not that we send AIDS to Cheltenham but that it seems illogical to suggest that every part of the country should provide for

1275
every possible form of medical activity. I do not think that that is reasonable. I do not believe that it would be cost-effective. It is not sensible economics. It is not even sensible medicine. Certain very expensive services have to be concentrated with a great deal of capital in limited areas. That could not be done if those provisions were spread all over the country. Inevitably certain standards would decline. I am concerned about the problems of research. In regard to hospital trusts, the word "may" appears in the Bill. I agree in principle with the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that the word "may" has to be changed to "must". I hope that at Committee stage we shall ensure that that is done. The noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, will make that point when we return to our discussions.
The representation of the universities is absolutely essential. With regard to the new family practitioner committees— whatever they may be called— we must be careful to ensure that the locality is effectively represented. That does not necessarily mean that I wish the community health councils to play a totally different role; I am not sure that they wish to be represented on all bodies. They are doing an important job; They should continue to do so. But somebody must ensure that the interests of the consumer— I use that word in the broadest sense— is effectively represented on each and every one of the bodies which will administer the National Health Service.
There are so many other matters that I should like to go into but I shall not do so. I wish to be brief. I conclude with some thoughts that have not been raised in our discussions recently. At the end of the day the quality of the health service that one receives, whether in or out of hospitals depends on the quality and the nature of the people who do the work. I make no criticism of that quality, the nature of those people or their trade. But society has changed during my lifetime. Motivation has changed. Clever pupils at school do not go in for science. They study accountancy and the sterile business of money management because the incentive, the motivation, has become that of making money. I believe that more children and young persons are now brought up with that concept.
That leads me to say a few words on the way that we select students to study medicine. The applicants far outnumber the places. How are they allocated? It is purely on the basis of high academic success in a very narrow range of A-levels. For years I was a general practitioner in the National Health Service. My patients did not need somebody with all kinds of A-levels. They did not need an academic genius, but someone who could listen, who was prepared to care for them and who had a real feel about the obligations involved in the job that he was doing. If any of my grandchildren decide to study medicine— I am sure that they will attain the necessary A-levels if they do the work— and on attempting to obtain a place at medical school are offered one without first having an interview, I shall say, "Do not go to that school; try another university". We need to look very carefuly at the
1276
quality of the people coming into these professions. I do not know how one can measure it. I am not sure how one solves the problem. However, I am not satisfied that by relying wholly on high academic success in a narrow range of A-levels we are necessarily obtaining the best and most suitable people to carry out this vitally important work.
I hope that in the later stages of the Bill we shall be able to improve it. I accept that there is need for reform in the National Health Service and that some of the ideas contained in the Bill could prove very valuable. But we must take care. If we make changes without sufficient care, thought and proper evaluation, instead of improving the National Health Service we could strike it a death blow.
4.17 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, ever since the publication of the White Paper, Working for Patients, there has been widespread discussion and concern in the Churches about the NHS proposals. Perhaps I may give one example. I remind your Lordships of the resolution that was passed in our Genera] Synod in July of last year. It was passed almost unanimously:
"That this Synod, noting the considerable history of Christian concern for an involvement in the provision of medical services,

(a) urges the Secretary of State to ensure that health and not cost is the prime objective and the requirements for economy in the use of time and money … do not undermine the provision of effective treatment;

(b) believes that the changes proposed are likely to affect adversely the access of vulnerable people to adequate health care;

(c) calls on the Secretary of State to extend the consultation period and only to introduce the changes if their feasibility has been established through trial projects".

Thus our General Synod voted last year in a resolution on the White Paper.
The comment may be made that that was the White Paper but we are not on the Second Reading of a Bill which has passed through the other place. How far does that change the concerns that were then expressed in the Church of England General Synod? I am sorry to say that it does not change them at all. It appears that the debates which took place on the NHS proposals throughout the country, especially by the professional bodies as already referred to, have not altered the Government's mind on the fundamental issues in the Bill.
I agree entirely with what was said about the sincerity of those who are bringing forward the proposals, particularly the Secretary of State, and their commitment to the National Health Service. However, there are still many doubts about the proposals, especially in informed health circles.
There is a tendency to write off the criticism that comes from professional bodies by saying that fundamentally it is self-interest. I am the last person to deny that self-interest often raises its head in such matters. One has only to look back at the history of the creation of the National Health Service and see the attitude of certain elements within the medical profession as Secretary of State Aneurin Bevan brought forward the proposals to realise that we do not need to go overboard for criticism, however well informed.

1277
From what has been put in front of us, particularly the paper from the professional bodies already referred to, we must recognise that this case is different. The criticism is not self-interest but it arises out of deep concern and knowledge of the workings of the National Health Service since its creation. No one denies the need for reform. No one denies that resources are limited. No one denies that the principle behind audit can be valuable and it is necessary to help all those working in the NHS to realise the need for conserving scarce resources and giving value for money. Who can disagree wih the main aims of the Bill; namely, extending patient choice, delegating responsibility and providing value for money?
We also welcome the commitment of the Secretary of State and others to the main principles of the NHS. They are the provision of treatment open to all, free at the point of use and financed primarily by taxation. All that is welcome, but informed doubts remain They have commended themselves to many people in Britain, as the surveys have shown. Surely such criticisms from the professional bodies cannot be dismissed as being in any way self-interest. I see no reason to doubt the statement made in the briefing paper The Way Forward for the NHS. It reads:
"Our concerns are for the health of our patients and for the present and future overall standards of health care in the United Kingdom".
Now that the Bill has come here from the other place it is clear that the main changes will come into effect. As has already been stressed, the function of this House is that of a revising Chamber. But we must exercise that process knowing that deep doubts remain throughout the NHS, among patients and in the country as a whole. This is not a party political matter. Surveys show that concern about the proposals is widespread and is held by people of all political persuasions.
One reason for the concern and doubt felt in the Churches is the emphasis placed by government in recent years on the value of private medicine and private health insurance. I do not believe that it is possible to carry conviction and profess a deep commitment to the NHS and all that it stands for, while at the same time constantly paying tribute to private medicine even to the extent of giving tax relief to those with private health insurance not merely after their own retirement but also to their children. That is a matter which could well undercut the fundamental principles of the NHS and lead inevitably to a two-tier service.
We must also recognise that a sense of pride and high morale is needed among those working in public service. I am afraid that in recent years no stress has been put on that. Private provision has been exalted at the expense of those giving public service in many different fields.
I turn to the main proposal which will occupy the thoughts of Members of this House during the next few weeks. It is reasonable to ask for a trial period. Although I claim no expertise in the field I have read through the briefing and the criticisms. I believe that the proposal put forward by the professional associations is reasonable and wise. If I were in a
1278
position to vote for the proposal when it came before the House I should feel inclined to do so.
I am conscious of the clock, as should we all be with such a long list of speakers. However, I wish to point to some of the doubts which have been expressed by many, particularly by the Churches. First, there exists the anxiety about the doctor/patient relationship in the face of cash limits. I was grateful for the careful phrasing of the Minister in pointing out that indicative budgets are not cash limits. We welcome that; it leaves room for flexibility. However, the relationship between doctors and patients is vital: it is sometimes called the "covenant/fidelity" relationship. It could all too easily be damaged if there were suspicions that cash was determining the form of treatment and not the needs of the patient. More attention must be paid to that issue in the Bill before us.
Secondly, we all welcome patient choice. However, the question is whether greater patient choice will work only to the advantage of the better off; for example, those with cars and ease of transport. The Church of England's board for social responsibility has produced comments on Working for Patients which are also relevant to the Bill. The board points out that the offering of services in other districts depends on a degree of mobility not available to many people. Women with small children, people without cars, low wage earners and frail and elderly people cannot reasonably be expected to travel in response to the differential availability of services. I note the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that in certain hospitals one must concentrate on specialist services. That is accepted. As regards treatment in general, patient choice sounds a marvellous idea until it is looked at in terms of transport and so forth.
There is also the issue of links with the local community. I am worried because local authorities appear to be cut out of the process. However much certain local authorities may be disliked and distrusted by one side or another in this House, the fact remains that they are elected. They are also links with the people in their communities. The Bill before us does not leave sufficient room for genuine elected local involvement in the provision of such services.
How do we measure value for money, on which the Bill before us lays great stress? That is not at all easy and its complexities do not appear to have been sufficiently recognised. For instance, if one argues that some hospitals are more efficient than others because of the number of beds available, or their use, or their high patient turnover, how can one also allow for the quality of service where cost should not be the prime consideration?
I turn to the question of preventive medicine and the gross inadequacies which now exist in our country. Those inequalities were pointed out in the Black Report published some years ago but they have been addressed all too little in recent years. Little mention is made in the Bill of preventive medicine and it receives only a comparatively small share of the total health budget. While I have no time to comment on what is put before us concerning community health care, it is a fundamentally important part of the whole approach to health.

1279
We must concentrate more on measures which stop people becoming ill. We must recognise that in certain parts of the country there is a tragic syndrome of smoking, bad diet, alcoholism, poor housing, and so forth, which affect people's health. Too little attention is given to this in the Bill.
Perhaps I may also mention— no doubt noble Lords would expect me to make this point, but I think it is fundamentally important— that there is the question of spiritual provision in our health services. We believe in an approach which includes attention not only to the body and to the mind but also to the spirit. I believe that chaplaincy services provided by the Churches but financed by government have been fundamentally important over the years. What guarantee is there that under financial pressures these will not begin to be eroded or even disappear? Surely something along these lines should be written into the contracts between the suppliers and purchasers of health care.
The last matter for which I have time this afternoon is to point to the danger of differential payments in the National Health Service. If there are self-governing hospitals there will be temptations along two possibly opposed lines. It may be that some "successful" hospitals will be able to pay larger salaries to attract better qualified staff; there may be others which, under the pressures, are tempted to cut corners, to underpay staff, to take on people who are less qualified, in the interests of keeping their budgets down.
We must recognise that the National Health Service, as one of the largest employers in Europe, also includes among its ranks many very low-paid people. I think a concern for the levels of pay in the NHS ought to be a fundamental consideration as we look at the implications of self-governing hospitals and moves of that kind.
In conclusion, I do not know how far amendments which will be tabled will help to meet the kind of doubts which are being expressed widely in the country and in the Churches, but I very much hope that during the Committee stage we shall be able to make some improvements there.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, this Bill will shape the face of the National Health Service and the quality of health care in this country for several years to come at the very least, and possibly for much longer. Even if there were a change of government it will not be possible to throw into reverse the whole of this vast and complex service; nor would it be right to do so. This places an important duty on us to see that the Bill leaves this House with some significant improvements. I think that is the way ahead that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, wanted to adopt.
The motivation of the Government in bringing the Bill forward and the cavalier way in which they have done it are very much open to question. To alienate large sectors of the medical and other health professions as a prelude to this considerable upheaval was either inept or deliberately
1280
confrontational. Whichever is the case these reforms have not got off to a good start. But whatever their inclinations the Government have been unable to resist popular demand for the continuation of a service free at point of delivery and financed largely out of general taxation. This has been the political consensus of health care over the last 40 years, and it is the one area of consensus on which the Government have made virtually no inroads.
Much flows from this. It means that the obligation of the Secretary of State as laid down in the National Health Service Act 1977 is still in place. It is not repealed. It is still his duty— I quote from Clause 1 of that Act—
"to continue the promotion in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

(a) in the physical and mental health of people of those countries, and

(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services in accordance with this Act".

It is on this bedrock that we are entitled to take our stand and to press the Government hard on the likely effect of this legislation on the fulfilment of that duty. In fact, the Government themselves, through the rather tendentious title Working for Patients have invited us to measure their proposals against their professed objective.
Having said that, I do not regard the Bill with quite so much alarm or, indeed, loathing, as other critics have shown towards it. It was not an option to do nothing. The SDP has never advocated merely continuing the status quo. It is true that over the years we have had remarkably good value for money from the NHS owing to lower administrative costs and lower-paid health workers than in most other developed countries. That is the main reason why our percentage of GDP devoted to health care is so much lower than in comparable countries. In essence, we have adopted the much loved British approach of muddling through, relying to a large degree on ethical commitment. Admirable though that may be, it has given rise to serious gaps and shortfalls in performance, of which the most politically embarrassing was and is the intractable total of waiting lists for elective surgery which still remain at over a million in the United Kingdom as a whole.
I was going to say something about the overall funding of the service, but in view of the time and the length of the speakers' list I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, into the question of whether or not there is underfunding in the National Health Service. However, I must say in passing that the Government should not believe that this shake-up will be cost-neutral. There are many costs connected with the implementation of the Bill which they have not even begun to face up to. For example, the transaction costs of costing and billing, not only across district boundaries but within them, are not even mentioned in the financial memorandum to the Bill.
My main criticism of the Bill is structural. In a lecture recently Professor Nick Bosanquet, the Professor of Health Policy at the Royal Holloway and Bedford New College called the acute hospitals

1281
the "dreadnoughts of the health service". This Bill is too hospital-centred. That is because the Government believe they can solve the efficiency trap to which the noble Baroness referred, (that is, whereby hospitals which treat more cases are not being reimbursed accordingly) and eliminate waiting lists through separation of purchaser and provider in an integral market.
We on this Bench are not against an integral market— indeed, we introduced the notion into the health service debate in this country— but we very much doubt if the Government's model will have the desired result. No less a person than Mr. Enoch Powell said in 1966 that Ministers are powerless to do anything about waiting lists. And when the Government threw money at their waiting lists initiative what happened? There were improvements in some areas, but the overall situation did not improve because unmet demand flowed in to mop up the money.
There is only one cure for waiting lists— that is to ensure that no one goes to an acute hospital who does not really need to go there. This requires a dramatic shift from secondary to primary and community care, and health maintenance in general. I shall revert to this theme shortly.
My next criticism is the one that I believe is widely shared by many noble Lords who have been worried by the helter-skelter timetable and have demanded pilot studies. The Government have reacted strongly against this. Ministers have objected that it would take years to evaluate experiments, and they would be cosily and inconclusive. But this comes oddly from the Government when the whole Bill is a vast laboratory, with various experiments taking place in it or about to take place for which the Government have provided no adequate means of evaluation.
Thus they lay themselves open to serious charges on two counts. First, it is not businesslike. No service industry of comparable size could afford to neglect an evaluation of its own results in order to arrive at the best methods of improving performance, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said. Secondly, it is certainly irresponsible, and probably unethical, to have no mechanism in place in the Bill to ensure the quality of service and the satisfaction of the patient at whom the whole exercise was supposed to be directed in the first place.
That brings me to my third criticism. Despite the rhetoric of the White Paper's title and some easement of the procedure for changing GPs, there is precious little in the Bill for the patient, which was a point of concern for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
I turn now with a very broad brush to areas where improvements can be made and amendments are necessary. I have already spoken of the need to improve the primary and preventive care network and to create a health maintenance philosophy as the only hope of reducing hospital queues. In this context, the idea of the fund-holding practice is an interesting one. I can see that enthusiastic GP teams with a rather wider remit and increased ancillary support could have a beneficial effect on the health of their practice populations and act in effect as
1282
health maintenance organisations. I have read that some 85 large practices— representing, I imagine, about a million people— have applied for that status, but I think the noble Baroness mentioned an even larger number, so perhaps the noble Lord will tell us when he comes to reply what is the state of play on this at the moment. I for one do not want to stop this experiment going ahead.
However, we cannot know in advance that it will be successful, so I believe that other methods of extending primary care and health maintenance should be tried. The Government have devised a new family health service authority, to which the noble Baroness referred, and made it directly accountable to the regional health authority. However, there is a much better combination which we have long advocated; that is the amalgamation of the FPC, or its successor, with the district health authority to break down the artificial divisions between the family practitioners, the hospital and the community health services. I cannot think why the noble Baroness referred to that as an unnecessary distraction. The enormous advantage is that it would be in everybody's interests— consultants, nurses, GPs and community workers— to ensure that the patient received the most appropriate care, not necessarily in hospital. There would also be an incentive for the health authority as a whole to invest in health promotion and increase the range of GP services to avoid expensive hospitalisation.
That could be achieved by permitting district health authorities, with all their services, to become self-governing trusts in which the family health service authorities could also be incorporated. I hope to devise an amendment, not on a prescriptive basis, to open up that possibility in Committee. It should not invalidate the internal market because there would be trading between the trust and the private sector, as the Government propose. We agree with the Government that the trusts should have greater flexibility and freedom over terms and conditions of employment, over borrowing from the private sector, and over the retention of surpluses to improve services and for further investment.
Incidentally, I possess a list of those NHS bodies which applied for trust status. It includes a dozen district health authorities applying as a whole with all their services. Can the noble Lord tell us, when he replies, how the Government propose to treat those applications?
We should like to add one other refinement which would certainly stimulate the internal market: that is, to give patients a right to treatment within a given period of time. That might be equal to the average waiting time in the speciality in question in the best 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of health authorities. If the patient did not receive treatment within that period, he should have the right to seek it from another DHA or, if the cost was no greater, from the private or voluntary sector. The DHA of origin would be obliged to meet the cost of treatment and any travelling involved, which is a matter of particular concern to the right reverend Prelate. That would do more for patients than anything proposed in the Bill as it stands.

1283
Another result of the amalgamation may be the revitalisation of GP or community hospitals, whose role may include minor surgery, strokes, convalescence, respite care, geriatric care and so forth. Those hospitals may become centres for out-patient clinics to increase access to specialist consultation. To regard as unthinkable the requirement for one doctor to spend time travelling to, for instance, 20 patients rather than their travelling to see him, is to continue to organise the NHS on the assumption that the patient's time is worthless. If working for patients means anything, that sort of devolved service should be the norm rather than sucking everything into the acute hospital.
So much for the structure. I now turn to the quality. The noble Baroness said that the aim of the Bill is to improve quality. I submit that there is a glaring lacuna on that point in the Bill, which has no provision for the monitoring of standards or quality control. It is an unjustified assumption that rewarding hospitals for increases in numbers treated will lead to increases in the quantity and quality of life of those treated.
There are several possible ways of tackling this subject. The Labour Party is keen on a quality control commission. There is also the idea— attributed to Lord Young of Dartington— of creating a core of inspectors of health analogous to the HMIs in education with comparable rights and duties. That might be linked to a strengthened social security inspectorate to cover the whole range of health and community care. There is the proposal for a national accreditation board to which NHS and private sector bodies would be encouraged to affiliate on a voluntary basis.
I hope either to move or support a new clause based on that idea in Committee, but ultimately we shall have to see which alternative gains most support in your Lordships' House and go for that. We must have a provision for the maintenance of standards and the promotion of quality in the Bill. As the Independent Hospitals Association rightly said, regulation of quality standards must be separated from the purchasers of care. It cannot all be done in the contract which, as the noble Baroness said, will not be legally binding.
There are two other possibilities which we must consider. The first concerns the Audit Commission. I welcome the extension of its role to include the NHS. However, in so doing the Government have drawn its powers more tightly than those it enjoys in relation to local government. I specifically regret that the power under Section 27 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 was curtailed for the health service. There is no reason why the Audit Commission should not report on the impact of statutory provisions, for example on standards, or question the objectives of the Secretary of State. That is exactly what is required in an open system, and those powers should be restored in full.
Another aspect in which the Bill could be improved relates to the need for R&D on the operational side of the service. The Select
1284
Committee on Science and Technology under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford— to which reference has already made— recommended an NHS research authority to remedy that position. I believe it was Professor Maynard of York who pointed out in evidence that there was excessive emphasis on measuring inputs without measuring outputs in terms of quality of life and the results of treatment in general. The Government accepted that argument in principle, but rejected the idea of an independent research authority, preferring to appoint a chief of research and development to advise the Secretary of State and the NHS management executive.
That has been done or is about to be done. Perhaps the noble Lord can advise us whether that appointment is in place. However, the appointee could easily become a lonely and not particularly effective figure unless he is backed by a strong team which is able to inspect and evaluate that which is happening on the ground. That might be the best way of allaying the fears and apprehensions which so many of us share. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested one form of evaluation and there could be others, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, suggested.
Any of the ideas I have just sketched in would strengthen rather than undermine the Bill. I hope that the Government will not reject them all out of hand. I and my noble friends are convinced that there must be a move in the direction of extended primary care and prevention. There is no other way to prevent increasing pressure on acute hospitals. If the Government do not take that on board they will find that they have initiated enormous upheaval which will not give them the results they seek and which we all want.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, my gut reaction is not one of shock horror towards the Bill. The Bill opens up some interesting possibilities of evolution for the service. However, the Government have not thought through all their measures, conceived as they were in a closet without consultation. They would therefore be very well advised to listen to your Lordships' House.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, your Lordships will perhaps not be surprised that I was somewhat daunted at the prospect of joining your Lordships' House. I must confess that the adrenalin was running at some pressure when I was shown to the Bench next to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, who said, "Sit down, lad, you are among friends now".
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have been so kind to me since I joined this House. I also pay tribute to my distinguished and gallant father who was distinguished and gallant on several counts, one of which in particular may interest your Lordships. He was mentioned in dispatches while serving as Serjeant-at-Arms in your Lordships' House. That was quite an achievement. He was on considerable leave of absence.
It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the National Health Service Bill in a maiden speech

1285
because anything I say would undoubtedly be controversial. However, I think there is one point on which, everybody in this House agrees; the National Health Service undoubtedly needs a serious degree of reform. Therefore perhaps I may address your Lordships on complementary medicine. I refer to that medicine which is complementry to and not alternative to modern medicine, particularly referring to plant material and its medicinal uses by medical herbalists.
There are hundreds of thousands of patients of medical herbalists in this country— I am happy to say all alive and kicking, at least so long as they survive this mortal coil. There are also chiropractors who claim to have over 2 million consultations a year. Perhaps your Lordships will agree that that indicates an increasing acceptance by society of such disciplines, which are of great benefit to the country and especially to the National Health Service because they do not use NHS beds or drugs; they do not suffer from serious side-effects and they do not get sued by their patients.
With regard to research, there is the European Society for Co-operation of Psychotherapy— the in-word for medical herbalism— commonly known as ESCOP. In addition to that, of course, in this country we have the Research Council for Complementary Medicine, with a distinguished panel of doctors and patrons, and the Centre for Complementary Health Studies at Exeter University, which runs a degree course in several disciplines and the associated historical and ethical aspects.
With special reference to herbal medicine, there is the National Institute of Medical Herbalists to which the practising members belong having completed a four-year study course at the School of Herbal Medicine which is run by the British Herbal Medicine Association. That association has just issued the 1990 edition of the British Herbal Pharmacopoeia, with some 80 monographs. These 80 monographs updated from over 250 monographs which were in the 1984 edition. This pharmacopoeia will be supported in due course by a compendium prepared by the Centre for Comprehensive Health Studies at Exeter, which will provide clinical research that support the monographs.
The research work into herbal material is of worldwide importance. Indeed, it is stored in the ancient civilisations of South America, Africa, India and China. It confirms much of the work of the more modern medieval European herbalists. We have a great store of knowledge in herbal materials in this county. Predictably, I refer to the Chelsea Physic Garden. I had the honour to be on the fund-raising committee when it was made a charity. Ironically enough, this garden was the nursery for medieval apothecaries whose establishment was the hostel at Blackfriars. Strangely enough, that hostel is now the headquarters of the Royal Society of Pharmacists.
In addition, there is the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew where an enormous amount of research work is being carried out. The gardens are particularly associated at the moment with the World Wildlife Fund expedition to the Korup Forest in the Cameroons where a huge store of herbal medicinal
1286
knowledge is being discovered. Plant material, however, is being examined much more for its drug and agro-chemical use than for its herbal uses. It is the medicinal values that I wish to propound to your Lordships on future occasions.
At Kew there is a huge computer database storing a remarkable amount of knowledge. It contains material from the herbarium sheets. These are samples of plant material which have been sent to Kew over the centuries by explorers, by travellers and even by the odd interested consul in some outlying post of the Empire. They are stored with the details of climate, soil conditions and any available local knowledge. It may surprise your Lordships to hear that there are no fewer than 11 million of these sheets. That indicates the vast amount of work that needs to be done in the promotion and knowledge of the herbal use of plant material which we have in this world.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, my first and most pleasant duty is to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, on his speech. He showed charm and courage— courage not in the face of the occasional turbulence of this Chamber but because at least half a dozen orthodox practitioners are sitting on this side of the House. Further, in the spirit of maiden speeches he spoke about complementary medicine and not alternative medicine, and in that we support him.
From these Benches I issue to the noble Earl, on everyone's behalf I am sure, an invitation for 9th May when the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will be opening a debate in this Chamber on complementary' medicine. Everyone on the Cross-Benches and I am sure everyone in the Chamber looks forward to hearing him speak on that occasion.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hunter of Newington: That invitation comes from a retired professor of materia medica.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, did a fair and reasonable job in introducing the Bill, including giving a framework of the situation, which I believe was right and proper in opening a somewhat complex debate. Around the world of health services there is a crisis over expenditure. This is true of the United States of America and also of Canada, whose health service has been the envy of the world. In all, the style of delivery of medical services is under scrutiny, but we are told that Canada, which everyone admires, is now the world's highest per capita spender on health care of any country with a national system.
The president of the American College of Physicians, Edwin P. Maynard, was reported on Tuesday, 2nd February of this year as saying:
"To date, efforts to effectively contain costs have been insufficient. Rationing is here to stay. We need to develop a logical and equitable process to handle it".
We are in good company. We also need a logical and equitable process.
An important determinant of health to which our Government have begun to pay attention is the

1287
public health: clean air, clean water, standards of food preparation, occupational health and safety standards, employment, education and training and a stable working environment. Unfortunately, I suspect that if successful the prolongation of life may not necessarily save costs. A vitally important determinant of health is choice: food, drugs, alcohol, exercise and sexual habits, dramatically highlighted by the discovery of AIDS and its prevention by personal choice.
There are then the diagnostic and treatment services free at the point of access and the choice of diagnostic tests and treatments depending upon the personal decisions of physicians and surgeons. In contrast to the Canadian insurance model, in the United Kingdom, as in Sweden, it is the Government who plan, organise and deliver health services. In the USA the government's direct involvement in the US health model represents about one-third of health care activity. It is because of the situation to which I have referred that our Government have, quite rightly, had to make proposals for the future organisation and running of the health service. Their method of doing this has seriously flawed the rational consideration of the proposals, many of which are in fact strongly supported by the medical profession.
At first sight it would appear that the Government are proposing a demand-led service to replace a need-led service decided by doctors and, at the same time, with the aid of modern technology, introducing more detailed financial records and embarking on the complicated business of trying to identify the detail which should be in doctors' contracts. Later I shall be saying something about general practice, but it is as well to remember that since 1911 doctors in family practice have been independent contractors. Recently a new contract has been imposed on them— from 1st April, a few days ago. My personal view is that this has complicated the situation.
As an illustration of the demand-led proposals, it is suggested that general practitioners should buy hospital services. The proposed details for doctors' contracts, instead of trusting independent contractors who are professional people, has given rise to the greatest concern and anger within the profession. That is not made any easier by the admission in the White Paper on the health service that there is not enough information available at the moment to draw up these contracts.
As a result of the methods used and the way in which advice was taken, there are many things of vital importance which have not been considered. For example, in Canada they are moving forward with the Independent Health Facilities Act. This legislation will result in planned, quality-assured systems of community-based care providing many procedures more conveniently and less expensively than in hospitals. They will free hospitals to provide services that truly require a hospital setting. Here I mention eye testing, testing for deafness, laboratory tests and, we hope in the future, screening for cancer and seeing the consultant of the doctor's choice in a group practice. It will be quite criminal if studies were not urgently done to expand the role of allied
1288
professions in this setting though I am sure that the Government have started on this.
A study made in the United Kingdom recently has shown that referring patients to distant hospitals for special treatment is the exception and not the rule. To be forced to do this for financial considerations is, I suspect, not going to save resources. The Government proposals seem to suggest that price reflects value and that throughput effectively measures health care performance. Neither of these is correct.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of what the Government mean by that. The measurement of healthcare performance and results is the key to the whole of this situation. In this human situation price does not necessarily reflect the value of an operation or a treatment.
Another imaginative idea which does not appear to have been considered in the government plan is the Canadian proposal for a hospital incentive fund where the Government provide matching funds up to 500, 000 dollars to hospitals to develop new approaches to more effective management of hospital resources and the provision of enhanced care for patients. That could apply to all hospitals and not those specially blessed by the Secretary of State for holding a budget. I believe that through a hospital incentive fund any hospital could graduate or go back as a result of its efforts. I suspect that this kind of approach would be a great challenge and stimulus to the hospitals and probably more acceptable than the present proposals.
To offer this incentive opportunity for three to five years might present a challenge to everyone and a continuing opportunity for all institutions within the NHS to have their achievements recognised. I am sure that there will be amendments to suggest that.
The central problem remains that doctors control the expenditure but fortunately both the medical profession and the Government are enthusiastic about the idea of introducing what is called medical audit. That tends to mean different things in different places. The Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House, which has been mentioned, has made recommendations about improving the research and development of the health service and these have been substantially accepted by the Government. Many people believe that it is through this machinery, medical audit and the relationship between doctors and management, that changes for the future should take place based on proper evidence.
I do not think that the medical profession is against change, but is is against the introduction of new procedures and new methods, some of which have failed in the United States. I think it will be found that much of the pressure, when this matter is being debated in the House, will be concerned with the question of trying to find an evolutionary path and how that might be achieved. There is a long way to go if the American scene is any guide. Joseph Colifario Jnr, a former Secretary for Health, has stated that a quarter of American health costs (150 billion dollars) is wasted or unnecessary.

1289
The Government's response to the report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology offers the opportunity to develop and produce a health care technology research capability. The roots of modern medicine are based on rigorous scientific validation of what doctors do in order to ensure that it is always appropriate and effective.
A chief of research and development— a post which the Government have proposed— would advise on a number of matters. They are so important that I shall briefly mention them: advising the management executive on priorities for the health service; research and managing a programme of NHS research to meet needs, particularly research into the efficacy and effectiveness of the health service; supporting the creation in the National Health Service of regional and local arrangements for identifying and meeting clinical and service research needs; monitoring the service support and facilities provided by the National Health Service for externally funded research; and ensuring that research information is widely disseminated and used by managers and practitioners to improve patient care.
I am sure that responsible members of the medical profession accept the acute nature of this problem and the response to clinical audit which has the enthusiastic support of all the colleges and of the British Medical Association. Let us make no mistake about it: there is a long, long way to go until there is effective development of quality controls and the setting of priorities in expenditure. For that reason I hope that the Government will relax their approach to this legislation and respond to some of the demands in certain areas that the proposals should be tested. At the very least, the Government must indicate which are the priority areas that the chief of research and development should examine urgently, immediately he or she is appointed.
On 11th April 1984, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, during the debate on the National Health Service managers, said:
"the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised this particular point on costs. The Government recognise the point they made …. To try to got this information involves a long-term programme: there is the question of computers … We cannot hope to achieve this overnight, but the important thing is to start now and not to believe that because it is a difficult task it is not worth doing. We have already set in hand a good deal of work to help develop the general capability which is sought".— [Official Report; 11/4/84, col. 1191.]
That was six years ago. I believe the Government have admitted in the White Paper that things are not yet quite ready and, therefore, on their own experience, perhaps in some areas a year or two more of study might be necessary. General medical practice is arguably the element of health care closest to the heart of the National Health Service. Nine out of 10 episodes of ill health treated by the health service are handled at this level. It is in part because of the effectiveness of the British family doctor system in preventing needless specialist interventions that the NHS is relatively inexpensive compared with other OECD countries' health care provisions. Yet the family doctor service accounts for less than £ 1 in every £ 10 spent by the National
1290
Health Service. Even if expenditure on pharmaceutical services is taken into account, the figure is only £ 2 in every £ 10.
Yet it is noticeable that, despite the popularity of general practitioner care with the public, some politicians and health care planners do not seem to appreciate the extent to which the family doctor services are a community asset which should be further developed rather than ignored or undermined by unnecessary hospital contracts. The main reason for this is probably that the system has a long tradition of independence predating the formation of the National Health Service by nearly half a century.
The proposals in the White Paper and the Bill about the future of general practice disappoint me. There is no provision for married women returning to practice or keeping contact with the object of returning later. Yet 50 per cent. of medical students in some schools are women. There is no picture painted of the proper use of the professions allied to medicine or of providing, in a large group practice, facilities for investigation and examination by modern methods. It is surely important to avoid sending patients to hospital unless it is really necessary. The development of large group practices with many additional facilities and attendance by consultants would go a long way towards providing a more satisfactory service for patients, particularly the elderly and the infirm. Again, the Canadian model is a guide, with the Independent Health Facilities Act.
I suggest that an urgent study should be set up by the chief of research and development, immediately he or she is appointed, to investigate this matter. Hospital waiting lists at the moment are cluttered up with large numbers of patients waiting to be seen by consultants or to have special investigations in hospital which, in the future, should be carried out in a group practice or a secondary care centre.
In our debate in December on uncertainties in the National Health Service the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said (I told the noble Lord that I would quote him):
"I congratulate my noble friends in government on their first-class initiative, but I warn them not to spoil it by excessive haste and by making self-governing hospitals the sole objective".— [Offical Report, 6/12/89; col. 870.]
One may ask: what are the areas where experiments might be done? First, there is the setting up of hospital trusts. I feel that the kind of challenge given by the Canadian example might have wide application in this country. Secondly, there is the development of general practice units which are effectively designed to provide the maximum number of facilities and to ensure that patients do not go to hospital unless they need to. Thirdly, an urgent examination of the management system in community service is needed— a point which other noble Lords may wish to discuss. Lastly, there is a message for the doctors. They must respond vigorously to Duncan Nichol's initiative in management training announced some weeks ago. With management and audit, the future lies.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for changing places with me in the speakers' list. I apologise to the House for not being able to remain until the end of the debate owing to a previous long-standing engagement.
I must declare my interest. The Sue Ryder Foundation exists to meet the needs of people in the community, or currently blocking hospital beds, in providing dedicated and professional nursing care in a homely and supportive setting. The foundation provides beds for both terminal and intermediate cancer sufferers, for those suffering from long-term neurological diseases and handicaps, for the elderly and for those who need respite or holiday care as a support to their carers. The foundation supports any provisions which increase support for the needy and which avoid the wasting of scarce resources. As such, there is much to recommend many of the proposals in the Bill.
However, there are a number of fundamental weaknesses which cause grave concern to a voluntary organisation which seeks to help those most in need— not those who can afford to pay, or whose care needs are such that a profit can be made by the care provider; but rather those with whom others simply cannot cope. They are the silent sufferers for whom talk of a wider choice, increased resources and better provision are frankly and sadly a sick joke.
The following are matters of concern to the foundation which bears my name. The Government propose that people already receiving income support for nursing care on 1st April 1991 will continue to do so under the new system. This spells potential financial disaster for the charitable foundation, which is currently struggling to meet a projected deficit on its existing homes in 1990 of more than £ 2–5 million. This deficit relates almost entirely to the fact that whereas the Department of Social Security pays £ 235 per week to a qualifying patient in nursing care, rising to £ 245 in April and by a further £ 10 thereafter, the true cost of full nursing care in a typical Sue Ryder home ranges from £ 370 to well over £ 500 to £ 600 per week.
The Government have consistently failed to make proper provision to help with these deficiencies. The implication is clear: £ 2–5 million, the amount of the foundation's loss this year, is equivalent to the capital cost of up to two new 30-bed homes for very many sick people. Alas, these homes will never be founded. I stand here in sorrow for those who patiently wait in vain.
Henceforth, patients requiring government financial assistance for nursing care must have their needs assessed by a social worker care manager. While the involvement of other care agencies in this procedure is welcomed, it is deplorable that there is no right of appeal against the decision made. Furthermore, care managers will have to face an enormous and sensitive task and will require not only specialist training but the infinite knowledge of a god if they are to be able to assess care needs accurately and meet them. The foundation has little
1292
confidence that this will be developed inside 10 years, let alone 10 months. There could be enormous waiting lists and delays. Patients will die while forms await filling in.
Under Clause 41 of the Bill, social services authorities are to be under an obligation to prepare plans for the provision of community care services in their areas. The requirement to consult quite widely is welcomed. But why is there no requirement for them to consult the one group of people who really matter— the handicapped people themselves and their carers? For a government who pride themselves on respect for consumer demand, this surely is an extraordinary omission.
Social services authorities will be required to make contracts with service providers, such as the foundation, for the supply of care to those in need. The foundation's greatest fear is that, without a ring-fenced budget for community care, the social services authorities' care managers will be under irresistible pressure to buy cheap— as cheap as possible— and with scant regard for the special, loving care which the long-term sick and handicapped so desperately need but which will always cost more. For those who can pay, the sky will be the limit. For those who have to rely on the social services authorities' limited budgets, that sky will be very low indeed. The Government must guarantee a basic level of funding for community care.
Social services authorities will have power to inspect and police the very homes they are contracting with. This, coupled with the detailed contract terms that are likely to be demanded, leads to the danger of social services authorities adopting a narrow role, not the free-wheeling creative role which the Government foresee. There should be an independent inspection body which should also take over the registration and inspection powers currently exercised by health authorities in respect of nursing homes. I do not apologise for this frankness because I see, and hear about, by day and by night the desperate plight of people who cannot speak for themselves and who suffer unnecessarily.
Supporters of the foundation who struggle more and more to raise funds are astonished, alarmed and bewildered by the Government's attitude. We could do so much more by reaching patients and relieving their distress if only we had some real financial help, not just words or new ideas. But what are we expected to do? Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to assure me that practical financial help will be given which will thus save us from this ongoing tragedy.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, and noble Ladies present, I am truly honoured and grateful to be able to express my views in your Lordships' House. Quite apart from the code of advice given to Peers making a maiden speech, my late father told me, "Make it short and nothing controversial." And being the second senior Catholic in the country, he added, "Stick to religion!". It is difficult to consider any subject as non-controversial. However, common

1293
sense directs me to talk about just that— common sense. The door of controversy has been opened, but most will agree that age blesses us with knowledge of every kind and that personal experience, as well as that of others, moulds and propagates our tree of common sense.
Age also diminishes the common, inherent sense of hearing, something we presume we are born with and so rightfully possess. There are 7–5 million people with impaired hearing in England and I wonder how many there are in this noble House. My late father was immensely grateful for the introduction of loudspeakers in the head rests of the Benches; at the same time he was fearful. As a Cross-Bencher he was nervous that he would be seen leaning, to the left-hand or to the right-hand speaker. "Deaf, not dumb" was his great cry. And sympathy for the totally deaf or partially deaf is much needed. It is also enormously appreciated. We should bear in mind that Goya, Sir Joshua Reynolds and Beethoven— all masters and admired geniuses in their selected arts— were deaf. Of course, where there is a will there is a way.
A nation like ours supports over 238, 000 blind people. Of that figure 4 per cent. are totally blind, the others partially sighted. The obvious aid offered to them is the white stick. A polite lady in her sixties sporting a fine, white collapsible stick told me a story which may surprise your Lordships. While travelling by train to Paddington, a gentleman whom the lady later discovered was a consultant paediatrician remarked upon her elegant stick and inquired whether she had chosen it because it looked chic. The lady was rather stunned by the remark but explained that the stick was carried as a form of identification and was an essential aid for those bereft of the sense of sight. Are noble Lords amazed that such a professional should be ignorant of what is almost an international sign for the blind? How many people are aware that the red and white stick is carried by those who are both deaf and blind?
Most people are born with one million nerve channels, or motorways, leading from their retina to their optical cerebrum. I am a registered blind person. Fortunately, I still have three such nerves which are active. The senses of smell, of touch and of taste are all important and help each person to create his or her world, the sum of which is contained within the brain just as much as information from the senses of hearing and seeing. The cogenitally afflicted deaf-blind are few in England— there are just over 2, 000 of them— but they are often born with stunted limbs and with heart malfunction. A substantial proportion of them are classified as rubella children, although other diseases are also partially to blame; for example, Usher's disease. In all, 49 diseases produce this combined dual loss of the senses.
The maxim that prevention is better than cure— a point that has already been raised— is so true. Immunisation or vaccination against such a traumatic stigma (a stigma for both the vector and the parents) is not only low in cost but is also sensible budgeting. To bring up a rubella child, for example, is not only demanding, tiring and frustrating; it is also a full-time job.
1294
Let us consider how many parents have had their careers disjointed while caring for a deaf-blind child. Let us also think of the money paid by the state which could be better used by the health service of any country. It could be used for training and educating not only the nation's families but also those dedicated to medicine. Training and education may be expensive, but ignorance costs more. One has so often been told that ignorance is bliss. I wonder what the blind lady on the train thought of the professional consultant's remark.
Let us think also of the state money spent from birth on heart surgery, specialist attention to eyes and ears and specialist education for deaf-blind children from the age of three and a half years. There is also transport to and from the hospital and to and from the school to consider. It is estimated that each Rubella afflicted child requires £ 1 million of state aid until education is fulfilled. The cost of educating one deaf-blind child for one year would cover the pay of seven grade A nurses of 17 years of age. It is also equivalent to basic unemployment payment of £ 34.70 per week to 1, 008 people, and it is thousands of pounds more than the basic annual income of the majority of the elected Members of the other place.
The Government's budget for the long-term sick or disabled is approximately £ 7–3 billion. The state paid education of one Rubella deaf-blind child would cover the immunisation costs for 2, 300 15 month-old children. To immunise the English and Welsh 15 month-old children, numbering approximately 600, 000 against measles, mumps and rubella each year would cost the National Health Service about £ 9 million.
To educate appropriately the deaf-blind up to the age of 19 years— an underestimated figure of 2, 000— in that one year would cost up to £ 44 million. Therefore it makes sense to save £ 35 million. Heaven knows how much more could be saved if immunisation against so many other, sometimes fatal, diseases was executed more thoroughly. It is not a subject to be taken casually.
If we consider the fact that vaccination may cost between £ 13 and £ 15, it makes sense— common sense— to encourage all parties to be so immunised against measles, mumps and Rubella. In Britain at present we operate a system, originally an American idea, of immunising 15 month-old children, both male and female, against mumps, measles and rubella (MMR). Naturally the parent has the option to refuse for philosophical, religious or medical contra-indication reasons, to name but a few. The uptake of the option to allow the child vaccination varies from district to district, but the percentage uptake in Great Britain is reasonably high; namely close to 80 per cent. In the urban areas where paediatricians are more numerous the percentage uptake is higher. But in the inner-city areas there is a lower uptake percentage. Family doctors broadcast sheets of paper about immunisation against various diseases and, along with teachers, parents and associations related to the deaf, the blind and the congenitally physically disabled, they should be encouraged to disseminate the harsh facts about caring for, and indeed being, a deaf-blind child. The RNIB— the Royal National Institute for the

1295
Blind— is preparing education packs for teachers, nurses and other groups to enlighten all parties that the afflicted are individuals, not oddities, and how best to recognise when help is required and how best to administer that help.
Our European neighbours, the French, have the equivalent vaccination— ROR— which is administered to both male and female infants at 12 months of age. Sweden, Norway and Finland started MMR immunisation before 1983. We are fortunate in this country in having an organisation called SENSE dedicated to helping deaf-blind children. The Government have a report, the Peckham Report, outlining how best preventable child diseases can be avoided and proposing a system of recall to ensure that all persons can be protected. The Peckham Report emphasises the importance of child immunisation, not just against measles, mumps and Rubella, if a healthy nation is our goal. In the World Health Organisation immunisation list the United Kingdom ranks twenty-first. That is not a position to be proud of if we wish to classify ourselves as one of the most educated nations in the world. Eighteen European countries give MMR, and with travel by air enabling more people to go round the world the figures are encouraging for those fighting to increase immunisation.
Conflicting advice on immunisation affects parents. Parents have a marked influence on the uptake figures as most vaccines are given in childhood. If there is a child chronically ill within the family or the family is of a lower income group, the uptake denial is more pronounced. Although we are aware that surveys are not completely accurate it is extraordinary that 27 per cent. of parents recently surveyed had not been influenced to immunise their children. Equally alarming is that 50 per cent. of medical practices have received immunisation default lists, maybe because 50 per cent. of parents questioned cannot remember talking to their general practitioner about immunisation.
Homeless families desperately need attention and an effective recall system is vital, as too is a forceful immunisation co-ordinator in each health district. This may at first appear expensive but, when studied in depth, the budget figures will reveal a saving. We are also most fortunate in having as promoter of the organisation SENSE one of the most senior ladies in the country, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal. That surely underlines the seriousness of the case for child immunisation.
Despite not being able to see noble Lords at all well, I thank God for the sense of touch and the sense of smell, for being able to taste and, unlike such greats as Goya, Beethoven and Reynolds, being able to hear. We must look after our offspring, ourselves and others. It makes sense to ensure at birth the senses of hearing, touching, seeing, smelling and tasting— all common, normal senses. On reflection, it is common sense. I thank your Lordships for being so generous and tolerant in listening to me.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships would wish me first on behalf of us
1296
all to congratulate and thank the noble Lord for the outstanding maiden speech which we have just heard. We congratulate him not only on his speech but on having the courage— and I remember that it takes courage— to seize the opportunity to speak to us for the first time on a subject on which he speaks with such persuasive arguments based on conviction, stemming from personal knowledge and experience. He showed us power, he showed us wit and apt allusion. All those combined, I assure him, make him a most persuasive debater. We shall be disappointed if he does not make use of those gifts frequently in your Lordships' House.
I shall not be so inspired by the cause on which I wish to speak in perhaps a rather mundane way— the health service proposals in the Bill. I strongly support the main gist of the fundamental principles for the reform of the health service which the Bill contains. However, as in our debate on 6th December last year, I wish to couple that support with strong warnings about the manner and speed with which these proposals should be implemented. Many of the most critical points are matters of detail which will probably come up at later stages of the Bill. In this debate I wish to confine myself briefly to general principles.
I suppose that because of my background it is inevitable that I should look at the proposals through managerial eyes. I know that to talk in management terms is liable to upset many people who are most deeply concerned with the health service. Somehow it seems to them to be inappropriate in the context of a service dedicated to people's health. In its objectives and in the type of service it provides, the NHS is totally different from a big commercial company. Yet it has one absolutely vital point in common; namely, the vital need to manage its resources with the greatest possible economy and effectiveness.
I say to the right reverend Prelate that I believe that this is a matter of moral quality and not just of commercial or monetary need. The cost of the health service is huge. Yet however large, it could always be still bigger. There is no limit to what we might find desirable to spend on health. Yet any government, of whatever party, have in each and every year to set a maximum cash limit to the cost of the health service. That is why it is so important to manage the use of funds with the utmost effectiveness in providing health care. This presents a managerial challenge of the utmost importance and also the utmost complexity.
For many years I have believed that the present structure of the direction and management of the National Health Service, of its methods of fund allocation and its lines of responsibility and accountability is fundamentally— and I mean fundamentally— inadequate. It urgently needs radical reform. Therefore I simply cannot agree with those who believe that all that is needed is more funding and relatively cosmetic change around the edges. More funding may indeed be needed; it certainly will be needed in the future. But more funding without fundamental organisational reform will not, in my view, produce the results which we all desire.

1297
Therefore perhaps I may say to the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition Front Bench that while we should take note of the instantaneous feelings of those who work in the service, we cannot allow ourselves to be governed by them. I know from my own experience in industry that when one talks to one's; employees— maybe thousands and thousands of them in a large company— about change, nobody wants it. The initial reaction is always, particularly in Britain but I suspect elsewhere, to resist change. So we must carry the employees with us. That will be the main cause for my warnings later on.
However, we should not allow ourselves to be diverted from what a proper analysis shows to be the action needed if we are to improve our health service in line with the resources we put into it in the future. The NHS is an enormous organisation. It spends nearly £ 30 billion a year and employs over 1 million people. I believe it is the largest civilian employer in Europe, if not in the world. It is impossible, in my view, to get proper value from those huge resources of people and money under the present structure and system of organisation. I feel certain that there must therefore be major reforms. I believe that the proposals in the Bill are fundamentally right— certainly no others have been offered as alternatives to them.
It is right and necessary to undertake major decentralisation. It is right and necessary to redefine the role of the various levels of health authority and to reconstruct their membership. It is right and necessary to draw new and clearer lines of responsibility downwards and of accountability upwards. It is right and necessary to make the development of the service less producer-driven and more patient-driven, principally but not only by arranging for a significant part of the funding to follow the patient, whether it be to the family doctor service or when he or she makes use of hospitals. Those are all main guiding principles of the Bill.
It is said by those who fear these proposals that they have never been tested and proved in the health service. Of course they have not. If one approached any major organisation and said one wanted reform but that could not be achieved until all the changes involved had been tested and proved, one would never make any progress at all. One has to think hard and deeply and then have faith and implement the proposals skilfully, thoughtfully and deliberately. None of these proposals, which may be new to the health service, are new or untested. All of them have been applied and have been shown to work in other large organisations. I can see no reason why they should not be equally effective when applied skilfully, thoughtfully and determinedly within the health service. The new aspect of the proposals is that of applying them to the health service. That will be a much needed but also a very delicate and difficult task. Hence the warnings I shall give which repeat essentially what I said in December.
At a purely management level, the Government are undertaking a difficult task. I speak from personal experience of trying to carry out major reorganisations in industry. This is an area where more haste easily leads to less speed. It needs the most careful preparation and step-by-step testing.
1298
That is essential. At a purely managerial level I give that warning, but I also give it at a vital and human level and on a more political level in the sense of people's feelings and not of party politics. It is absolutely essential, although difficult, to change established cultures within the service and to carry staff with one. I doubt whether, however hard one tries, one will obtain agreement beforehand. It may, however, be possible to win increasing understanding and respect to be followed ultimately by support for the proposals. That is why I stress so strongly the need for making haste slowly although with determination. One should never be in too much of a hurry.
There must indeed be test marketing in advance of universal nation-wide application. However, I am sorry to say that in my view that should not be in the form that has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and also I believe proposed and supported by the royal colleges and others. The test marketing should not be in the form of using a single region as a test-bed for a three-year period and by applying all the measures in that one region. The more I think about that, the more I believe it would be a fatal way to proceed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the royal colleges proposed that two regions should be used as test areas.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, even if it is a matter of two regions, that is not the way to proceed, in my view. I should like to see a rather different type of testing. I conclude by making four summarised proposals. First, I wish to see the establishment of up to about 20 independently managed hospitals. Some would be independently managed within the health service and others would be of the new independent trust hospital type. At the same time, I should also like to see established about 50 GP budgeted practices. I should like the Secretary of State and all his colleagues and staff at every level to give those tests the greatest possible attention to ensure that they succeed, to monitor them as they go along and to magnify their strong points and discover and correct their weak points. They will have weak points as well as strong points and it is important, by an adequate scale test, to discover what they are fairly soon and to remove the bugs from the system before they spread nation-wide.
Secondly, I also wish to see the Secretary of State making sure that within the district health authorities there is extensive management development and dry run testing of the various contracting and purchasing methods before, and not as, the internal market system goes live. That will be an essential part of the process. However, technically and managerially it will be a difficult part of it, particularly with the lack of strength of middle management throughout the health service at the moment.
Thirdly, I should like to see the Secretary of State take an important new initiative in testing and reporting on the quality of services. I know that a great deal has been said about that in the White Paper and I am sorry that people apparently have

1299
not taken as much notice of that as they should have done. It must be an obvious and clear initiative in which I hope that the new research and development function mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, will make a major contribution. I wonder whether the role of the chief medical officer has any part to play in this area. I am not sure what his role will be in the new set-up. Perhaps that should be looked at too. Attention to quality is needed in any case and it may be one of the most psychologically important ways of gaining the respect and eventual support of medical and all other staff. The genuine fears in connection with the proposals, apart from the natural fear of change, are connected with the fear that the new methods may lead to a reduction in quality of service rather than an improvement.
Fourthly and finally, I should like to see my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have a good look at the role of community health committees. The right reverend Prelate made an interesting point in his speech as regards how one brings the user into this matter. I do not believe that one should bring the user into the management level. Reform of the structure of district health authorities and regional health authorities is essential, but they must be accountable to a consumer body. I believe that the community health committees may provide the key to that matter. If all patients in every district could count on that body as being genuinely strong and independent and knew that it represented their needs and was genuinely accountable, that might help to change their psychological fears that the new proposals may not be to their advantage.
This is an impossibly large subject and all of us could talk about it all night. I have spoken for four minutes longer than I should have done. We shall have to go into detail in Committee, but I wish to express again my deep conviction that the Government are on the right lines and if only they will show determination coupled with patience in implementing the proposals, patients, doctors, nurses and other staff will live to thank them.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, on the witty and moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, which was so full of the common sense by which he and his father set such great store.
I am not a doctor and I confess to feeling slightly intimidated by the close proximity of a number of medical specialists immediately around me. However, I admit to a very deep interest in medical education which goes back more than 40 years. My involvement has included setting up the first new medical school in this country this century, increasing the number of doctors entering medical school by more than 60 per cent. during my period at the University Grants committee and, for the past 11 years, having a very close connection with the Royal Postgraduate Medical School.
My experience has taught me one fundamental principle, which I believe few of your Lordships would deny. It is the main thrust of my argument.
1300
The quality of health care received by patients depends more on the skill, motivation and commitment of their doctors, nurses and ancilliary staff than on anything else. And those essential attributes receive their major cultivation in the clinical phase of the education of aspiring doctors.
Such education must of necessity take place in teaching hospitals. It adds to the cost per patient in those hospitals compared with non-teaching hospitals. The same applies to clinical medical research. Responsiblity for maintaining the quality of the teaching lies wholly with the universities and is exercised through their full-time members of academic staff, assisted by NHS staff holding honorary contracts and posts. The major part of clinical research in this country is also carried out by those academic doctors and their staffs.
University medical and dental schools come into closest contact with the health service within the latter's teaching hospitals. When the NHS was set up those teaching hospitals were initially administered by independent boards of governors but were later fully incorporated into the health service and became the responsibility of the regional and district health authorities. The district health authorities (teaching), as they were designated, and their parent regional health authorities, from which they derived their funds, had and still have a very difficult balancing act to perform. On the one hand they had to cater for the needs of existing patients who would receive from those attentions immediate benefit. On the other hand, they had to make sufficient resources available to enable the clinical academic staff to teach and to research to the highest level.
Since the benefits of today's teaching and research will, by their nature, only be felt in the future those regional and district health authorities which had responsibility for university hospitals were and always will be the fora in which the future will confront the present. If the Bill we are debating today were to pass that situation would only be changed administratively in that some teaching hospitals would pass into the hands of the proposed NHS trusts. The fundamental tension would still exist.
As the National Health Service evolved, attempts were made from time to time by legislation to ensure that teaching health authorities, when making their plans and budgets, would give adequate attention to the needs of their university medical schools. Thus, under the reorganised health service which came into being on 1st April 1974, two members of the area health authority were to be nominated by the university. Also, liaison committees were set up between the university and the health authorities at various levels.
In recent years as health service costs have risen, for a variety of understandable reasons, hard-pressed authorities and their general managers have taken actions which have led to the removal of facilities for clinical examinations, the closure of wards, the restriction of laboratory investigations and other matters, all of which were needed and are still needed for teaching and research. That fundamentally important principle— not referred to anywhere in

1301
the Bill, and rightly so— the knock-for-knock agreement between the universities and the health service, which has saved an enormous amount of irritation and bureaucratic accounting, has been eroded in the course of the years. Such decisions, which place more emphasis on the present than the future, are but short-sighted victories of the present over the future and in due course will be regretted.
In another place Ministers have acknowledged that the universities' worries on these matters are "legitimate and genuine". The Minister said:
"I admit that we must do more work".
He meant by that work on the interface between universities and health authorities.
Certainly, the Department of Health is fully seized of the problem. As the noble Baroness mentioned in her opening remarks, four weeks ago the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, Sir Christopher France, wrote to all general managers with advice and asked regional health authorities to set up "appropriate mechanisms for effective collaboration" with the universities.
An annex to the letter contained a list of 10 principles to achieve that collaboration. I have read them. Like the Decalogue, they are in praise of virtue and against sin. Another annex discusses various organisational models which might be adopted for the interdigitation of university-based teaching and reasearch with clinical care. I am, of course, very glad to see commended the arrangements that we have at the Hammersmith Hospital between the special health authority and the Royal Postgraduate Medical School.
I come to my main point. In the light of what Ministers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, this afternoon, have said, and the way in which officials have acted on their behalf, apparently providing ample evidence that the Government acknowledge the essential and vital importance of NHS authorities and trusts satisfying the proper needs of universities for clinical resources, I must ask this question. Why does the membership of the regional and district health authorities prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Bill make no reference to the absolute necessity for at least one, and in my view, preferably two members to be drawn from the universities?
As it stands the Bill confirms the withdrawal of the essential safeguard introduced in 1983 of university members of health authorities. It is all the more remarkable because in paragraph 3 (1) (d) of Schedule 2, which deals with the new National Health Service trusts, it is stated that a trust,
"regarded as having a significant teaching commitment"
must include as one of its non-executive directors a person.
"appointed from a university or a medical or dental school specified in the order".
The omission of a similar requirement for membership of the health authorities is not only illogical but, in the light of the Government's expressed concern over the problem of the teaching hospitals, is, I hope and believe, an oversight. If I am right in that belief I would welcome an assurance from the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord
1302
Henley, that the defect will be remedied before the Committee stage. I would welcome an assurance that the health authorities will be required, exactly like the trusts, to have at least one member nominated by the relevant university. That would be entirely in accordance with the Government's wishes as indicated by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks.
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, there has been a general consensus in the country that the National Health Service is one of our great post-war achievements. No one has said that it is perfect or cannot be improved. Nor has it been free of criticism. All of us have had our grumbles about it from time to time and some of those have been justified. However, its facilities have been comprehensive and they have been accessible. It has been a truly national health service. Therefore, it is not surprising that when such major changes are proposed there should be considerable concern.
I have a number of concerns, some of which relate to the National Health Service side and some to the community care side, but, because of the pressure of time, I want to concentrate on three concerns relating to the National Health Service side.
First, because of my association with a number of universities, I am concerned, like the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, about the position of medical schools and teaching hospitals. Neither the White Paper nor the Bill has dealt adequately with the role of universities. Directly and as the Bill was proceeding through another place, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals tried to have written into the Bill the need for universities to participate in the strategies and decisions that will be taken when the Bill becomes law so that the spread of teaching practices remains available to students and so that research facilities are safeguarded. Those are essential needs if we are to have a continual supply of well-trained doctors and if medicine is to continue to make progress. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, so far all that has been promised is a memorandum from the Secretary of State exhorting health serivce managers to recognise the importance of research.
The Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Leeds has written to me and has put it this way:
"The Bill does not place a requirement on teaching hospitals, whether they be self-governing trusts or not, to maintain the necessary mix of patients, facilities and support required for the training of doctors and dentists".
That provision must be written into the Bill.
Some members have already mentioned your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology and its inquiry into priorities in medical research. The report of that inquiry contained a number of recommendations. One does not see an adequate response in the Bill to many of those recommendations. For example, paragraph 9.29 of the report referred to SIFT and the possibility of some or all of the SIFT funds being paid direct to the medical schools.

1303
That is not mentioned in the Bill, but, again, the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at Leeds University writes:
"There is in addition a problem with the suggested method of apportionment of the Service Increment for Teaching (SIFT). The present proposal is that this would be decided by the Regional Health Authority after consultation with the Health Authority. The University is, however, clearly the most important body in taking decisions about this money and, at the very least, decisions should be made jointly between the University and the Regional Health Authority".
There are a number of concerns here to which we must return in Committee.
My second concern is perhaps more fundamental because it involves the comprehensive nature of the National Health Service and its national characteristics, some of which might be breached by the provisions of the Bill. That might happen first, through the contract system whereby GPs will be expected to use hospitals and consultants within the district rather than having a wider choice as they do at present, thereby limiting their freedom and patients' freedom to choose. The Government said that there would be more patient choice, but that does not seem apparent from the Bill.
A breach might occur, secondly, by allowing hospitals to become independent through NHS trusts, thereby risking a breach in the comprehensive specialist provisions of the National Health Service. I am not talking about a single hospital because I agree that a single hospital, however good it is, cannot have specialists in all areas. However, we must within the districts, or at least within the regions, ensure that all the specialist subjects are covered.
Thirdly, a breach might occur through the possible fragmentation of the service by enabling the National Health Service trusts to introduce their own terms and conditions of service for doctors and other medical staff. In that way, we could open the door to services being available unevenly and according to salaries and conditions rather than according to patients' needs within the districts.
Those fears have been expressed by the professions and have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. The Government have already alienated the universities and the teaching profession by their previous legislation. They now seem bent on alienating doctors and all the other professions within the National Health Service. My noble friend Lord Ennals referred to the document which the royal colleges and many of the professions have produced. Those professions believe that the changes are too huge and too indigestible to be taken all at once. They believe that, if they are forced through, there is a danger of destablising the service.
Others have made similar points. It seems that, even by the standards of financial management, there is concern about the introduction of the changes. It is that unseemly haste which is my third area of concern. The Office of Health Economics, which is favourable to the thrust and philosophy of the White Paper, is doubtful, according to its study,
1304
Measurement and Management in the NHS, about the timing of the changes. The study states that within a few years— but not by 1991 or 1992— meaningful measures of outcomes will have been established. According to the study, the outcomes can be measured as:
"Reduced mortality, reduced morbidity in clinical and biological terms [and] reduced suffering and disability".
That last measure is described by economists as patients' quality of life.
The study rejects cost-benefit analysis concerned with cost alone, so that is quite inadequate. On the question of efficiency and effectiveness in general practice, the report states:
"Any budget which is based on cost alone, merely to contain expenditure, must inherently lead to inefficiency … If all that happened under the White Paper proposals was the promised 'downward pressure' on costs without any consideration of the effects on patients' well being, it could become a very uneconomic approach to the problems of maximising effectiveness and efficiency".
The National Health Service is a different creature from what it was in 1948. The economics have inevitably changed as new technologies and techniques have become available. In her opening remarks the Minister said that we were concerned about change and continuity. That is quite right. We are certainly concerned about those but we do not want the change to be so drastic that the continuity is broken.
Nobody suggests that the National Health Service should have a bottomless purse. There must be priorities and choices but they should be properly evaluated and not just costed. According to the report from which I have quoted the techniques for such evaluation are not yet proved so far as concerns the National Health Service. There have been some quite useful and successful experiments— I believe that the noble Lord who is to follow me in this debate has been involved in one of them— but we must be careful not to destroy a service which enjoys a large measure of confidence by introducing one which destabilises the system.
As the health economic study indicates, the present resource management initiative (which incidentally was extended from six to over 50 hospitals without leaving time for the first six to be evaluated) does not embrace measures of benefits. The report states that all that will be available is a comparison of the activity of different hospitals and consultants. Extending the analysis to general practice, all that will be available in the near future will be a comparison of costs. In neither case can those activities or expenditures be directly related to the quality of care or the value of the treatment provided.
The National Health Service must be concerned about the quality of care and the value of treatment. It seems to me, putting aside all the other arguments that have been made this afternoon for some built-in delay and further trials, that the evidence from the report that I mentioned indicates that financial management is yet another area that needs to be tested before we can be confident that it is an appropriate tool for the National Health Service.
6.12 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, although it may seem that this Bill is principally concerned with hospitals, nevertheless, I believe that the proposed changes will have a much greater effect on general practice, making it much more important and giving general practitioners more say in what hospitals do and how hospitals will develop in the future.
One of the predecessors of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, was Dr. Alfred Salter, who was the first Labour Member of Parliament for Bermondsey. He was a very successful and popular Member of Parliament. He started his professional career as a general practitioner living in Bermondsey, which was unheard of at the turn of the century. He worked all hours of the night and day in the service of his patients, for whom he had the highest regard. He fought very hard to try to prevent disease.
But the greatest boost to the health of the people of Bermondsey came with the war and the introduction of food rationing. Before that time one-third of the British people were either underfed or ill-fed and the figure in the United States was similar. With food rationing for the first time everyone had access to adequate food, vitamins and the famous wholemeal national loaf. Today we are in great need of a drive to prevent disease in this country and general practice is in a very good position to spearhead that drive and prevent a great deal of illness. It is good that the Bill emphasises the importance of general practice.
Noble Lords are only too well aware that the National Health Service suffers from a lack of proper financial control. Only the other day it came to light that a hospital was £ 4 million overspent, largely because the finance officer put any bill about which he was uncertain into the suspense account (also known as the dustbin), where it was forgotten. In another part of the service all the bills were put into a wooden box and at the end of the month they were all paid without their validity having been checked.
As some hospitals still have no commitment accounting system they do not know until the end of the year whether they are underspent or overspent. When they find at the eleventh hour that they are overspent, there is a crisis. They close several wards and shed nurses whom they have employed from nursing agencies. But that manoeuvre may not even achieve the required savings. As 70 per cent. of the budget is concerned with salaries, the real answer is to control manpower levels.
Objections are often raised to that manoeuvre on the basis that it will reduce patient activity, but the fact is that very often it has no effect on the volume of work. The answer to the problem is that we desperately need to have better quality managers and we shall only attract them if we pay them properly. The labourer is worthy of his hire.
Another unacceptable feature of the National Health Service is the great variation in standards. In some areas patients are treated with great respect and courtesy and are given excellent care with the minimum of delay. There are other places where quite the reverse obtains. For instance, I know of two adjacent districts with a similar population,
1306
similar manpower and similar finances. In one there is high morale, and a great volume of work of high quality with very much happier patients at the end of the day. In the other district there is low morale, low output and low quality. Why is there a difference and what is the solution?
Many of us believe that the solution lies in the introduction of competition. We believe that it will help to solve that problem. It is fair to say that the Royal Colleges are fearful that competition will result in some hospitals going to the wall. Competition is much more subtle than that. It will provide the missing incentive for people to make sure that they give the kind of service that customers will appreciate. It will keep them just that little bit more on their toes. The great variations in quality and quantity will tend to disappear as the patients or customers become more and more the centre of the National Health Service activities. I believe that the right attitude should be: the customer is always right.
In some places the National Health Service is ruled by administrative boards whose members tend to look over their shoulders to those whom they represent. I believe that there are real disadvantages in having representatives on management boards. Of course the universities are quite right to be concerned at the possibility of having no university representatives at all on those boards. It is essential to have university expertise on management boards for the very difficult and complex decisions which have to be made. It would seem to be the Government's intention to ensure that such experts are appointed in their own right.
It is of course true that many of the problems that have been discussed this afternoon in the National Health Service are being addressed now. Better financial control is being introduced and in the hospitals that we have mentioned clinicians have taken part in a new form of management called the resource management initiative. The BMA and the Royal Colleges have asked the question: why not simply extend these improvements throughout the service and accept two-thirds of the NHS Bill— six out of the 10 key changes which I think are acceptable to most people? The first is the extension of quality assurance. The second is the creation of 100 new consultant posts in addition to the increase in consultant numbers which is already occurring. The third is devolving to local level as much power and responsibility as possible from what has been a rather overpowering bureaucracy. The fourth is the reform of the family practitioner committees and the health authorities in order to run them on much more efficient lines. The fifth is an effective audit for value for money by the Audit Commission. The sixth is making it easier for patients to choose their own GP and to change if they so wish.
That package comprises two-thirds of the Bill. Why is it not enough on its own? Why do we have to go further? The simple reason is that it lacks the incentives for good practice and the means to discourage deviant behaviour. As a well known GP, Dr. Martin Colebrook, has recently said in Bedford, "The better performing doctors have began to run out of altruism and are wondering if they could at

1307
least be reimbursed for the increasing costs of the high standards they practise". Altruism is not enough for most people in this country today. Human nature being what it is, they demand something more tangible.
The most important part of these reforms is the network of agreements which district health authorities will have with the hospital service to provide the volume and quality of work that is required to serve the needs of the community. The general practitioners will have a major input in reaching these agreements. There is no way that any government will tell them to obtain the cheapest, because competition is not just about cost. It often happens that the cheapest is the best treatment because it has been thought out properly and is based on sound operational research. Those general practitioners who do not have their own budget will discuss with the district health authority where they should refer certain patients for treatment. Of course in an emergency the general practitioner will be able to refer the patient to wherever he and the patient wish. The district health authority will have a contingency fund to pay for these emergencies.
However, after the general practitioners have agreed with the district health authority where, for a year or two, most of the cases should go for treatment which are not emergencies that agreement will be adhered to.
Why is this network of agreements so important? At the moment the patients tend to go on a waiting list. They are summoned to hospital often with inadequate warning, not necessarily in any recognisable order. It is a rather hit and miss affair. Inevitably the more major and interesting patients tend to be admitted first and some of the more routine problems such as repair of hernias may suffer long delays. With this new network of agreements the service provided for the patient should be much more orderly and satisfactory. The more work the hospitals do the more they will be reimbursed. That is quite the reverse of the situation today. It will prove to be a major incentive for the hospital service.
Many people are worried that self-governing hospitals will be able to pay their employees more than in other hospitals. They are worried that this will create what they call a two-tier system. Of course today there is much more than a two-tier system. It is many-tiered. Consultant salaries vary greatly from about £ 29, 000 to £ 80, 000— that is, without private practice. If a particular district health authority for one reason or another does not seem to be attracting doctors, I cannot understand why there can be any objection to paying them more to attract them to the particular district in the interests of the patients.
The Royal Colleges have suggested pilot studies for that one-third of the Bill which is controversial; namely, the general practice budgets and self-governing hospitals. The Government have also proposed pilot studies. They will be carried out by those who volunteer. It seems that about 850 general practices have expressed an interest in having their own budgets; and about 79 hospitals are interested in becoming self-governing. The idea of all these pilot studies being confined to two regions would
1308
clearly be unfair to all those who have been getting ready for such a possibility. I remind your Lordships that in a recent judgment the judge said that he would have regarded district health authorities as being negligent if they had not started preparing for these changes. He may of course be wrong. It would also be unacceptable for people who are neither ready nor willing to have this task forced upon them. It is essential to have enthusiasts to carry out pilot studies.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, seems to believe that there are very few doctors in favour of the Bill. I would not be so sure. I know of many secret disciples who are keeping their heads down at the moment for very obvious reasons. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the BMA was 100 per cent. opposed to the introduction of the National Health Service in the late 1940s. Aneurin Bevan said that he persuaded the hospitals to join the NHS by stuffing the mouths of the consultants with gold. I very much doubt whether the present Secretary of State will resort to such activity. As a mere professor of surgery, I do not often allow myself the luxury of expressing an opinion. I find it safer as a surgeon to stick to facts. However, I should like to say that I think that Kenneth Clarke is the best Secretary of State we have ever had in the National Health Service.
Finally, if we do not provide the incentives that are required in the National Health Service, the service has no chance of evolving into what it really should be: a service that puts the patient first and treats the patient with the courtesy and consideration that everyone deserves.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell me who he considers should decide whether a hospital should become a self-governing trust? Is it the consultants, other doctors, nurses, or others who work in the community services; or even the community itself? Is it right for just a small or even large handful of consultants to decide?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I believe that it is a management decision and that the decision should be made by the management.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Smith: My Lords, the Secretary of State should be congratulated upon his ambition to improve the standard of patient care in the NHS. It is an ambition which for years has been recognised and freely discussed by many doctors. No reasonable doctor could expect that the Secretary of State would remain complacent in the light of serious complaints about the NHS from doctors and, more importantly, from patients. The result is this Bill. I am sure that the Government and all doctors agree that there is only one object— that is, to do what is best for the patients.
The question must be asked: has the Secretary of State displayed knowledge and wisdom in advising the Government correctly, after the most extreme and exhaustive consultation with experienced doctors who are first in line to treat patients, or does the Bill require many amendments before being passed? Anyone introducing a Bill before Parliament

1309
must have the evidence upon which it is based. I must confess that the origin of the evidence is a mystery to me. The Secretary of State did not obtain it from doctors or the presidents of the royal medical colleges; unlike Aneurin Bevan, who, in 1948, had a good relationship with Lord Webb-Johnson and Lord Moran.
For many years before 1948 I was a consultant surgeon. I experienced the introduction of the NHS together with many reorganisations and alterations of the service in its 42 years. For most of my four years as President of the Royal College of Surgeons of England the Secretary of State was Barbara Castle and her second in command was David Owen. Therefore, I have first-hand experience of reorganisation.
The Secretary of State's White Paper which preceded the Bill was exhaustively examined by all the bodies in the medical profession; for example, the BMA, the royal medical colleges, the conference of presidents, the universities and the medical schools. All those bodies criticised the basis of the details in the Bill. Some bodies castigated the Secretary of State's opinions. Some of them— for instance, the conference of presidents of the medical colleges throughout the UK— pointed out the areas in the Bill which call for improvement, acknowledging that the Bill is necessary and offering to help and not hinder. Those bodies regret the Secretary of State's refusal to debate with them his intentions before producing the Bill. He informed the presidents of his intentions but I am conscious that there is a major difference between "inform" and "debate".
It is obvious that today noble Lords will be addressed by a number of doctors in this House who are more directly concerned in treating patients than I am. I am sure that they will dissect the Bill clause by clause. However, briefly I wish to make your Lordships understand the reactions of someone who has spent his life in surgery and who, above all, is committed to the interests of patients. First, I am disturbed by the emergence of self-governing hospitals and of dividing hospitals into two groups. I should need a great deal of persuading that the proposal would not lead inevitably to two tiers of medicine, one inferior to the other. If the royal medical colleges or the conference of presidents proposed such a drastic change they would have clearly in mind the immortal words of John Hunter to Jenner, "Why not try the experiment?", and suggest that a trial run should be arranged in perhaps two of the regions. They would do so rather than gamble the future of the NHS upon the imagination of the Secretary of State, however well meaning.
Almost on a par with the proposals about which I am suspicious, the omission of so many important aspects is a worrying factor. Perhaps they should be added. I have searched the Bill for proposals for improving the teaching and training of doctors whereby the future treatment of patients must stand or fall. Where are the proposals for the maintenance of a close relationship between the universities and the NHS? There is a perfunctory reference to private practice, but where are the proposals to deal with the integration of private practice with the NHS?
1310
How can private practice help the NHS? It affects the availability of consultant cover in the NHS and might affect the financial structure of the service.
I was convinced that the Secretary of State would deal with that relationship when preparing the Bill. I am amazed that the Government are not desperate to undo the harm that was done to the NHS in the mid-1970s. If the sins of the 1970s were undone, the way would be clear to construct a new and effective partnership between private practice and NHS medicine.
A practical example may bring home the direction in which hospital medicine moved in the 1970s. Imagine that any one of your Lordships was an NHS patient in a hospital under the care of a consultant; let us say a surgeon. Let us suppose that after an operation something went wrong. There was then an emergency and a need for the consultant who at that moment was seeing a private patient. Where would your Lordships prefer the consultant to be? Would it be just the other side of the swing door in the hospital; or in a private hospital miles away; or between the two hospitals in a traffic jam?
But Barbara Castle persuaded Parliament that when a consultant wishes to see a private patient he or she must be ejected from national health hospitals in spite of the fact that the needs of NHS patients demands the supervision of the consultant as much as possible. Not unnaturally that decision resulted in the building of many more private hospitals outside the NHS. The Bill before us offers a chance to remedy that tragic situation. The private hospitals have already been built and are working well. Therefore, should not a serious attempt be made to elicit the aid of those private hospitals for the NHS?
A start has been made in the treatment of patients; but what about the teaching of students? There is no possible objection to teaching medical students using private patients. In my years at St. George's Hospital (at Hyde Park Corner and not Tooting) I took my firm into Marie Tempest ward, the private ward, for teaching. I always explained in advance to each individual patient the need for tuition, as a consultant should also discuss with every National Health Service patient. If things are put clearly, very few patients object.
To end my brief speech, I should like to say that I am an optimist. I shall support the Bill, and I hope that the effects will benefit patients. Nevertheless, I hope above all that the Government will agree with me on two major points: they should think very clearly about self-governing hospitals, try the experiment and embark upon a properly-monitored trial run; and they should make a serious attempt not at privatising the NHS, but the opposite-establishing a lasting partnership between private practice and NHS medicine. I regard that as essential to the future.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, allow me to begin by congratulating the noble Lord and telling him that it is all too long since the House had the pleasure of hearing him. We have much appreciated listening to him today.

1311
I should also like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on an admirable introduction, both lucid and convincing, of this major Bill which, as she rightly said, is the first major attempt at reform of the health service since its inception. She has had to listen to a very powerful dialectical performance from the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who went at times into hyperbole in his enthusiasm for his subject. But there is something we have to deal with here. On her side, my noble friend has a White Paper, Working for Patients, in which there are some very good ideas. This is being backed by government expenditure on the health service which amounts to nearly 50 per cent. more than what the previous Labour Government were able to provide. So there is much to be welcomed there on which my noble friend should be congratulated.
In addition, there is no doubt about the point which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, put to the House, with which I think he wished to convince us, that the volume of objection, criticism and anxiety from members of all sections of the health service is very powerful indeed. Papers, representations of all sorts and kinds pour through our postbags to tell us of their objections and their anxieties. So I am bound to ask myself what has gone wrong if they are feeling as anxious as all that.
There is no doubt that doctors and nurses are anxious that their relationship with patients will be disturbed. We have to recognise that they have a very special relationship with patients which goes far beyond that of professionals in other aspects of life such as solicitors or accountants because they actually deal with the health and lives of their patients. They have an element of dedication in their make-up which inspires the quality of their work. I do not believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is catering sufficiently for the anxieties of professional staff in the service.
I very much support what was said by my noble friend Lord Carr. I believe the major changes are right, but the timetable for their introduction is unrealistic and is probably the major cause of the anxiety. A very strong second one is the National Health Service trust for self-governing hospitals.
There is an obvious need to reform the existing anomalies and shortages, and this has been recognised all round. In addition, there is the overriding need to meet the inbuilt growth of demand from our ever-increasing national longevity— we see splendid evidence of that in this House in the noble Lord opposite, who may well be here in another 20 years' time— and the ever more wonderful medical and surgical cures, due to the inventions not only of our own doctors but also those from all parts of the world.
Perhaps I may take a moment to relate an incident I saw last autumn and which I believe is typical. A consultant physician at St. Thomas's, whose services I am fortunate enough to enjoy, heard of a surgical operation being performed in China which might benefit his post-polio patients. Accompanied by an orthopaedic surgeon, he overcame all difficulties and visited the Chinese army hospital where the operation was being regularly performed. They were allowed to attend an operation, taking photographs
1312
and full particulars of both pre-operative and post-operative conditions to satisfy themselves that the surgery was sound. When I last visited St. Thomas's a few months ago I saw the first patient to have had the operation lying in bed after successful surgery. This was marvellous— a new way of dealing with a quite difficult problem; but it is also going to cost a lot more money.
That is typical of what is happening through the whole range: innovations coming from all over the world, with all the marvels of modern communication. So whatever additional finance is provided by the Government— here I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Carr— it is axiomatic that such is the growth of demand that there will always be shortages somewhere, however great the expenditure. In the light of this axiom it is vital to establish a system which makes the best use of resources to meet the needs of patients. That is the objective of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, may have embarrassed my noble friend the Minister and the Government generally on what he thinks are the defects of the Bill, but the government of the day must take action in this field. Eventually we shall be saying to the noble Lord "All right, my Lord, what would you do, because this is the problem?" I believe that the broad strategy is right that devolves decisions about the allocation of resources as far as possible from the Secretary of State to the hospitals and GPs in the field.
I have no time to speak about the GP budget practices. I stick to the hospitals. The method of achieving this desirable end— and we have heard a most interesting speech from my noble friend Lord McColl, who has been one of the pioneers— is to strengthen the management of hospitals so that they can submit annual budgets as a basis for their allocation of funds from the Secretary of State, instead of the present system of allocation according to a theoretical formula related to population figures and similar demographic data.
The resource management initiative to which my noble friend has already referred has been evolved by my noble friend and five hospitals other than Guy's to work out how the system of management could be developed to produce an annual budget relating resources to the outcomes achieved. The resource management initiative involves the development first of all of modern information technology supported by adequate computers and a system of cost accounting reliably reflecting the cost of the various activities of each hospital.
That sounds very simple, but in practice— this is the point— it will require the retraining, at least to some extent, of every member of the hospital staff. Although the broad lines have been established by the pioneer hospitals, when it is applied to all the other hospitals the application in each case will be different. It will be a major undertaking to explain that to each member of staff and win their co-operation. My noble friend Lord Carr is right when he says that nobody likes change. Change has to be sold to persuade people to co-operate. The co-operation of members of staff must be won if there is to be successful administration.

1313
The Secretary of State has spendidly provided the funds for the project— £ 80 million— and I congratulate him. However, his timetable of introduction is far too short. My estimate, which was supported by the Select Committee from the other place after its visit to Canada and America, as my noble friend the Minister knows, was that four or five years would be needed to introduce RMI to a hospital so that it could produce its own budget. I understand that a number of hospitals have volunteered to take over from the existing six pioneers and I am delighted to hear that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for his kindly reference to my advice in the debate which he promoted last December. I am still of the same opinion— that the right strategy for the Secretary of State is to make hospital reform a two-stage affair. There should first be introduced resource management initiative to achieve fully efficient management in the hospital— a major undertaking— and then allow the hospital to decide whether it wishes to become self-governing: a National Health Service trust. It must be absolutely logical that no hospital can take a decision on whether it wishes to become an independent self-governing National Health Service trust until it has modern management. It should not be difficult therefore to say that the objective for all hospitals is the resource management initiative, and each hospital can then make its choice according to how it feels.
A point the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, mentioned, and which I reiterate— I am sure it is a vital point— is that to sell better management in hospitals must help. That will be hard enough to put over, but it should be the objective of every hospital and every person in the hospital to achieve that. That has nothing to do with becoming an independent hospital. Incidentally, the hospital trust was never intended to be outside the National Health Service. I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord McColl said— that there are doubtless a lot of people who would like to have independent hospitals. Nevertheless, install the new management and then let the members decide whether they wish to become independent or not.
I say to my noble friend the Minister, who will have a long hard trail at the Committee stage, that I support this Bill in its general principles; it is obviously right. However, it is being hurried, and it is wrong to try to put the whole package over all at once. I hope that that advice will make an impact.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, on a very interesting maiden speech, and also the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh who made a formidable maiden contribution— highly interesting, informative and classic in its own right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, at the beginning of the debate repeated a point that she has often made; namely, that more money has been spent on the National Health Service in the past 11 years than ever before. That is perfectly true. Yet the service is disturbed and unhappy. Staff are
1314
dissatisfied and complaining. In fact we have the worst of all worlds: spending more money in return for a more dissatisfied National Health Service.
A report recently submitted by Professor Gilroy-Bevan and a team from the National Health Service value for money unit following a study of 12 hospital operating departments found that all were short of staff of all grades. The service was reliant on a large amount of overtime by all staff. As Professor Gilroy-Bevan said, that could be dangerous because of the stress on staff. Ultimately it could be dangerous for the patient.
The report said there was need to examine training and that levels of competence should be defined for support staff of surgical and anaesthetic practitioners. That was welcomed by all operating departments' assistants. It was certainly welcomed by the representative of the ancillary staffs, Mr. Berry, of the Confederation of Health Service Employees.
I should like to concentrate on the views of the major staffs of our National Health Service. I cannot understand why the Government have introduced this Bill without consulting people who know much more about the subject than any of us. If, for example, this was a defence Bill, would they not consult the chiefs of staff of the Royal Navy, the army and the Royal Air Force? I submit that the National Health Service is also a massive defence service for our people and that there should be proper consultation with members of the various large organisations.
The BMA is of the view that the Bill does not extend a patient's choice. At present GPs are able to refer patients to consultants they think appropriate, having regard to clinical needs and length of waiting lists. Their worry is that the proposed financial scheme will compel shopping around for the most economical contract without regard to the ability of the consultant or what the patient really needs. Furthermore, the BMA is of the opinion that health authorities will indicate to GPs, who are not fund holders, where they should shop for the most economical hospitals. That will reduce patient choice and restrict the freedom of the doctor.
The BMA believes that there are many apprehensions and worries. It is concerned that doctor patient relationships will be damaged if patients fear that the cost of treatment will influence the doctor's decision. That complaint is justified: it is bad for the doctor and bad for the patient.
The BMA accepts and is happy with some ministerial assurances. However, it shares, along with the royal medical colleges and their faculties, certain concerns and has produced a figure to support its anxieties. A BMA poll found that 13 per cent. approved of the Government's proposals while 71 per cent. disapproved. All demanded proper experimental studies first.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, may wish to comment on the case of a baby who lives in West Yorkshire and who, when only 19 days' old, developed a rare and severe form of meningitis. She was expertly investigated and treated at Airedale General Hospital, Keighley. However, she started

1315
to deteriorate and a professor at Leeds General Infirmary was asked to help. In the end she was transferred to Leeds and had brain surgery. That seems to have been successful and she was transferred back to Airedale. Now the baby is at home and being most carefully watched.
That is a wonderful example of the NHS at its best. If all the care and attention is costed and worked out between hospital and home care, it may be very expensive. In view of the cash limits, which seem to be part of the new arrangements, will that standard of care be available under the Bill? Would that touching and compassionate experience never be allowed again because of the Bill? We are entitled to an answer.
The Royal College of Nursing welcomes the Government scheme for developing a comprehensive system of medical audit covering primary health care and hospital and community health services. But it would prefer clincial, not medical, audit to ensure the inclusion of nursing audit. The Royal College of Nursing, like the Confederation of Health Service Employees, believes that the National Health Service and Community Care Bill addresses the wrong agenda. The college would prefer a shift in policy towards health promotion and illness prevention. It is perturbed that increasing skill shortages are afflicting all medical professions.
The Royal College of Nursing members also believe that the establishment of self-governing hospitals is a threat— their words, not mine— to the continuity of care and will lead to the dislocation of facilities. The Royal College of Nursing believes— and CoHSE agrees— that it will distort the labour market and worsen regional skill shortages. There is no evidence whatever that the Bill will create higher standards.
I refer briefly also to the Health Visitors' Association. I consider that association to be the vertebrae of community care. The Health Visitors' Association has a number of major worries. It is desperately concerned that the Bill fails to specify core services and that it will undermine community health services, particularly for women and children, community midwifery and district nurses. The association fears that the district nurse— an extremely important lady in our National Health Service who does so much and who is so unsung— with the community midwife will become a rump service. I hope there will be an assurance that that will not take place: the Health Visitors' Association is concerned that it could happen under the Bill.
The Health Visitors' Association has a long and distinguished history of combining medical and clinical efficiency with profound compassion and understanding. It deserves the support of your Lordships' House.
The Royal College of Physicians calls for a carefully planned National Health Service evaluation programme. It believes that the NHS should not be the subject of a costly experiment with, as the college states, a high risk of failure.
1316
Other organisations which are worried include the Association of County Councils which is very apprehensive, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the Religious Society of Friends. Even the pharmacists have written to me outlining grave apprehensions and reservations.
With great respect I ask the Minister to bear this point in mind. I do not believe that we in this House, and certainly not the Secretary of State, will dismiss the views of the 12 royal colleges and the 13 distinguished medical colleges who have submitted a variety of apprehensions. They believe they should be consulted, and so do I. These grave concerns about the Bill are not only those of knowledgeable sectional interests; nearly all the country is deeply concerned. Therefore, we must make certain that money is not permitted to stand in the way of maintaining an efficient National Health Service. When Aneurin Bevan said that in the House of Commons in 1948 he had the full approval of all sides of the other place.
I believe that all the medical professions and associations, representing surgeons, nurses, midwives and health visitors, want to see an improved service. But they are gravely apprehensive about some aspects of the Bill. So are the people of this country. I ask the Minister to say that he is prepared to see representatives of these great associations who want to give of their experience and knowledge in order to assist the Government to produce a Bill which will enhance the status of our National Health Service.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, we have before us a Bill containing proposals which are ill-considered and untried and which is being rushed through Parliament at a dangerously fast rate. In the other place, the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Ennals, said, had a truncated Report stage in an all-night sitting and a limited Third Reading. The other place should have given a much more thorough exploration of the Bill. We shall have to do so.
I do not believe that a financially competitive market is an appropriate way to plan an integrated health service for patients. We all support the aims of the White Paper which said that patient needs will always be paramount and that the NHS will continue to be available to all regardless of income and to be financed mainly out of general taxation. As was said earlier, the medical profession accepts the need for better information technology, and it strongly supports the greater emphasis on professional audit and the need for carefully monitored change that can be shown to be effective. However, there is no evidence that the proposals contained in the Bill are likely to improve the health service in the way that is required. There is no evidence that the proposed changes will improve the standard of care, will improve access to care, will improve choice of care, or will improve the cost-effectiveness of care. There is no evidence whatever.
The Government claim that the reforms will improve standards of care and will obtain high quality value for money; but assertion is not proof.

1317
Many of the proposals will lead to a deterioration in patient care, will fragment the service and destroy the comprehensive nature of the existing service. Again, the Government stated that the aim was to extend patient choice; but I believe that there will be a reduction in patient choice as a result of some of the proposals in the legislation.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has left the Chamber. I was interested to hear him refer to the influence that GPs will have on the service as a result of this Bill. The funny thing about that is that I was a GP for a few years and during that time I was able to refer my patients to the consultants that I thought were the most appropriate for them, having regard to the patients' clinical needs, their convenience and the time they would have to wait.
Under the present Bill, my freedom as a GP, unless I am a budget holder, will be restricted because I shall be expected to refer my patients to the hospitals with which the district health authority has a contract. I could not be a budget holder. I was a single-handed general practitioner and my list would have been too small. Therefore, I could only have acted in the way that I have mentioned.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has already mentioned that provisions for a contingency fund will exist for cases that I wish to refer outside of a contract. How will it work? I should like some answers from the Minister when he replies. I had a surgery in Euston. I lived first in Willesden and then later in Hampstead. It was very convenient for me to take patients from areas in between. The consequence was that the hospitals to which I sent patients belonged to three different health authorities. What is more, the hospitals were in two different regions.
I knew that in an emergency I could refer a patient and then afterwards justify my actions. But what about the many cases which are not emergencies? I am thinking of a pregnant woman who has had problems with previous pregnancies. In the past she has had her babies at a hospital with which the district health authority has not placed a contract. Her condition is well known to the consultant she has been attending, and she trusts him. What will happen to that women under the proposals?
Though I sent most of my psychiatric patients to the UCH, I frequently had patients come to me who had gone to Maudsley of their own accord. I had a psychiatrist friend at St. George's Hospital, Tooting, not at Hyde Park Corner, to whom I frequently referred patients. I need to know what the situation will be for a GP, practising as I was, under these proposals.
Again, I shall be told that there is a contingency fund. What happens in March when that fund has run out? These are questions that I hope the Minister will answer when he replies to the debate. I am worried about these matters. I have studied all the papers, the White Paper, and I have read the Bill. The worries I have are those which I am conveying to the House. I was a GP for nearly 50 years.
I am also worried that the doctor-patient relationship may be damaged if patients fear that the cost of their treatment is influencing their doctor's
1318
decision on their clinical needs. I know that that will not be so, but it can be perceived to be so. In influencing attitudes perception is often more powerful than the act.
In order to carry out the internal market the role of the health authorities will be extended. It is essential that the professional voice is heard. They will be making all kinds of important decisions and they should be receiving professional advice when they are making those decisions. Already the question of membership of the authorities by university members has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I do not need to raise that matter again. There is also the question of local authorities. They have to adopt a very important role as regards community care. At the very time that they are given that role, their presence on the health authority is no longer required and they are being removed. I cannot understand that, either.
Regarding the family practitioner services, the Family Health Service Authority will have very increased powers over the general practitioners. There will now be two different kinds of practitioners; namely, the budget holders and the non budget holders. Both will need to be represented because their needs and their interests are different. I understand that there is very strong pressure for a number of hospitals to take large and decisive steps down the road towards trust status. I am told by the BMA that many of the consultants in the 79 front-runner hospitals are unhappy about self-government.
I have heard the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, but I wish to hear the answer from the Minister. I wish to know how these decisions are being made. Can the Minister say whether the staff are in a position to influence decisions; are the people who are to be served by these hospitals able to influence the decisions; are the community health councils being consulted and their views taken into account? We need answers to all those questions.
One of the anxieties about the National Health Service trusts is their ability to depart from national agreements on pay and conditions of service. Again, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is prepared to defend that. I gather that managers are already planning for the new power that this will give them. A national pay structure for specialists was part of the original concept of the National Health Service. The idea was that it would make high quality specialist care available to all and not only to those who will be attending the centres of excellence.
We have had a fairly even spread of consultants, both geographically and by specialty. That has been essential in maintaining the quality of provision for patient care. This strategy has been a notable success, and it has won international recognition. It is one of the successes of the National Health Service and we should not allow it to be destroyed.
The Government have not produced any argument as to why there is a need to change the national pay structure for the professional staff. The fear is that the abandonment of national pay and conditions of service will lead to a two-tier health service,

1319
destroying the even spread of consultants that I was speaking about which is one of the achievements since 1948. The proposals contained in the Bill could take us back to the period before 1948 when we had two-tier services with voluntary and municipal hospitals. I remember them. In the 1930s I was a student, and in 1947 and 1948 I was practising in London. That was the situation then.
The National Health Service brought an end to the two-tier system and we must not allow it to be brought back. Moreover, it makes financial sense to retain national agreements. Self-governing hospitals will need large personnel departments staffed by experienced people to deal with local negotiations and disputes. The representatives of the staff in the various hospitals will have to spend a great deal of their time on discussions, negotiations and disputes. That is time that they should be spending looking after patients. This situation will be duplicated in hospital after hospital if they withdraw from national negotiations. I hope that the Government will rethink the matter.
Certain safeguards need to be written into the Bill in order to achieve the long-term protection of patients. There must be guaranteed local access to services. General practitioners must have the right to refer their patients to the consultants of their choice. Consultations must take place with the professions before decisions are taken on contracts and the provision of services; and their views must be listened to.
The Secretary of State has given assurances that GPs' drug budgets will not be cash limited. I noticed that when the Minister addressed the House she made sure that we took that point. But the Bill as drafted leaves it open for a Secretary of State to do so in the future. We must try to amend that. The way in which the Government proceeded to apply downward pressure on the budgets of what they regarded as overspending local authorities must make everyone stop and think. It has made me stop and think. The Government are using this same method of central assessment of local expenditure to control drug budgets. We should remember— and noble Lords who have heard me speak will know that I have made this point on a number of occasions— that the criteria used for central assessment of local authority expenditure has resulted in the most deprived areas of this country being rate capped.
Let us remember what has happened with the poll tax. The Government's standard spending assessment was 25 per cent. lower than the average assessment of expenditure by local authorities. If this method is used with drug budgets, and if the Government estimate the drug budget at 25 per cent. below what is required, from where will the patients get their drugs? How will they get them? We must make sure that the budgets are determined locally and at practice level. That is the only way in which it can be fair and at the same time not be destructive.
Finally, I want to support those who say that we must assess the reforms before they are introduced nationally. We have had proposals from the Royal Colleges, and the BMA survey showed that the
1320
patients want it. Both patients and those who serve them say that we should have evaluation before the proposals are extended nationally. We must support this evaluation proposal. My view is that this is the least we can do.
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a Fellow of the Royal College of Nursing. However, although I will be raising matters relevant to my own profession of nursing, I hope that my contributions will transcend sectional professional interests and will reflect much wider concerns for the National Health Service and for community care.
Although I am a strong believer in the principles underpinning the NHS and a great admirer of its many achievements, I have never believed that there is no room for improvement; and, as a committed advocate of consumer choice, I have never been reluctant to support changes which will enhance choice and cost-effectiveness. Therefore I welcome many aspects of the Bill; for example, the Government's commitment to extending choice, to the provision of more information on which to base choice, to reducing waiting lists and to the general principle of audit. So far, so good. But I also share many of the concerns expressed by colleagues in the health professions.
As it is Second Reading, perhaps I may subsume specific concerns under four general themes: responsibility for care; evaluation of care; quality of care; and continuity of care. First, I shall deal with responsibility for care. There is widespread concern that there is to be no statutory membership on key bodies such as regional and district health authorities of people with professional clincial expertise and experience. To relegate them to an advisory capacity is totally inadequate. Surely it is desirable for them to have the opportunity to shape all stages of policy-making. Without such expertise, the bodies charged with responsibility for health care will lack essential information.
It is also essential that people with professional experience should be involved in evaluating the quality of care provided by the NHS and in the community. Evaluation is my second major theme. I strongly support the recommendation of the Royal Colleges and other professional bodies in the publication The Way Forward that there should be an advisory council or a research authority to assist the chief of research and development. I support the recommendation that this body should consist of approximately equal numbers of nominees of professional bodies and of the Government, together with representatives of the public. It should be responsible for systematic evaluation of the provision of health care, including standards of clinical care. And, like the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Winstanley, I also support the general principle underpinning the recommendation of these professional colleges and societies that a systematic evaluation be undertaken before the proposed changes are implemented nationwide.
As a social scientist, as a health care professional, and as a Conservative, I believe that it would be much sounder practice to introduce the proposed

1321
changes in a limited, phased programme first, to evaluate them impartially and thoroughly, and then to move ahead with full-scale national implementation in the light of lessons learnt in the first phase. As a social scientist, I have always been opposed to political ideologies which seek to impose untried blueprints. As a Conservative, I have been impressed by the writings of Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek, with their fundamental commitment to piecemeal reform and to evolutionary change. I therefore deeply regret having to challenge a Tory Government for what appears to be to many people an arrogant imposition of fundamental change without sensitive awareness of legitimate concern expressed by experienced professionals, and without any commitment to systematic critical evaluation of the effects of change. Perhaps I may quote the Royal College of Nursing:
"When patients' health is at stake, the need to introduce large-scale reforms successfully first time is paramount. Proper evaluation of the proposals would assist this".
That leads into my third area of concern: quality of care. There are many potential chain reactions to the proposals in the Bill. I shall give just one example— the side effects of employment policies of self-governing trust hospitals on other hospitals in the locality. There are already acute shortages of qualified staff in NHS hospitals in many places, especially in acute care areas such as intensive care units. If nearby self-governing trust hospitals are empowered to attract staff by offering them higher salaries, what assurances can the Government give that other local NHS hospitals will not suffer even more difficulties than they do now? I am sorry to say that I was not greatly reassured by the ramarks of my noble friend Lord McColl on this issue.
I turn from the subject of hospitals to community care. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the Government would be prepared to extend the policy of inspecting the quality of residential care to cover small-scale providers with less than four beds. At present some of the provisions in these very small homes are little short of scandalous. How long do we have to leave vulnerable elderly people— infirm, and sometimes confused— suffering in this hidden way before taking necessary remedial action in the form of regular inspection? I should also like to ask the Government whether they would be prepared to consider a policy that all inspections of residential care in the community must be undertaken by an independent body with inspectors who are qualified in health care.
There is a great deal of confusion in the Bill between social care and health care. Many people who require community care have needs which are primarily social and they can, indeed, best be met by social service departments. However, there are many other people— for example, the frail elderly— whose numbers will increase dramatically in the next few years and who have health needs such as problems of mobility and/or incontinence. Their condition can deteriorate very quickly without adequate clinical support. Moreover, similar problems may apply to people who are discharged into the community from long-stay residence in psychiatric hospitals. Their condition can also
1322
change rapidly, especially if they suddenly stop taking medication.
I have a nightmare— which I fear could become reality— of many very vulnerable people finding that community care is a Utopian myth. They find instead that the community does not or cannot care and that the services that should be caring for them are not available to help them in their time of need. Of course, there are many areas where such people are now well looked after; and, indeed, where they will be well cared for in the future. Many of these places are situated in areas where some of your Lordships live. I think that that applies especially to this side of the House. It is perhaps those areas which justify the optimistic evaluation of the ability of all social service departments to deliver comprehensive, high quality care.
However, I have lived in a very different kind of area for 30 years and my children, grown up as they are, have been working in other disadvantaged areas. I also have professional colleagues in different parts of the country who give me horrendous examples of the problems of poor quality provision in many areas. On the basis of those experiences and the evidence which has been brought to my attention, I fear for the quality of care which will be available to many of our elderly citizens and to those suffering from chronic sickness or mental illness. That is why I plead for systematic, vigorous evaluation and inspection not only of the National Health Service, but also of community care. Moreover like the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, I should also be much happier if the Government were to ring-fence resources for community care to ensure that they are not diverted to other uses, as has happened before with earmarked funds.
My fourth theme concerns the question of continuity of care. Many people, including those convalescing from serious illness, as well as the frail elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, depend upon the smooth interaction between different sectors for their continuing care. But the Bill throws into sharp perspective the possibility of disjunctions between the acute and the community sectors. There is a real danger that the seamless web of care so carefully woven after 1974 will be broken and that the pre-1974 fragmentation could sadly reappear.
Many professions will not be satisfied that care in the community will be effective without assurance of a specified role for health professionals in a multi-disciplinary team, particularly in client assessment. Given the complexity of needs which will be the responsibility of the community services, it is not adequate to assign case management just to social services. Many vulnerable clients, such as the groups which I have already mentioned— namely, the frail or confused elderly or the mentally ill— must be entitled to a health assessment by qualified professionals. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to a statutory requirement for health and social service authorities to collaborate in meeting both the social and the health needs to prevent clients falling through the gaps which exist between different agencies.

1323
In conclusion I must say that I deeply regret the fact that I cannot give the Bill the welcome I would wish. I regret even more that my personal doubts and worries have been reflected in, and endorsed by, the publication by the prestigious bodies which have united in an unprecedented way to urge the Government to listen to their professional concerns. It is not just a question of challenge from people with a vested interest in political opposition; nor is it a question of unelected individuals trying to thwart the will of a democratically elected government. It is, in large part, a groundswell of legitimate professional concern felt and voiced by professionals who care and who care about caring. They are also deeply worried about the quality of care that they will be able to provide in the National Health Service and in the communities which they serve to which they are deeply committed.
I hope passionately that the Government will take this, their last opportunity, to listen to these genuine concerns. I hope that they will heed them and respond to them sensitively and appropriately. I have said before, and I shall say again, that I believe the National Health Service is one of the most humanitarian institutions the world has ever known. It has provided a popular and generally equitable health service, enabling the United Kingdom to compare satisfactorily with other nations in terms of fundamental standards of health, morbidity and mortality— and often at less cost than other nations.
Therefore, I will wholeheartedly support any policies which help to put the principles which the National Health Service enshrines into practice more effectively; but I, and my professional colleagues, cannot and will not support proposals which appear to us to risk damaging this precious institution and thereby possibly harming those whom it serves. That is something which not only I but also many people throughout the country would find hard to forgive.
I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of this Bill's passage through your Lordships' House, to listen, to respond and to change before it is too late— not just for them, but also for the many people who I believe may suffer if the Bill goes through unamended. If the Bill can be amended and the proposals which have commanded wide professional support become incorporated in law, I believe that the National Health Service and community care, and all those people whom they serve, will benefit. That is our common aim and I hope we can achieve it.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I shall speak briefly as I have but one point to make. I should first like to add my voice to those speakers— and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was the latest of several— who have asked that health professionals in the widest sense, such as those in medical schools and in the universities of which medical schools form a part, should in some way, and on the face of the Bill, be incorporated into the management structure of regions and districts as well as of trusts. In doing so, I must declare an interest in that I shall be at Cambridge for a few more years in a pre-clinical department teaching medical students.
1324
I am grateful for the reassurance given by the Minister about the Government's concern for teaching and research. However, I should be even more grateful if we could find a way in future proceedings on the Bill to transform that important concern into statutory provision. No doubt we shall be told that paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 allow chairmen to appoint members of authorities who are either consultants, nurses or at university medical schools and that that is sufficient.
We shall also be told that Clause 5 (3) in Part I and paragraph 3 (1) (d) in Schedule 2 oblige the Secretary of State to specify teaching as a function of a National Health Service trust. We shall be told that they allow him to specify research as a function of a National Health Service trust, and that that is sufficient. Indeed, powers as discretionary as those could hardly fail to be sufficient for chairmen of authorities and for the Secretary of State. However Parliament, I believe, may reasonably become restless when the executive demands unfettered discretion on the pretext of flexibility and does it again and again in Bill after Bill.
Is it sufficient for Parliament to leave to chairmen and to the Secretary of State whether or not the teaching and research function shall be part of the concern of regions, districts and trusts? And whether or not there shall be persons with direct knowledge of hospital medicine and research on management bodies of regions and areas?
One of the thrusts of the Bill is to impose on the hospital service a management structure more akin to industrial practice than its present management. However, if we look at much industrial practice in this country, it is precisely in the functions of training and research that management appears to be deficient. In comparison with our competitors, technical professional skills other than accounting— and I do not wish in any way to diminish the importance of the contribution of accountants— are under-represented on boards. Industry has, I believe, as a consequence been slow to contribute both to research investment and to creating a well-trained workforce.
I am concerned lest the superficial and sub-Marxist analysis which separates the management from providers' interests should make us reproduce those same thoughts in health service management and thereby jeopardise both the supply of further doctors and research to improve the knowledge of disease and the delivery of health care.
I cannot help feeling that the original briefing for the Bill did not take into account just how widespread throughout the National Health Service hospitals— and not just in hospitals attached to medical schools— teaching and research have been or how important such activity is to the future of the health service. Despite the reassurances to which I referred earlier and for which I am grateful, I hope it is not too late to introduce changes in the Bill which will guard against the damaging consequences of that apparent misjudgment.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I have been listening with interest during the course of the

1325
debate to the observations of noble Lords opposite and on this side of the House too. I have listened to their passionate and no doubt sincerely held views and anxieties. But I could not help remembering that period during the 1987 General Election when, day after day, we had paraded by the media and at the Prime Minister's daily press conferences tragic case after tragic case of babies waiting for heart surgery. The whole nation was alarmed and concerned.
It was against that background that pressure was put on whomever took office to embark on an urgent review of the NHS. Today we are no longer reading those particular stories in the headlines. In your Lordships' House we are debating the outcome of the review that everybody urged in 1987. Any responsible government taking office at that time would have had to acknowledge that our NHS— envy of the world as it rightly is— would be an ever-growing source of demand for increasing resources, with a voracious appetite fuelled by the new needs resulting from advances in medical science and a growing ageing population.
However, no responsible government could believe that merely throwing money at the NHS was the answer, without seeking at the same time to improve the quality and quantity of patient services. They could not do so without seeking to raise the standards of those services right across the country and without attempting to ensure that the ever-increasing resources made available were being used as effectively as possible in the interests, above all, of the patients.
This Government have thrown billions at the NHS. It is already about £ 8 billion over the past 10 years, compared with a cut in expenditure in real terms under the last Labour Government. But instead of receiving accolades or acknowledgment of this achievement, they are attacked by some noble Lords opposite and others who question the Government's commitment to the NHS.
Perhaps it is not surprising because the many major developments being undertaken in the NHS do not merit headlines as the tragic cases of those babies did during the election campaign. They merit tiny paragraphs in the media. For example, little is heard of the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital which will cost £ 178 million. It is one of the largest projects in the history of the health service. But then perhaps a mere litany of statistics demonstrating increases in the NHS are too impersonal, so let me put it into human terms.
There have never been more doctors in the health service, more operations, more patients treated, more modern hospital facilities, more advanced techniques, more effort put into prevention and health education. There have never been more nurses and never have a government had a better record of which they can be proud than this Government have with the NHS.
That is the background to the Bill which your Lordships are debating today. The Government are pushing ahead with overdue reforms, as so many noble Lords have acknowledged. These are reforms which attempt to introduce into the health service
1326
necessary checks and balances as well as stimulus to even higher standards of service, more widely available and accessible to patients. The reforms will not only improve the NHS but will allow it to develop. That is what so many noble Lords have asked for today. Those reforms should be allowed to evolve as the lessons from them are learned.
I fear that the often hysterical opposition to the Bill has blinded and bamboozled a good many otherwise sensible people. That probably accounts for some of the poll statistics to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred. But worse than that have been the quite unnecessarily frightening stories put out to many of the most vulnerable members of the community. I find that hard to forgive. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said, perhaps perceptions are often more powerful than facts for these people. I am sure that he was right.
Quite the most extraordinary attacks on the Bill have come from the trade union which— I must say with respect to my noble friend Lady Cox— has a vested interest in its patients but also in its members, the BMA. Perhaps I am being unjust to them, perhaps my criticism should be directed to their PR people. Their tactics have made Arthur Scargill appear the soul of moderation in comparison. I mean no disrespect to any noble Lord who may be a member of that trade union and whom I automatically exempt from my criticism.
I find it particularly disturbing that doctors whose influence on people is more emotive than that of most other people should exploit the situation in this way. Many of your Lordships will have received from the BMA a communication with its comments on the Bill. It opens with a paragraph which states:
"At present, it is rarely necessary for patients to travel to other parts of the country simply because the quality of routine treatment is inadequate locally".
That is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to pretend that standards across the country are the same for all patients. Fine though the NHS is in many parts of the country, we shall improve nothing if we start from the assumption that it is perfect everywhere. It is not, and it is capable of improvement. Only a week or so ago, for example, an eminent professor of clinical oncology from Hammersmith Hospital claimed in a paper entitled Caring for Cancer that in many hospitals across the country the standards of cancer treatment were uneven, and in some cases were unacceptably bad. He warned patients that before accepting treatment they should ask what the rate of success was in the hospital they were due to attend.
We read with horror that at last week's Royal College of Nursing congress it was claimed that in some hospitals clinically dead patients were being kept alive for 24 hours for administrative convenience and to reduce paperwork on that particular day. Is that a wise use of resources— or, more importantly, is it humane? My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has produced a number of other startling examples of the diversity of standards across the country. If there is no over-prescribing in the health service, why do campaigns to hand in unwanted medicines regularly produce such huge hauls? The campaigns that took

1327
place in Dudley and Worthing produced more than 650, 000 tablets and half a tonne of medicines respectively.
What of the doctors themselves? The vast majority are of course hard-working and are committed to their patients and give them a wonderful service. However, not all doctors are like that, although the BMA would have us believe that was the case. There is still a strange mystique in the doctor-patient relationship, particularly in the case of the poor and inarticulate who when frightened, suffering or in pain approach their doctors as if they were some kind of deity. Instead of complaining, they often thank their doctors humbly for treating them offensively, patronisingly, negligently and sometimes badly. No noble Lord who has been a constituency MP can have failed to come across such cases from time to time. Thankfully, those cases represent a tiny minority. However, they are a submerged minority. The strengthening of the patients' complaints procedure is a welcome feature in the Bill.
Another fact that is particularly welcome is that the provisions of the Bill will, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has said, make it easier for patients to change and choose. That is the linchpin of effective competition because neither hospital standards nor doctors are beyond reproach. Standards vary sometimes to an unacceptable degree. There are some bad doctors and some inadequate hospitals. Those two minorities will not have their lives made easier by this Bill, and I am delighted that that is the case. As my noble friend Lady Hooper said, a majority of GP practices have already opted to be fund-holding practices. They will be able to buy for their patients what in their clinical judgment is the best treatment available. However, they will not be able to force that on any patient who does not want it. If patients do not want their doctor's choice, they will have to be offered an alternative. Above all, GPs will want to buy what has been demonstrated to them to represent the best care for their patients. Therefore, successful hospitals which give good treatment will flourish and grow while those hospitals which are unsuccessful will not.
Likewise, the district health authorities, hospital managers and those hospitals which opt to be self-governing trusts will tailor their services to patients' needs. They will learn a great deal about those needs from local GPs who will have much more say in how district health authorities spend their money and where they place their contracts. When planning the use of their resources and placing their contracts, district health authorities will need to pay much more attention to the wishes and needs of their own clinicians, who will in turn know the needs of their own hospital patients. This may mean that specialisation and centres of excellence develop on separate sites, but so long as they are available and accessible to all, I cannot see that that matters. That is far better than trying to stretch resources too far and too thinly in one hospital. That often leads to shortages, empty beds and, paradoxically, to the closure of successful hospitals.
1328
Before taking on new, expensive consultants with new, expensive procedures— sometimes at the expense of existing necessary services— managers will have to find out whether new services are available for patients elsewhere in the area. They will not seek to duplicate them at the expense of valuable services that they are already providing and which may need reinforcing.
I must now turn briefly to two areas of unjustified concern. They have been mentioned again and again. The first is the claim that GPs who have opted for fund-holding practices will be inhibited from prescribing adequately for their patients because they will be frightened of exceeding their budgets. It has also been claimed that they will discriminate against accepting elderly or chronic patients because of the cost that that involves. Again that is nonsense because GPs will be paid more not less for taking on such patients. Doctors who exceed their budgets will merely be invited to discuss this and compare their performance with those doctors who have not exceeded their budgets. That will be part of the inevitable learning process that will follow the Bill.
The other area of misinformation relates to the self-governing trusts. They will not be freewheeling profit-orientated institutions in which patients come second because their clinical standards will be monitored at all times by the Department of Health. They will be made to change their status if their standards do not meet requirements. What is perhaps most misunderstood and ignored by the Bill's critics is, above all, its central theme which is that most of the reforms in the Bill are voluntary. There is nothing in the Bill to make GPs opt for fund-holding practices or to make hospitals become self-governing trusts— to give two examples.
No one, least of all the Secretary of State, has suggested that on 1st April 1991 a perfect new system will emerge. It will be an evolving process and will involve inevitably some experimentation, just as the NHS itself did back in the late 1940s. Meanwhile clinical audits will be raising the quality of service. The Government's continuing allocation of record resources should provide the quantity, while the reforms themselves should ensure that finite resources are made the most of.
Those grand panjandrums of the trade union that I referred to have been speaking for their members and for patients. However, with this Bill the Government are speaking for patients alone. It is the Government who above all want a better health service with better care for patients. It is the Government who have had the courage to tackle what everyone agrees is an immense problem. I believe they have done so with imagination, ingenuity and, above all, with total commitment to the NHS.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, as one of those who has worked both within the National Health Service and alongside it since its inception, and who shares with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, membership and fellowship of the Royal College of Nursing, I do not wish to make partisan points.

1329
However, I wish to side with the noble Baroness in much of what she has already enunciated so eloquently.
I wish first of all, however, to applaud the determination of the Government to improve the quality of the service to the consumer. There are many things that, across the parties, I believe we can support, such as improving quality by instituting better information systems; improving the professional and managerial exercise of quality control and better systems of budgetary control. Those of us who have worked within the health service acknowledge the need for change.
It has been said that no one likes change. I must pay a tribute to those who have worked within the health service for the way in which they have accepted successive changes over the years. Amid all the positive provisions that the Bill offers to us I remain agnostic, however, about some of the basic tenets that the Government are putting forward. The contention is that a commercial basis for the service would improve the quality of care. I lack the evidence that that is so.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr, has encouraged us to think that the evidence already exists in commercial organisations. I cannot make that leap of imagination from the pure commercial enterprise to a health service in which we have a moral obligation to remain within budgetary controls but also a very different relationship between client and professional. That is a relationship which some have analysed as a gift relationship. It is a relationship that was referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester as a covenant and fidelity relationship.
Nor am I convinced by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that competition will right the wrongs of the health service. Again, I have no evidence that that is so. Therefore I have to align myself with that host of witnesses which has already been described today; namely, those who wish to see the government's beliefs tested before any major moves are made.
I am delighted at the proposed appointment of a director of research and development. It is just such evidence that we would ask him or her to produce in considering any future developments in the health service. I believe that we are desperately in need of evidence to support the Bill in its present form. Nonetheless, I welcome the emphasis in the working papers on the introduction of better systems of information technology, which are essential for proper management control, and on the various strategies for quality control. One is tempted to suggest that had those, and the resources being allocated to them, been injected into the present structure we might have seen dramatic improvements.
The emphasis on medical audit in working paper No. 6 and in other documents is to be welcomed. However, it deals only with part of the need to look at clinical standards and evaluation in total. I applaud the initiative of the Secretary of State in calling together the royal colleges— medical, nursing and midwifery— to consider a proposed clinical
1330
standards advisory group. Nurses, midwives and health visitors have, for a decade, used in their case management plans a systematic assessment of needs, objective statements and evaluations. The royal colleges and nurses at regional and district level have put a great deal of work into developing standards of care and indicators of care. I am heartened to see that some of those have been included in the specimen contract documentation given in the working papers on operating contracts.
I believe that the experience and expertise of nurses, midwives and health visitors will enable them to take a leading role in the broader aspects of quality assurance in both clinical and community care. However, I am not so sanguine that we have an adequate system put before us for quality assurance in the hotel services that are so vital a part of our hospital system.
The operating contracts document gives some reassurance that standards will be stated and sanctions can be applied. However, that gives no ultimate reassurance since the controls are bounded always by the Secretary of State's powers to limit what may be the necessary resources required to achieve desirable standards. In the present system of budgetary control I find no reassurance that the future may be any better. In that system, when budgets are tight, we have seen the more vulnerable aspects of care sacrificed. I think particularly of nursing establishments being eroded, of nursing education— particularly post-basic nursing education— being sacrificed. We all know of the problems of the inadequate supply of skilled nurses in areas such as paediatric intensive care. We have also seen a diminution in the numbers of health visitors and district nurses being trained. We have seen a diminution in the number of innovative posts, which are essential in preventive services and health education. Those are the very areas where we need to concentrate some of our future energies.
There seems a strong case, therefore, that the ultimate quality control for all parts of the service should not be so inbred but subject to an independent inspectorate. I believe that the principle of an inspectorate is accepted in the education system and in the social services. I see no reason why it should not be accepted in the health service.
The plans for community care, while spelling out some necessary basic principles, fail to recognise the sophistication of the assessment process in which health, social and psychological needs are so intimately intertwined. The training of district nurses and health visitors has prepared them for a first-level assessment of needs. In their case management plans, physical, psychological and social needs are included. Yet nurses in the community are experiencing a great deal of uncertainty about their future. They see a fragmentation of the different authorities which are their employers. They see the web of continuity of care, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred, being eroded and the very necessary planning for discharge from and admission to hospital sacrificed when budgetary control is imposed.

1331
The question of responsibility for nursing education concerns me. I see a fragmentation of that responsibility between regions, districts for post-basic nursing education, universities and the statutory bodies such as the English national board. I wonder whether it is not appropriate to consider some delay in that fragmentation. It may be that the role of co-ordinating the nursing education function should be left with the statutory bodies, which should develop as self-sufficient agencies.
In respect of nursing education within the higher education sector, both in universities and in polytechnics, I believe that we have never considered the service implications of teaching and research in nursing. I ask that some consideration be given to the extension of SIFT for the purposes of nursing education and research.
My last point concerns the membership of the authorities. I should not want to plead any representative membership. However, I would ask that the major cost centres— the universities, the medical profession and the nursing profession— should have adequate representation.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, at this point, two-thirds of the way through the debate, I shall not attempt to give a comprehensive Second Reading speech on the Bill. I can remember no Bill on which I have had more wide-ranging, well-informed and urgent briefings. Like the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I think that this is two Bills wrapped into one. In the time available to me, I cannot pay adequate attention to the community care aspects of the Bill when there is so much to say about the National Health Service proposals, but that does not mean that the community care aspects are unimportant. Far from it; properly organised and financed community care will make a profound difference to the effectiveness and costs of the National Health Service.
Like everyone, I am thoroughly in favour of the stated aims of the Government's legislation. As my noble friend Lord Ennals said, they are irreproachable. Who could disagree with providing patients with greater choice or enabling the whole National Health Service to achieve the standards of its best units? As my noble friend pointed out, it is a pity that, without exception, the representative bodies of those working in the National Health Service believe that the proposals in the Bill, with the exception of the proposed improved information systems and the increased use of clinical audit, will in effect work against the achievement of those desirable aims to which I referred.
In what I think is a sober critique of the proposals, the Royal Colleges and the other professional organisations in the National Health Service in their joint statement considered that,
"the introduction of the changes in the way proposed could very seriously disrupt the National Health Service".
Those are serious words, but I can assure the noble Baroness that they were declared only after long and serious deliberation.
1332
The proposals for the changes came from a small, high-level group working behind closed doors whose ideas originated outside the National Health Service, some from across the Atlantic and some from market-oriented economists in the United Kingdom. Little account seems to have been taken of the wide research base that exists in this country on the functioning of health services, or of the opinions of those who have spent their lives in such research.
Although the White Paper which introduced the Bill pays lip service to the National Health Service, it seems to have missed two fundamental advantages of the NHS as it now stands. The first, which has been mentioned by many speakers, is its truly comprehensive nature. Not only is it available to anyone, however poor, but high standards are available throughout the country. Successive governments have tried to monitor that and upgrade through RAWP and other measures those regions which were under-resourced. That is not to claim that every hospital is equally efficient. That is of course not the case. It is also well known that certain groups, mainly middle class, are more adept at using the system than others.
Secondly, as has been pointed out by many people, the National Health Service gives remarkably good value for money in terms of GNP. Although expenditure on health is rising in real terms, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, said and as we are frequently reminded, it has stayed level in terms of the gross national product at about 6 per cent. That is very low compared with other countries at an equivalent stage of economic development with a stable and ageing population such as we have. An increase of £ 2–8 billion— 10 per cent. of current expenditure— which would enable many improvements to be made, would still leave GNP at only 6–6 per cent. whereas France, Germany and, as has been mentioned, Canada and the United States spend from 9 to 12 per cent. of their much higher gross national product per head on health.
I can only ask why, if the present system is popular with the public and professions alike and is comprehensive and economical, is it necessary to make such fundamental changes? I am not saying that everything in the garden is lovely, but I maintain that the basic system is sound and a great deal sounder than the national health services of many other countries.
As a general practitioner, my role in the debate is to focus on the proposals as they affect primary care. My noble friend Lord Pitt has expressed better than I can many of those aspects and I agree with all his words. After I have done that, I want to look briefly at my other favourite topic— the position of junior hospital doctors— and allude to the evaluation plan which has been proposed by the professional colleges.
As an experimental idea, the granting of funds to certain general practices is interesting, but, as a proposal to be widely adopted without prior assessment, it is risky and mistaken. In the first place, the necessary information on costing of hospital and community services is not available and it will be difficult to put that information in place in the proposed timetable. As with other aspects of the

1333
proposed system, there is no evidence that the price of any health activity will reflect its quality. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester pointed that out clearly. I am sure that he was not only referring to spiritual values, although they are vital; how can they be costed in money terms?
More seriously, as my noble friend said, I see major difficulties between the doctor and the patient, if the patient feels that decisions about access to treatment are affected by cost considerations. I am told that some patients have jumped the gun. A doctor has already been accused of dissuading a patient from a hospital referral to save money to put in his own pocket because the patient thought that the reform was already in place! General practitioner funds will be subtracted from the money which is allocated to a district health authority to purchase care for its population. There will be nothing to stop fund-holding general practices buying private care for some patients.
Initially, private hospitals could well lower their prices to attract custom. That would easily be possible as they are often run by large corporations with a flexible financial policy. Some district health authorities might contract directly with the same private institutions. That might result in certain National Health Service hospitals attracting less custom and less funding and they might have to restrict their services or close down entirely. That is one way in which National Health Service funds could be diverted into the private sector. When a local National Health Service hospital has restricted its services or closed, the private institutions could put up "heir prices and thus greatly increase the costs to the NHS of providing those services while at the same time making a profit. That may not happen quickly, but it is a possible scenario. For instance, GP budget-holders might well wish to encourage their patients to opt for private insurance schemes for hospital care, thus saving money in their budgets. People who say that the Bill will not harm the National Health Service and will not favour private, profit-oriented, and eventually much more costly health care, must answer those points.
I should like to return to a point that I made with regard to the economical running of the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that one of the reasons for this was that the staff of the National Health Service are so badly paid. That may be one part of it but I believe that it is the structure of the health service as it stands that makes for its remarkably good value for money. For instance, there is the referral system of primary health physicians to secondary care at hospitals. Also quite important is the non-reliance on item of service payments— the capitation system in practice and the salaried system for National Health Service doctors.
I regard indicative prescribing budgets as a lesser but irksome evil. The Government could save themselves much trouble by simply using more effectively the present scheme of PACT (prescribing, analysis, and costing). Since that was introduced two years ago we have seen the proportion of generic prescribing by general practitioners rise from 36 per cent. to 40 per cent. I think that costs could be cut further if a generic substitution policy were adopted
1334
as in hospitals. So as to obtain the agreement of the drug industry, that could be coupled with extending patent life so that all new drugs have a 10-year protected market life under patent after licensing.
I turn to the question of junior hospital doctors. By creating 100 additional consultant posts over three years over and above the already planned 2 per cent. expansion of consultants, the Government claim to be assisting the junior hospital doctors' situation. While that is definitely a move in the right direction, it is only just holding the situation because of the greatly increased work of junior hospital doctors. Their work is yearly becoming more onerous because of increased throughput in hospitals and the increased technical complexity of hospital treatment.
Not only is a much greater increase in the number of consultants needed, but much more could be done immediately. At the appropriate stage I shall move an amendment to reduce the average weekly hours of junior hospital doctors to 72 hours, as in the Private Members' Bill passed by your Lordships' House last year. The Hospital Junior Staff Committee of the BMA feels that legislation is the only way in which the current intolerable situation can be improved. A recent survey conducted by Dr. Robin Dowie at the request of the Department of Health revealed that the average number of hours of duty of junior hospital doctors is now 90 per week.
I should like to end by backing the suggestion of the Royal Colleges that the widespread introduction of these reforms should be preceded by a suitable phase of evaluation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, I believe that the proposed new post of director of research and development could well be used for that work. I am aware that the National Health Service constantly needs to be assessed and changed in order to make it more effective, more pleasant for its users and health workers alike and to make it good value for money. However, these changes should flow from good research, as your Lordships' Select Committee suggested, and not from a think tank of economists remote from the real needs of patients of the National Health Service.
Finally, I should like to make a small additional remark. Some noble Lords will know that the health Minister with a small team visited Leningrad last year to look at what is known as the Leningrad experiment, in which radical changes in the financial arrangements and referral systems between polyclinics and hospitals were being carried out and assessed in Leningrad and two other regions in the Soviet Union. In fact the changes were found to be too ambitious and unworkable. They were greatly modified and the modified plans are again being tried out. If the Russians can work in that way why cannot we do it in this country? In fact the health problems of the Soviet health service were far greater than ours. They took the sensible step of introducing radical reforms in a limited pilot study. I am sure that that is the right way for this country too.
8.25 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, it is my privilege to be the honorary chairman of a body called the Scottish Association for Mental Health. It is a voluntary

1335
organisation which, in co-operation with many of our federated local associations, provides services in community care for people who have mental health problems, including people who are recovering from mental illness and those who have recovered but who still find it difficult to live outside an institution. We provide sheltered housing, sheltered employment, employment training, counselling and day centres. We also try to create opportunities for the users of the services to tell us, the providers, of their desires and real needs. That is very important. We also try, in relation to community care, to influence government, the local associations, the health boards and all the statutory and other agencies.
I have outlined our activities simply in order to establish my credentials as a mere layman to intervene in this important debate. We in the Scottish Association for Mental Health are a significant front line force in the field of community care. We spend about £ 3 million a year. We are funded partly by the Scottish Office, partly by gifts from the public and some excellent trusts, and partly from other statutory bodies. Mostly, however, our full-time staff has become expert in devising and constructing our services, especially in relation to employment training and residential accommodation, to fit the criteria of those bodies with funds to dispense. Thus we obtain large funds from government agencies and indeed from the European Community.
We welcomed the reports of the Audit Commission and Sir Roy Griffiths drawing attention to the failures of three decades and the need for urgent action. However, in Scotland at least, the Government's response to those documents in Part IV of the Bill has been rather disappointing. That disappointment is shared by others who provide community-based services for the elderly, the mentally handicapped and other vulnerable people.
In relation to community care and particularly people with mental health problems, the Bill requires local authorities in Scotland to assess the needs of those who have such problems, to decide upon the services that they require and finally to prepare plans for the provision of community care services. However, when I look at the final two paragraphs on page xi of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, it confirms what Ministers have already made clear; namely, that there will be virtually no new money in relation to these plans and services. In Scotland that is particularly serious because community mental health services are greatly under-developed compared with those in England and Wales. On a per head of population basis Scotland has one-third of the supported accommodation places available in England and one-fifth of the local authority day care places that there are in England.
Of course, the other side of that coin is necessarily that a far greater proportion of the vulnerable population of Scotland has to remain in psychiatric institutions because they have nowhere else to go. I put forward very tentatively the calculation that Scotland needs £ 50 million of new money to provide alternatives to institutional care for the one-third of
1336
the current psychiatric hospital in-patients who could be released into the community. That would do no more than bring our community services up to current English standards and levels.
As I understand the documentation that issues from the Scottish Office, the only new money— it is to be provided under Clause 55— will amount to £ 1 million. That is the specific grant, the money earmarked for mental health services in Scotland. I am afraid that even with regard to that money there are powerful disincentives to claiming it. The reason is this. Local authorities which sponsor other claims and obtain grants for specific projects will have to meet a part of the cost of those projects from their own resources. When the grant-aided projects are up and running and the grant has been used up, then the revenue deficits will have to be made up by the local authorities out of their ordinary funds. That means that the expenditure will have to be funded to a substantial degree from the proceeds of the community charge. Indeed the truth is that any new money for community care is likely to have to come, to a substantial degree, from the community charge. I fear that to give local authorities the responsibility for the community care services and to ask them to finance those services from their ordinary revenue, including the community charge, may be a recipe for disaster. However, we also fear that the flow of money from the European Community— for which we are extremely grateful— is likely to diminish as the Community assumes new responsibilities in relation to developments in Eastern Europe.
The future therefore does not look good. At best, we seem to face stagnation; at worst we may face decline. The Bill tells the local authorities to prepare a blueprint; but it does not seem to provide the bricks and mortar. The Bill raises expecations; but it does not provide the means whereby they can be fulfilled.
The reality is that the future for community care depends not upon the clauses in the Bill but upon the provision of money and new resources to enable services to be created and run. It depends critically upon the actions to be taken by central government. I ask Her Majesty's Government in relation to Scotland to give the most serious and urgent consideration to the proposals that we in the voluntary sector have advanced.
Perhaps I may say one word about the voluntary sector. It is important. At the present time voluntary organisations provide in Scotland a quarter of all residential places for the elderly, nearly all residential places for the physically handicapped, a half of those for the mentally handicapped, and more than a third of those for the mentally ill. We have a broadly similar share of day care provision.
We ask of the Government first, in the exercise of the powers contained in Clause 48, that the Scottish Office should develop a clear strategy of the type and volume of services that it is realistic to provide within available resources and also that it should set realistic targets. The advantage the Scottish Office has is that it can stand above and apart from the local authorities and the health board whose interests in this field are bound to conflict. I believe that the Scottish Office must address itself to possible

1337
mechanisms for transferring money and staff from health authorities to social work authorities in order to permit the movement of people from care in institutions to care in the community.
Secondly, dowry arrangements, such as are found in England, must be introduced so that the Scottish health authorities can be encouraged voluntarily to finance the smooth transfer to the community of those patients who do not need sophisticated hospital services.
Thirdly, the principal providers of community services are to be the private profit-seeking companies and the voluntary agencies. They are sometimes bracketed together under the title "the independent sector". But there is a vital difference between the private sector and the voluntary sector. Private companies can raise capital from investors— investors who will ultimately hope to reap a reward from the profits. But the voluntary sector cannot betray its traditions and start trying to make profits out of the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society. We therefore have the greatest difficulty in raising the capital which is absolutely necessary in order to provide, for example, residential care. I could give other examples. We also believe that joint planning in Scotland has failed. We urge the Government to think afresh— and it is the Government who must do that— about how joint planning can be made to work in Scotland.
Finally, we urge Her Majesty's Government to engage in a real and greatly enhanced programme of health education to teach us all about the character and consequences of mental illness but essentially to help us to lose our irrational fear about mental ill health. Such education is essential if the community is to be brought to understand the philosophy of community care and indeed to be prepared to pay for it.
If Part IV of the Bill provides a starting point for such initiatives, it will indeed deserve a welcome from all of us who, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, believe in the overwhelming value of real community care.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, before I begin my remarks I must declare an interest. I am a director of a company which is currently in partnership with a health authority to provide care for those suffering from drugs and alcohol problems. I believe that it is the first venture of its kind. I hope that it will not fall into the trap that was outlined so eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, when he spoke of the problems about profit in the private sector. Such ventures— I shall not go into them now— need not fall into that category. They can provide;, as this does, a standard of care not currently available in the health service at a very much cheaper price than the health service can provide. I believe that it is a goal worth seeking. I hope that we may be able to consider that at a later stage.
I also speak today with the backing and knowledge of Turning Point, which is the largest charity dealing with those with alcohol problems. I am the chairman of the Addiction Recovery Foundation which
1338
researches and publishes information for the treatment of drug addiction. I am also a trustee of Adfam National which offers help to the families of drug addicts. It is the largest charity in the country currently doing so. I have received almost identical briefing from the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse about which I can speak in the absence of my noble friend Lord Rodney, who is the chairman, and from the National Council of Voluntary Organisations. Their views are very similar.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I am very glad that the National Health Service and community care aspects of the Bill are being spoken about and debated at the same time. It is that part of the Bill which concerns me most where health service and community care overlap. It is that area in which I see the most problems occurring.
However, in general it is absolutely right that GPs should have greater freedom since they are possibly the mainstay of the National Health Service. They are at the front line. To give them more freedom to operate in the way in which they wish to do must be good. It is right that hospitals should have much more autonomy. Given the size and complexity of hospitals today, it is much better that they should be able to operate in the areas in which they think best, free from central controls. In short, when a system works well it is good to take off the controls, to release it from the stranglehold of bureaucratic regulations.
However, the other side of that coin is this. It is very dangerous to release controls from a system previously under direct control which may not work well, possibly because— as in some areas of community care— health authorities and local authorities have not completely met the obligations that they should have met. An example, although perhaps not a good example, is Mr. Gorbachev's perestroika where the relaxing of central control on a weak system has led to a total collapse.
In other words, the theory of the Bill is right but I am worried about the practice. Clearly it is a framework Bill. Although the framework may be sound— and I believe that it is— it will be of little use unless the regulations that go within the framework are also sound. Therefore, it is up to my noble friends on the Front Bench to persuade us in Committee and on Report, if not tonight, that the details are right.
I am closely involved in the provision of treatment for addiction to drugs and alcohol. It is to that difficult group of patients that I wish to draw attention. The problems come loosely under three headings. The first is assessment. Currently only local and health authorities may make assessment of an individual's needs. But that will not work because many authorities do not have the expertise to carry that out. As a result, patients are often wrongly assessed, not assessed at all or are sometimes placed in inappropriate facilities. It is vital that voluntary and private sector facilities can make on-the-spot assessments and referrals in the knowledge that payment will be forthcoming. Usually that is not the case at present. Any delay whatever can lead to a patient walking away without receiving the help that he needs but sometimes does not want.

1339
The second problem is mobility. Drug and alcohol misusers are geographically highly mobile— a pompous way of saying that they move about a great deal. Appropriate facilities are not available in all areas so that the system must be flexible in taking patients from many miles away and at the drop of a hat. Under the current proposals, facilities will need to contact officials in authorities possibly unknown to them and many miles away before accepting patients. That will lead to a considerable increase in the administrative costs of the already financially overstretched facilities.
In her letter to me dated 22nd January 1990 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote:
"There is nothing in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill to prevent local authorities from charging each other for patients receiving care in an area not covered by their home authority".
That is most heartening, but what will make the home authority pay? As the Minister said earlier, authorities have always had the power to do so but unfortunately they have rarely exercised it. I know that my noble friend is aware of the problem and I hope to hear further assurances from her.
The problem falls under the area of responsibilities, the most important part of all. The Bill before the House allows extreme flexibility to local and health authorities but hardly anywhere does it oblige them to meet those obligations. What will make the authorities pay for what until now they have never paid for?
I am a trustee of a recovery centre in Kent. There are approximately 30 beds and usually several are available. It has been open for four years. During that time not once has Kent County Council social services department or Canterbury and Thanet Health Authority as much as made an inquiry, sent a patient or donated a penny. Indeed, in recent letters, they made it abundantly clear that they see no contractual arrangements with voluntary sector organisations because in the area there are so many private sector beds available for the treatment of drugs and alcohol misusers. In fact, in that area there are no beds available for drugs and alcohol misusers.
A similar case concerns Broadway Lodge, the oldest establishment of its kind, having been operating for approximately 17 years. It is in the West Country and deals with this form of treatment. During those 17 years Avon and Somerset social services department has never sent a penny or a patient. It simply does not want to know. That situation occurs again and again throughout the country.
Most of the facilities have relatively short-term patients. Even the smallest hiccup after 1st April 1991 will lead to their immediate closure. They are all underfunded and could not stand even a month's interruption in cash flow. I know that there is a statutory complaints procedure, as my noble friend mentioned earlier, but we need to know more about it. By the time a complaint has been made, thought about and mulled over the facilties will have gone bust. They cannot wait for complaints procedures to catch them up.
1340
Already many local authorities have stated that they regard drugs and alcohol misusers as being low on their list of priorities. That was the case in the past and it appears to be so now. Previously that large group of patients has been shunted between health and local authorities, often falling between the two stools. Few health authorities, and even fewer local authorities, have specialist facilities to deal with them. Neither has been keen to refer such people to the private or voluntary sector specialist facilities which are available.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear that local and health authorities must work together to formulate a policy and then submit it for scrutiny. I ask the Minister to explain precisely how that will work in practice because upon that detail rests the success or failure in this area of community care.
Last week a facility with which I am connected assessed a patient named John. Two years ago he was admitted to an NHS facility suffering from chronic alcoholism. He was prescribed medication and released back into the community. When we saw him last week he was still drinking and also chronically addicted to the prescribed drugs. Owing to his physical state, which was mostly brought on by the prescribed drugs, we sent him to hospital as an emergency admission. The casualty unit immediately referred him to the addiction unit, which would not accept him. He was sent home with a bottle of alcohol in one pocket and a bottle of pills in the other. Finally he was admitted to a private clinic yesterday because none of the statutory organisations was willing to accept him. That is only one example which is common and which we see every day. Such cases will continue unless the local and health authorities' obligations are clearly defined and unless they are compelled to perform.
I know that my noble friend is aware of those difficulties and I am encouraged by the speed at which she and her colleagues have responded. However, we need to know in detail— and I have used that word before because it is important— exactly how the system of community care will be examined at the local and regional levels.
Other noble Lords mentioned co-ordination. It was also mentioned in the White Paper and by noble Lords on the Front Bench. We need that co-ordination to cut through the red tape and separate health authorities from local authorities and the statutory from the voluntary and private sectors. Before I can give the Bill the full support that I should like to give it I shall await the details that I expect to hear debated in Committee.
As it stands, however, it undoubtedly reaches to the core of the NHS's problem— that of a top-heavy, centralised management. If resources are managed at a local level the most important part of the NHS— the GPs and the hospitals— will be free to give the marvellous service which the nation expects and which the dedicated staff of the NHS are expert in providing, unfettered by the red tape of central management. I hope that all noble Lords will respond positively to this tremendous and brave step forward.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, we have before us a mammoth piece of legislation. The health of our nation is of vital importance. We who have had our lives saved by the skill and experience of those who work in the National Health Service know that it is of vital importance to keep up the good standards. Where they can be improved we strive to do so.
During the past few weeks many noble Lords will have heard people expressing great concern about the Bill. They come from interested bodies representing the medical and nursing royal colleges, those supplementary to medicine, patients and many organisations representing the wide span of disabled people I hope that your Lordships will try to put safeguards into the Bill.
At present the emphasis of the Bill appears to be on money. It does not appear to recognise commitment or something which many modern people appear to have forgotten; that is, dedication. Over the years many people— medical, business and lay— have given millions of hours of service in helping to run the health service. The Government do not seem to value this. They are now cutting the numbers of people represented on district and regional health authorities to 10, five of these being paid officers. This is a new idea. Until now officers have been advisers. How many paid officers will speak out when a general manager is sitting over them and their job promotion is at stake? What will their relationship be with other officers with whom they work? Will they become the favoured few? This seems an undemocratic procedure.
There are many wise and willing people who would offer their services free with travelling expenses paid. I should have thought that when money is short, which it is, it would be better to use the money for patient needs. A rich businessman who can well afford to give his services will be paid, while a severely disabled person crippled with arthritis will have to buy her disabled aid to enable her to turn on a tap to fill the kettle.
Only on Friday night I heard an occupational therapist from Hampshire say that they were going to have to start charging disabled patients for their bits of equipment. With disabled people having so many extra costs for daily living— even shops now put a charge on delivery of food— their costs of essentials seem to be increasing all the time. They will soon have to start begging unless something is done about it. I often think that taxi drivers are good indicators of how the country is thinking. Last week when I came to your Lordships' House in a taxi the driver told me in a matter of fact sort of way, "Britain is no longer a caring country". I hope that by making some improvements to this Bill your Lordships can prove him wrong.
Recently I chaired a small committee of people from interested organisations representing disabled people and incontinence advisers, who are concerned about the lack of information in the Bill about specialist services. To take incontinence as an example, this is a problem which is most distressing to many people. If patients do not get expert advice
1342
and treatment a urinary infection can cause kidney problems and lead to early death. It would be serious if this service were lost between health and social services. These two cannot and should not be divided. Health and social services should have close links and working relationships. It is often very difficult to achieve this as the people working in the two departments are often different kinds of people who work in different ways.
The general public who are healthy and well have no idea that at such a basic level people who are incontinent are having many problems. They are having to buy pads or have them rationed or cut off. The mother of a spastic daughter who cannot speak and is doubly incontinent, living in a Cheshire Home, was told that she would have to pay for her daughter's incontinence pads as the Cheshire Home has nursing home status. The mother has to choose between supplying her daughter with pads or giving her a holiday. She cannot afford to do both. Other people have been told that they cannot have the pads which are the most suitable for them. If this goes on there will be an increase in pressure sores and all sorts of problems costing the health service millions of pounds. In addition to this, there are difficulties for carers who may find dealing with other people's urine and faeces none too pleasant. If people do not have adequate pads, life will become unbearable.
I am sorry that I have had to bring these sorts of things before your Lordships, but it is the duty of Parliament to understand the problems of all people who will come under the legislation and to realise how hard life is for some of them.
Is it not better that a developed country such as ours should look after its members who need basic devices which enable them to cope in a more satisfactory way? Good practice would include a continence adviser acting as a focal point; provision for a regular and adequate supply of incontinence aids; and reasonable access to a urodynamic clinic. Authorities should identify a consultant and a physiotherapist to take a special interest in incontinence.
Without doubt, that part of the service should stay with the health authorities. There are many problems which could be classed as grey areas which might be thought to belong to health or social services. If the health authorities try to fob them off on to the social services who do not have the necessary expertise, those services will fall between the two, with disastrous results and much hardship.
There is widespead concern by many severely disabled people with conditions which are treated by special units— most of them supra-regional but some of them almost unique— that their special conditions will no longer be catered for. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give an assurance tonight that those services will be protected. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, can imagine what anxiety this Bill is causing to the many people who depend on hospitals and helpful general practitioners for their survival and well-being. For someone who has broken his neck or his back, treatment in a spinal unit with specially trained staff, medical, nursing and therapy, who understand the

1343
complications and the special needs of such patients is vital. Nobody knows when they will become a victim of a serious condition such as paraplegia.
Can the Minister tell the House how the system will work? Most health districts do not have spinal units. They send their patients beyond their districts and often beyond their regions. Will there still be a quick system of getting the correct treatment? Another question which needs an answer concerns the crucial aspect of spinally injured people who need access to the expertise provided only by a spinal injury unit for an annual or biannual check-up. A check-up at a general hospital may be cheaper but inadequate. For some years spinal units have come under the Department of Health. With the turmoil and insecurity the Bill is causing, will they remain under the wing of the Department of Health for direct funding and for their security?
There are other special units applying treatment for other conditions. They also need to know about their future. What will that be if hospitals become independent trusts? Every one needs to be cost-effective, and the correct treatment has been found to be cost-effective over and over again. For example, spinally injured people who have developed complications such as pressure sores while in a general hospital awaiting treatment at a spinal unit require expensive treatment by the spinal injury unit. Will the general hospital reimburse the spinal injury unit for that, since the incidence of pressure sores will be the fault of the general hospital?
Another question which needs an answer concerns patients who are going to remain with a long-term disability and who are often unable to leave hospital because appropriate accommodation is not ready. That is very costly. Will local authorities reimburse spinal units or other specialist hospitals for the additional time spent in hospital, because it is their responsibility to ensure that appropriate accommodation is provided? An example is provided by Stanmore, which in February, in a unit of 20 in-patients, had eight who were either unable to leave or who had to go to unsuitable accommodation because appropriate housing had not been arranged.
Severely disabled and elderly people fear that they will not be accepted on the lists of general practitioners because the Government put so much pressure on the subject of cost. The British Medical Association ran a campaign against the charges in the White Paper and the doctors' contracts. The result has been to confuse and frighten the most vulnerable and ill patients. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke of that.
The Government and the BMA should get together and find a way of assuring patients that they will receive the correct treatment and will not be left to worry and become more ill through the stress of insecurity. Patients feel that they will be pushed around to the cheapest option and not the best for their condition. If the freedom of choice is reduced as to where a GP can send his patients for consultation, only discontent will ensue.
Good medical services for all are essential. Many improvements are needed. For instance, better systems of interpreters are needed for confidential
1344
consultations for ethnic people who do not speak English. A better choice of food is needed for ill patients. We live in a multi-ethnic population in some inner city areas. Does the Minister think that hospitals which are run by trusts will be better at providing those facilities or will those facilities be neglected in some hospitals?
Many people are worried about improving standards and having an independent monitoring system for standards and patient care throughout the country. The Patients' Association could do that job if it was provided with the tools. Who better than an association which is patient-oriented— a consumer organisation— to monitor a system and gather information? I hope the Minister will take note of that suggestion and report back to her senior colleagues.
A very unlucky group are the haemophiliacs. There is real fear stemming from the changes to the National Health Service, the main worry being how charges from districts for individual haemophilia care will affect the quality of service that is at present offered to people with haemophilia. Most people with that disease are not treated in their own district. Treating haemophilia is very expensive. In many hospitals the cost of factor 8 concentrates take up most of the pharmacy budget. There is therefore a possibility that some districts will attempt to cut costs by offering a reduced standard of care and quality of treatment.
Most people with haemophilia now receive comprehensive care. The Haemophilia Society does not want to see any reduction in service on account of these reforms. We must ask the question: when the Government called their White Paper, Working for Patients, did they mean that the patient would come first?
I should like to pay a tribute to NAWCH— the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital. It has improved the conditions for children in hospital and their parents over the past few years. Without its pressure the acute preventive and rehabilitative services would not have developed as they have, with a much more humane approach to open visiting and attitudes of staff to patients. I hope that the services to children will continue to improve.
Even the hospital chaplains feel uncertain about their future. They have always accepted the Ministry of Health circular RHB (48) 76 to be of great importance. In that circular hospital authorities were advised that they should give special attention to the provision of spiritual needs for both patients and staff. The circular states:
"The Management Committtee or Board of Governors should appoint chaplains for more than one denomination for every hospital for which they are responsible".
That advice may have been included in the Bill, but I could not find it. I have been on holiday and have not had time to check each part of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell the House the situation with regard to hospital chaplains because I serve on a regional health authority chaplains' committee.
With health care there should be clear points of contact, good information and good quality of

1345
service. There should be good working relationships. The importance of public health and health promotion should be given high priority. There should be co-operation and communication with social services; good models of care should be built on. With community care the overriding anxiety must be that there may not be adequate funds to provide the services needed. Most directors of social services must want money to be ring-fenced so that they can plan services. I wonder whether the Government decided on the Care in the Community plan in this Bill because they thought it would be easier to means-test the clients.
The drug and alcohol abuse problems continue to grow. The Royal College of Phychiatrists called alcohol abuse the most serious public health issue of our times. Almost half the income of drug and alcohol treatment centres, most of which are run by charities, comes from Department of Social Security rents, paid for the residents under the Registered Homes Act. From 1st April 1991 those rents will no longer be payable. The agencies understand that when the funding for community care is transferred to the local authorities it will be based on a standard spending assessment. They feel the needs of alcohol and drug services will not be taken into account. This will mean that many services will not survive. Perhaps the Government will think again so that these services are protected.
I conclude by saying that I am sure the universities and teaching hospitals will find ways of protecting their interests and forging a way forward, because any government will know that these contain the stars of society with the bright brains. If they are not given good teaching facilities and research prospects they will leave and go to other parts of the world where their skills are wanted. I am not at all sure about the weakest and most vulnerable individuals who are ill and disabled. They need protection and their interests covered by legislation. How disappointing it has been that more of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 has not been implemented. I hope that your Lordships will find ways to help these people, who often cannot speak for themselves, by passing amendments which will improve the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House.
9.10 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it was of course very moving to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She certainly speaks from knowledge. One comment she made struck me forcefully. She referred to the "turmoil of insecurity". That is the worrying aspect at the present time and why I welcome the Bill and believe that it must be implemented as a whole— the sooner the better.
It is that turmoil of insecurity that is causing all the genuine worries and anxieties that the noble Baroness outlined to us this evening. People should not be faced with the fear of not knowing whether they are to lose their incontinence pads. That is an unbelievable degree of alarm caused to people who are perhaps the least able to stand up and fight for themselves. However, they have a doughty champion in the: noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
1346
The important aspect of this Bill, and the reason why I welcome it, is that it is in the interests of the patients. Patients must come first. As someone who has worked for over 30 years as a National Health Service dentist, I understand the professional side only too well. Nobody likes to see any great change that might disturb their lives, but the health service has reached the point where it needs change.
I remember well the reorganisation in 1974. I am not sure whether I correctly understood my noble friend Lady Cox who referred to the risk of going back to pre-1974. There are some parts of this Bill that will go back; for example, the hospital system will be closer to what it was before 1974. I believe that it was better then. Since then, I have been on what was called a retained board of governors but is now a special health authority. I was involved with a hospital that did not change its structure in 1974 and which did not come under the area and then the district. It is the closest to a self-governing hospital and the system works very well. I believe that it is in the interests of patients to go back to that type of hospital, and under this Bill we shall be able to do that.
The other change in 1974, I believe for the better, was the elimination of executive councils and the bringing in of family practitioner committees. There were various structural changes of benefit. In the days when I served on the Inner London Executive Council, it had a great professional majority. I was one of the professionals. The doctors would say to us, "If you do not vote with us, we shall not support the dentists tomorrow". It was worse than any trade union arrangement that I have ever come across. I was delighted that in 1974 that overwhelming professional majority went, because it was too strong a vested interest. It suited me that we were protected but it was not right: the patient was not coming first.
I have been asked as a dentist to speak also for the pharmacists. I welcome the Bill on their behalf. The pharmacists are delighted that Schedule 9, paragraph 16, makes clear that there will be a greater role for them. As your Lordships probably know, there are over 6 million visits a day to pharmacies in this country. This area is an ideal centre for the promotion of better health. I will not go into all that they do but we all know that pharmacists provide essential checks and balances in the supply of medicine and act as a great safeguard, particularly when someone who is tired, overworked and under pressure is writing prescriptions and can easily specify the wrong dosage without thinking.
With the unique education and training that pharmacists are now receiving, they are pleased that they will have some role in advising and helping the patient. They say that it is quite right that they should have nothing to do with prescribing for the patient because that is not their field. They believe in the ethical precept that the doctors continue with all prescribing. The pharmacists believe that it is important that the people who prescribe the medicines should not gain financially from supplying them and that the people who make a profit from the supply should not be the ones to decide what is supplied. They believe that to be a very good feature of the provisions.

1347
As regards dentistry, the new dental contract will be good. It comes into effect in October. It will provide continuing care. It reflects the changing needs for dentistry in the population. I have expressed concern before, and I shall do so again, about the situation in London. There is need for London weighting in order to recognise the very high costs involved in practising in London. I fear that if we do not have that provision we might lose national health dentistry in large areas of London. Recently I heard that 70 out of the 90 dentists in the Kensington area had said that they will not be able to operate the national health contract unless something is done to provide a London weighting. At one stage I had the opportunity to put that point to the Secretary of State. He said he is open to considering it, but that the London dentists must make their case. It is up to them to do so.
Over tea this afternoon one of the distinguished Members of this House told me that when the health service first came in— I was not in this country at that time— it was stated that as the health of the people improved it was expected that there would be a decrease in National Health Service expenditure. That is quite believable because at that time, over 40 years ago, if you had a bad heart the only treatment offered was bed rest. No one could have envisaged the unlimited demands that would come to be made on the health service. Resources have also been a problem for all governments.
Now there are so many very special treatments that one can have. I believe I have told the House before that since 1974 I have been on the board of the Brompton National Heart Hospital which is a special health authority That hospital has been using efficient management and accountancy techniques for years. It has been very fortunate in having a capable chairman and chief executive. There is a marvellous spirit in that hospital. The building of phase 1 of the hospital will be completed and fully operational this year. It is desirable to complete the job of building phase 2, and I put in a marker for that right now. Many of the patients are still in the south block, which is 110 years old and is structurally unsound.
I have heard Members speak on the other side of the question so I wish to make the point very clearly. There is a great need for local negotiations and local agreements with staff. I attended the meeting here when one of the major unions in the health service opposed that view and said that it believed in retaining national negotiating scales. The trouble is that London hospitals are in competition not only in terms of nursing skills but in terms of the demands of the City, which is offering high secretarial rates. The porters can do better anywhere else; the catering industry is also offering big money. The hospitals are simply not in a position to attract staff of the calibre that they want.
I remember that earlier a noble Lord said that we do not pay enough to the managers of the hospitals. That is true. It requires quite a degree of dedication to be an efficient manager of a hospital or a health authority. I know that in the private sector such posts are more highly paid. I would never wish to
1348
get to the point where we lost the dedication of the health service staff which is so valuable. It is good to retain dedication, but not if people suffer badly financially in the cause of that dedication. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, say that it was not good to have people as paid members on health boards and authorities. I do not agree with that. The more efficient the management, the more it will be able to rationalise spending. Everyone seems to be generally in favour of clinical audit. If it is done efficiently and well, it will free resources so that instead of endangering the facilities that she referred to, it will make them more available. This must surely be the aim.
It will help hospitals in that they will be paid for the work that they do for patients. That would apply to the spinal injuries unit to which the noble Baroness referred. The money will go with the patient. The Brompton Hospital says that if it had received the money for each patient that it had treated over the years, it would be much more viable than it is now. I am sure that the spinal injuries unit would be in the same position.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the noble Baroness misunderstood me. I am a supporter of money following the patient. I was concerned about the authority members of the district and regional committees. If money is very limited, a good many excellent people will give their services free. I was referring not to the staff but to the committee members. But I am all for the money going with the patient.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. I still hold the same view that it is now an accepted practice to pay people for whatever time they give up. Any question of payment within the health service for committee members would be fairly minimal, as it is in local authorities. People would be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses. These are not full-time competitive jobs which people would be aiming to get. The dedication would still be there. But it is wrong that we should rule out people who cannot afford to give their time for nothing. We should not rule them out by saying that we shall not pay the committee members. It should be open to anyone to serve on those committees. They should not be prevented from doing so on financial grounds.
I see that local authority members will no longer serve as of right. That is no bad thing. When I was a local authority member, we had great difficulty getting elected councillors to attend the area health authority meetings. Three councillors had the right to sit on the authority. I was very often the only one there, as I was interested in health. It is difficult because all councillors have so many other demands on their time. Now that responsibility for education in London lies with local authorities, councillors will find it even more difficult to attend such meetings.
When I was a member of the area health authority, I found the real difficulty to be that decisions were not made. Decisions were deferred. Whenever a controversial item was on the agenda, we would arrive for the meeting to find a rent-a-crowd at the

1349
door. The decision would not be made that night. As a result, we were faced with all kinds of problems. With the abolition of the area authority the problems moved on to the district authority. I now read in the newspapers all the time that the district has been a disaster ever since. It is important that people should not be frightened of making decisions and that they should be capable, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said earlier, of assessing the quality of the evidence, making a decision and then going ahead with it. I know that there is genuine worry among staff everywhere, but I do not believe that piecemeal implementation will help. Monitoring will help and quality control is important. In dentistry and in the general practitioner services there has always been an excellent complaints procedure. I hope that that procedure will continue under the reorganisation.
A different concern in London is the high capital value of property on valuable sites. I understand that there will be protection for the first year or two but that eventually a capital return on the value of the site might be required. I ask the Government to keep a watching brief on this matter. It may be that protection will need to go on for longer. Only when the process is operational will people be able to see what effect this will have. Another important point concerns the arrangements for rent and reimbursement between educational institutes attached to major hospitals and perhaps occupying part of National Health Service premises. This applies to the Eastman Dental Hospital and it is a point to be borne in mind.
I do not believe that the Bill is one to be frightened about. We have an excellent reputation in medicine. Small children with bad injuries or burns are brought from all over the world to be treated in this country. We have a good deal to offer in humanitarian and international terms and to our own patients nationally.
If we have anything to worry about, it is the national tendency— and it comes right through from driving test days— to look too often into the rear view mirror instead of keeping our eyes on the road. I say that we should welcome the Bill; that we should put the fear of what is ahead behind us; and that we should look forward and keep going.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, we have at last reached the stage of discussing community care. The doctors who have spoken thus far have virtually ignored the subject. Indeed, so far as I know, there has been no reference whatever to Parts III and IV although it is possible that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, may have mentioned them. I was most interested in two speeches which touched upon the subject. One was the very moving speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder. However, most of her speech concentrated on social security and not on the NHS or community care, which are the subjects of the Bill. Nevertheless, she mentioned another matter to which I shall return later.
In her doom and gloom speech the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said a good deal about community care. I could not disagree with her more. I do not believe
1350
that the Bill can do anything but improve matters. Moreover, it makes even clearer in my mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, the feeling that we should have had two Bills. I say that because it is really very difficult to speak in a Second Reading debate on subjects which are as diverse as these two. Of course, they are interdependent: on the other hand, the contexts in which they arise are completely different.
I shall deal only with Part III of the Bill which concentrates on community care in England and Wales. I was very glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, spoke about Part IV, otherwise I should have felt slightly guilty about leaving out Scotland. I always feel that Scotland is so different and therefore I am always very careful about what I say in relation to Scottish affairs.
Nearly 20 years ago your Lordships passed the Local Authority Social Services Bill which followed the report of a committee which bears my name. The Bill was commendably short and had to be interpreted by reference to the report which engendered it. The essence of the report was first to create an administrative structure which would act as a platform for future development; and, secondly, to point out the main deficiencies in social provision and give some pointers towards the direction in which it might proceed. We had no crystal ball for forecasting more than that fact.
The Bill which we are discussing today is of a similar nature. It makes little sense without first studying the White Paper, which is, in my view, an excellent document in both content and presentation. To a large extent the Bill amends previous legislation and many paragraphs begin with the words,
"The Secretary of State may"
or include the words,
"under the guidance of the Secretary of State",
and so on. That raises the question of how much of the White Paper, which, after all, is not a legal document, ought to be put on the face of the Bill.
I realise that the first stage of the implementation of the Bill is for local authorities to produce plans for approval by the Secretary of State. It may be here that practical matters will be decided. I shall give as an example what I think should be on the face of the Bill. In paragraph 7.7 on page 56 of the White Paper the following words appear in referring to mental health care:
"The essence of this is that the needs of each patient both for continuing health care and social care are assessed before discharge; that effective arrangements are made as to how in principle those needs are to be met, including the maintenance of appropriate registers"—
and this is the important part—
"and that a named individual is appointed to ensure that they are met in practice".
That provision seems to me absolutely vital. We have the very sad example of schizophrenics who frequently discharge themselves from hospital before they are cured. They go on their way without any nominated carer; they do not take their medication; they get into trouble; and some even find themselves in prison. They are still ill. There should be a

1351
nominated carer for all disabled people, quite apart from the mentally ill, who are being discharged from hospital, and arrangements for their care should be properly made before they are discharged.
I believe that Sir Roy Griffiths has done a remarkable job; we should all be grateful to him. It was a great relief to me that he came down firmly on the recommendation that the prime responsibility for community care should rest with local authorities. If we consider the number of agencies involved in the present system of delivery of social care, it seems designed to create an infinite number of stools between which the client may and does fall. To me, co-ordination has always been a dirty word. For such an important matter as community care there must be no doubt where responsibility and accountability lie.
To bring about a comprehensive system there must be brought together not only health and social services but the voluntary bodies, volunteers, charitable organisations, housing and of course the private sector. This is the platform on which the whole structure will be built. There must be no division of responsibility between departments. The social services department must be firmly and solely in control.
As I see it, the structure will be on the following lines. The director of social services will, as now, continue to be the chief executive of the personal social services. He will need first a deputy whose sole duty will be to inspect and monitor the whole system of care. While he must have an independent role uninfluenced by any other body or agency, the ultimate accountability must rest with the director, who is responsible for the satisfactory working of the whole system.
Secondly, the director will need to appoint either a second deputy or senior assistant director who will be the general manager responsible for community care. He in turn will need a number of specialists to deal with personnel and training, with the placing of contracts with all external bodies, with finance and, above all, with producing the assessment not only of those needing care but of respite care for informal carers. The latter now provide about 80 per cent. of all care for the disabled. They number approximately 1–25 million people.
Those who are to fill the new senior posts should be appointed the moment the Bill is enacted. There should be no waiting until the appointed date of 1st April 1991. Funds must be provided now so that recruitment can start immediately. The first duty of the team will be to take a comprehensive view of all the available resources of care in the local authority area. The second duty will be to start an assessment of the need for care in the area. At this point the closest liaison with the health services will be absolutely essential. General practitioners will play a vital part. From the start discussions must take place with the district health authority, which must be a party to the plan.
An assessment must be made of the additional personnel required and of the need for, and method of, training carers, who in many cases will be
1352
multi-disciplinary. Only then can a plan be produced for submission to the Secretary of State for approval and a meaningful costing made. Incidentally, planning would be easier if we knew whether the Government propose to implement those parts of the 1986 disablement Act which remain in limbo.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, talked about the necessity for ascertaining the views of clients of carers about their needs. This surprised me. I have also been surprised by the number of agencies which have written to me on the same subject. It seems to me improbable that anyone would try to assess a person without asking for their opinion. However, I seem to be wrong there, and if the provision is so important it must be put in the Bill.
I cannot help wondering who the carers will be. According to the White Paper— but again not in the Bill— there will be needed 5, 500 senior management staff, 2, 500 with assessment and case management responsibilities, 12, 000 middle and first line managers, mainly in care establishments, and 115, 000 involved in the direct delivery of care and support. The need for care can vary from a weekly visit from a home care worker to the possibility of 24-hour duty by a highly qualified nurse trained in mental health. I know that the British Association of Social Workers would like most carers to be qualified social workers. But does it believe that more than a small proportion of those people mentioned in the White Paper could possibly be qualified social workers? Some local authorities are already understaffed and are having their staff cut further.
I must refer to resources. If the Bill is likely to make sense when it becomes an Act, adequate resources must be found. If that does not happen, those who have been assessed will be shattered to find that their expectations have been raised only to come tumbling down like a pack of cards. Paragraph 8.27 of the White Paper states:
"Government support for community care expenditure for local authorities will be distributed through the Revenue Support Grant in the normal way by taking account of the Standard Spending Assessment for the Personal Social Services. Details of how this will operate will be discussed with the Local Authority Associations. The Standing Spending Assessment formula will continue to take account of the amount of expenditure appropriate for local authorities to incur on supported community care services, including authorities' increasing responsibility for clients who would previously have been funded through social security payments. The phasing of the additional funding will need to be considered".
The phasing of the additional funding certainly should be considered. That is a vague promise in my view. The additional financial needs will only become clear when local authority plans are prepared and submitted. Admittedly, specific sums are being set aside for training, and are being set aside from health authority funds in the case of those with mental illness. However, I must point out that it all stands or falls on the quantity of finance that is available. The projected government expenditure to 1991–92 shows, for the first time ever, that social services will receive proportionately less of gross public expenditure than ever before. As a proportion of GNP, again for the first time ever, there will be a proportional cut. Seen alongside the projected expenditure on health, the Government's claim that

1353
we are providing what we can afford must be debatable.
I hope the question of ring-fencing the new delivery of community care can be reconsidered and that special consideration can be given to the start-up expenditure, which must include the costs of computerisation, data processing and building. A lot of building will need to be carried out, for example for hostels. Much of that may be non-recurrent, but it must be considered. Of course the National Health Service provides prevention and care for everyone, including the disabled. That explains why the Bill devotes 45 pages to the NHS and only seven, in Part III, to community care. But let us not forget that community care is about the millions who can never be cured. Many cannot be cured from birth to death, or from middle age to death, from the strokes or whatever misfortunes they have suffered. Community care is also very much about the aged whose last days have so often been miserable.
For those reasons I welcome the Bill, subject to the financial considerations that I have mentioned. It gives new hope and help to the helpless and must stir the imagination and conscience of us all. However, it must be made to work.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in concentrating on the community care aspects of the Bill. That is partly because that approach will aid brevity— I am sure the Minister will welcome that— and partly because the bulk of the debate has concentrated on the National Health Service, as does the bulk of the Bill. I feel that my noble friend Lord Ennals has in particular said most of what needs to be said on that. Community care is a cosy term and has been part of the social policy jargon for the past 30 years. It usually receives a consensus support across parties. Like motherhood, everybody agrees that it is a good thing.
However, the reality of community care is less pleasing than the rhetoric. Part of that reality is that it is now to be based ultimately on what the Government call informal carers. They are the 5 million or so relations and friends who are required to provide that so-called community care. The central point is that a large majority of those will almost certainly receive absolutely no assistance from any community care service in carrying out that crucial government-imposed responsibility. Community care will continue to be predominantly individual care from which the Government often opt out.
As has previously been pointed out in this House, the reality of community care can be seen in inner city railway stations, along the Thames embankment and in the cardboard cities of Waterloo.
Some 60 per cent. of our homeless single people are suffering from an identifiable mental illness. They have been discharged from mental hospitals, often with no arrangements having been made as to where they are to live or for after-care. The Audit Commission report of 1987 into community care showed that 25, 000 of those discharged had been
1354
lost; they had disappeared into a nightmare social underworld. Those are the victims of the reality of community care, whatever the rhetoric.
The policy goes back many years and across governments. Therefore I am not interested in making party political points. However, the reality of community care has worsened because the financial constraints on local government have grown more severe. Back-up services to community care have suffered accordingly. In that situation, which is a social crisis, we welcome the Government's action in legislating to try to sort out the mess. However, we must be clear about what results the legislative changes will produce. Above all, we must be confident that the legislation meets the basic test of improving the life situation of both the disadvantaged people and those with the responsibility to care for them.
In that context, I have two main anxieties. First, the local authorities are being given the lead responsibility but will not be given the resources to meet that responsibility. Then no doubt we shall be diverted into the boring game of bashing local government instead of dealing with the social problems and individual tragedies with which the legislation should be concerned.
My second worry is that that policy will end up bogged down in arguments about structures of finance and administration. I am concerned that we shall lose sight of the impact of those new arrangements on the people who use the services. The current trendy jargon when discussing the problem is "consumer sensitivity". I am in favour of anything which resists what is called producer dominance. The commendable efforts of previous Labour Governments to help the less privileged in society were frequently defeated by the selfishness of the producer groups, those working in the social services who seemed to think that the object of the services was their own welfare rather than the welfare of the under-privileged they were paid to help. Therefore it is right to place emphasis on what the community service customer needs.
Do the Government know what they need? Have they asked them? Do they really believe that somebody suffering from severe mental or physical disability who may have spent the past 20 years in a mental hospital can really exercise the rights and choices of a consumer as in a commercial market? Of course not. He or she is poor and often without skills. Certainly he cannot exercise the basic consumer's right to switch to another product or service if dissatisfied.
We have some evidence of what the consumer wants in that field. I have no doubt that the Minister is aware of the work of the Birmingham Community Care Action Project. It has done studies in that field and found that disadvantaged people and those caring for them have modest but clear expectations that the services be available when needed and be flexible to suit individual requirements; that services be provided at times convenient to the lives of the customers and not just to suit the convenience of social workers; and that the services be provided in a way— this is very important— which maintains dignity and does not humiliate those using them.

1355
Against that background of concern and need, we can look at the legislation and assess whether it offers hope of an improvement in the reality of community care. Will sufficient money be made available to local authorities to service the carers and the cared for, including the deep well of need so far unrecognised and unmet? Will the Government fulfil their statutory obligations to provide an explicit set of individual rights and entitlements; in other words, to implement in full the Disabled Persons Act 1986? Will the Government make effective their commitment to developing a service which is consumer-led rather than producer-led— for instance, by giving specific direction to local
1356
authorities about the benchmarks and standards according to which the success of the services can be assessed?
The reality of community care is often depressingly inadequate. It could be greatly improved by the implementation of sensible legislation. I should like to think that such legislation is being put before us today. A number of its provisions promise well and are to be welcomed; but my fear is that the new approach to community care will prove once again to be mainly rhetoric and once again just another way to reduce expenditure on the poorest and most disadvantaged citizens in our community.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, I want to speak about community care, particularly the likely effects of the Bill upon the provision of services for the mentally handicapped.
I am a patron of the Camphill Villages Trusts and am familiar with many of its schools and communities for adults which it prefers to refer to as working communities in a family environment rather than residential homes. That is a more accurate description. There are some 30 of those communities spread out throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland, so Camphill is a national and international organisation.
There is great anxiety at the moment among those communities as to how they will fare when responsibility for their welfare is turned over entirely, or almost entirely, to local authorities. The Bill is so vague. It is not explicit at all until and unless you read the White Paper and even that needs a great deal of clarification. I am glad to say that, according to Clauses 44 and 47, the Secretary of State intends to ensure, with some determination, that the Government's intentions are carried out. In the first place, plans must be produced and published, so that they can be seen in the locality, and the Secretary of State must approve them.
The Secretary of State has also taken powers to enforce the regulations and the provision of the resources provided by central government in the first place. It occurs to me that those are powers which he can enforce by mandamus when he is thoroughly dissatisfied with the performance of a particular local authority; in other words, he can make them spend the necessary money. That can only be at the expense of other services which the local authority provides for education and so on. If that is so, I do not see why the Secretary of State does not ring-fence that expenditure and make quite sure that his wishes will be carried out by providing the sums necessary for that very purpose.
On reading the White Paper I note that the Welsh Office apparently is to provide specific grants for the provision of services not only for mental illness but also for mental handicap. That does not appear to be the case for England and Scotland. Therefore, my first question for the Minister to answer when he replies is this. Am I right in that assumption? It would be very useful to have confirmation one way or the other.
Clause 412 states that no accommodation may be provided for those already resident in relevant premises, which refers to registered homes and other places. When he reads that clause the layman will ask himself, "But what on earth happens to them?" I have read the White Paper and I presume that this is a backhand method of referring to the reserved rights for existing residents mentioned on page 73 of the White Paper. If so, why not say so in plain English?
1358
That brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm: ought there to be some more explicit reference to the White Paper in the Bill itself? Otherwise, one cannot understand anything about it. If I am wrong I wish to know to what and to whom this clause refers.
Later in the same clause it is stated that the Secretary of State may exclude classes of person by regulation. I should like to know what he and his department have in mind. At the end of that clause it says that none of this will affect the validity of contracts made before the date on which the Act comes into force or after that date. Does that refer to existing residents or only to new residents or both? The matter needs clarification.
Clauses 42 and 43 refer to payments to the local authorities but not, so far as I can ascertain, to payments by them. That is not explained at all in the Bill, but it is to be found in Chapter 8 of the White Paper. That chapter makes it clear that the Government's policy is to even out the level of payments to claimants in residential homes and in the family home.
The care element will be included in the unified budget which is to be supplied to the local authority by central government. But what guarantee is there that that care element will be passed on to the residential homes which receive it at the moment and will continue to need it if they are to remain in existence? After all, a residential home costs more because there are facilities provided such as workshops. So far as Camphill is concerned there are workshops for almost anything one can think of: weaving, woodwork, glass engraving, horticulture, farming, bakeries, creameries, cheese-making— you name it, they have got it, I am sure, in one place or another. Such facilities cost money. They must be funded from the care element of the unified budget. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that that is so.
It is stated in the White Paper that existing residents will be funded by the Department of Social Security. Is this to be in perpetuity or is it gradually to be faded out? I am not clear on that matter.
The new residents who will be funded by the local authorities will be calculated on a different basis. Therefore in one residential home— to use a legal phrase— one will find people being funded differently. Is that the intention of the Government? It strikes me that it is quite likely that the new scale may be less than the previous scale received from the Department of Social Security, especially in view of the Government's professed intention to give a bias to the provision of home services in the family home and, strangely enough, a bias against residential homes. Yet elsewhere they are encouraging the local authorities to use the voluntary service more and more; and they will need to do so.
The Government refer to the likely decline in the number of people residing in residential homes. I do not know whether they mean to bring this about by deliberate policy. However, I shall lay a straight bet

1359
of £ 100 with each of the Government Ministers on the Front Bench that in 10 years' time, or sooner, they will be proved utterly wrong and that the demand for residential accommodation will increase rather than decrease. If it is their intention to make the demand decrease, that will be unforgivable.
Finally, there is the question of assessment. The local authorities will have to assess new applicants for grant aid. In what way will that affect the voluntary organisations? Will they be told who they can take into their communities? They are very expert in assessing the people whom they wish to come and whom they can accept into their community. No social worker from the local authority will be able to say whether or not a particular person is suitable for that community. Will the money that the local authorities will provide for residential homes enable them to nominate people for these places? Equally, will they be able to refuse to allow such homes to take people from outside that local authority or health authority area?
People come from all over the place. Although the local authorities may have a larger number of residents from the local community, there are bound to be people from beyond that. I wish to know whether the local authorities will have power to interfere in this way. Until these questions are answered— and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to write to me about at least some of them if he cannot answer them this evening— there will remain a gnawing anxiety and real fear among Camphill communities and other voluntary organisations which provide residential accommodation and therapeutic services to the handicapped people whom they serve. The sooner these fears are allayed, the better. I welcome the intentions of the Bill. However, like other noble Lords, I wish to be certain that the Secretary of State will ensure that its provisions are carried out and provide the funds to enable local authorities to do so.
10 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I wish to make only a few small points about what is a wide-ranging Bill. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord Seebohm, perhaps it should have been two Bills. My comments concern Part III on community care.
Much has been said about ring fencing the money transferred from social security budgets to the local authorities' revenue support grants. Any local authority department officer who is planning a year or perhaps two or more ahead must have a clear idea of the range in which he is to act; in short, how much money is to be made available to him. The current phrase is "ring fencing". It means that the money transferred would be clearly identified and could be spent only on community care. Such a mechanism has already been accepted by local authorities in connection with the recently introduced training support grants which can be spent only on certain areas of training. I understand that they cannot be vired to any other purpose.
1360
That is a matter of special concern to the North Yorkshire authority's department of social services. I understand also that the association of county councils wish the Government to consider ring fencing the money that is transferred from social security budgets to the local authorities' revenue support grants.
I have always supported the Government in their plan to provide care in the community for long-stay residents in psychiatric and mental handicap hospitals. Many local authorities have plans for providing care in the community for long-stay residents in psychiatric and mental handicap hospitals. However, many of the resettlement plans are based upon an individual's entitlement to social security benefit. That helps to underwrite the costs of many of the schemes which have been planned for resettlement. I urge the Government to include in the transfer of resources to the local authority a sum to cover the needs of people for whom planned moves have already been initiated. That measure would have the effect of creating a better life for many of those people in realising the capital revenue assets associated with long-stay mental hospitals.
North Yorkshire authority, together with many others, has considerable anxieties about the calculation for the transfer of social security resources from central government to social services authorities. It would urge that a formula for transfer must recognise the existing social security commitment to an area such as North Yorkshire. A particular anxiety is the transfer of resources to help in resettling transfer patients from long-stay hospitals into the community. If the money was given to the Department of Social Services, it could be transferred to the voluntary organisations concerned. In fact, those now in private homes are protected but those in hospital after April 1991 will not be protected.
The way in which the amount of money will be calculated is of great anxiety to the North Yorkshire authority. Is it to be based on the number of elderly people who can benefit or the number currently in homes? It is in agreement with the principle of community care but is worried about its funding, particularly in an area as large as North Yorkshire where there are many towns and urban and rural areas which are scattered and isolated.
MENCAP, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, believes that full implementation of the Disabled Persons Act 1986 is fundamental to community care. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Act are still not implemented. Can the Minister say whether any of that is likely to be implemented before April 1991?
As it stands, the Bill provides for a specific grant to be made to local authorities for social services for people with mental illness. Should not specific grants be made to meet the social needs of people with mental handicaps and people with physical or sensory disabilities, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh in his most moving maiden speech? This would ensure that the grants were ring-fenced and so used for the purpose intended. If the disabled persons legislation of 1986

1361
were fully implemented it would define those who come within it as having serious physical disabilities, and a specific grant would ensure that their needs would be met.
The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation feels that Section 3 of the disabled persons 1986 legislation is particularly important as it provides the framework for assessments and gives disabled people the right to a written statement of the outcome of the assessment and, if they disagree with the assessment, the right of appeal. If the person concerned is included in discussions that may take place between providers and arrangers of services, it would be cost-effective and ensure the most appropriate use of services. It is also vital that a duty is written into the Bill for local authorities to consult disabled people and their organisations on their community care plans.
The National Children's Bureau is concerned about those children in care who are mentally or physically handicapped who are discharged into the community when they become young adults receiving services. The Bill before us does not appear to give that group entitlement to the help which the implementation of the 1986 legislation would give. I hope that the Government will be able to say that they are implementing the remainder of that legislation.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I begin my observations with an apology on two counts. I shall not be able to remain to the end of this debate, partly through constraints on travel to the Home Counties and partly because I returned only last Sunday having spent eight days in New Zealand as a guest of the New Zealand branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That meant fulfilling engagements from the Bay of Islands to Christchurch, which involved some 30 hours of flying time.
Forty years is a long time, and any organisation, be it a health service or any other, is in need of reorganisation after that period of time. In many ways the Government are to be congratulated on having formulated this Bill. After all, no Bill which deals with an organisation which employs over a million people can ever be perfect on first flush. There are clearly imperfections in the Bill, and your Lordships' ability to use revisionary powers in the remaining stages of the Bill are to be tested to the full because if ever there were a need for your Lordships' House to give a Bill a toothcomb examination this is it. There are those on all sides of your Lordships' House who can do just that.
I have taken part in a dozen or more health service Bills in my 31 years in this House. One of the problems with the health service has been the number of White Papers, Blue Papers, multi-coloured papers and Royal Commissions which have looked into it. However, this is by far the most important and significant development in health service history. In fact, I would go further and say that this is probably one of the most important Bills to be introduced into Parliament, certainly
1362
during my tenure in your Lordships' House. The Bill itself is relatively brief compared with some of the Bills we have had to discuss. Some of the criticism has been completely unjustified; other criticism is the other way round.
About a week ago— allowing for time changes— I was in Wellington Children's Hospital. The visit was of only a half-hour duration because of other commitments, but I wanted to see at least one hospital during my time in New Zealand. I have visited hospitals there before and also in Australia. The Bill has attracted considerable interest in that part of the world because New Zealand has many of the problems which we have: a shortage of nurses and doctors, and under-funding. My impression is that they, too, want to restructure their health service. It is worth remembering that our own health service was based on the one in New Zealand. It does not need much imagination to realise that we treat upwards of 50 million people a year while New Zealand treats around 3 million people. Therefore, the problems that we face are hardly surprising.
I should like to deal briefly at this stage with two aspects of the Bill. First, the opting-out of hospitals and, secondly, Clause 18. The idea of self-governing hospitals has much to commend it, at least in theory. However, there is genuine worry, particularly in the Royal College of Nursing— I have a daughter who is in the nursing profession, but I am certainly not the only Member of your Lordships' House in that situation— as to how all this will be funded and what the position of nursing staff will be. Clearly, that matter must be closely examined in Committee. There is also a question as to how much discussion there was with the nursing authorities before the Bill was planned. I spoke to a number of nurses and, like most other noble Lords, I received reams of correspondence from all kinds of organisations, including the Royal College of Nursing. At this late hour I do not intend to develop that argument.
I hope that my noble friend and kinsman the Minister will take on board what was said by my noble friend Lady Cox who made a most admirable speech and who has tremendous experience in this field.
The other matter on which I should briefly like to dwell is Clause 18; the indicative budget for doctors' practices. People who are not in the medical profession find Clause 18 enormously complicated, and I certainly do. However, I discussed these matters in particular with the pharmaceutical industry. There is evidence that on occasions doctors have over-prescribed. That is a serious matter. However, I hope that too much veto will not go on to research and the activities of the pharmaceutical industry, because the fact is that people are in hospital for much shorter periods, particularly for conditions such as the removal of the gall bladder— I speak from experience— and other conditions which 20 years ago meant a very long stay in hospital.
Clause 18 needs particularly thorough examination when the Bill goes into Committee. The success or otherwise of the Bill depends very much on how the doctors and nurses are able to operate therapeutically.

1363
One complaint made these days, not only by doctors and nurses but also by physiotherapists and others, is about the amount of time they have to spend on management and at meetings. In my view, that is not what they should be doing. Their job is to treat patients. This Bill— it has been said many times but I shall say it again— is about patients and about those who treat patients. At this late hour I shall say no more, but this is an opportunity, after 40 years' experience of a great National Health Service, to put that into effect.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred to New Zealand perhaps I may mention that I was in New Zealand when that country introduced its health service. One of the salient weaknesses of a pioneering measure was the uncertainty as to how it would be administered. We perhaps have grounds for wondering how this Bill will be administered.
I intend to concentrate solely on aftercare for the mentally ill. Other speakers have referred to aspects of this in the context of aftercare generally, but I shall concentrate entirely on the mentally ill. First, I endorse the congratulations from the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, to the Government for the impressive progress that the Bill represents in creating a splendid framework for care. Accepting Griffiths is a tremendous step forward. However, there is a vast difference between a framework and the delivery of services. There has been a yawning gap in the past and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship is deeply anxious that local authorities responsible for aftercare of the mentally ill will fail to muster the resources that are necessary for the many ingredients that the Bill acknowledges are necessary: hostels, day centres, specialist nurses, an administrative structure, named individuals and other facilities. This is not a cheap option.
Care in the community is now recognised to be much more costly than the old-fashioned and outmoded arrangements for vast institutional care. Some local authorities cannot and will not raise adequate resources themselves for large contributions. The Government acknowledge that the 3 per cent. that they have raised in the past has been derisory but many of our local authorities are now under great budgetary pressure and I cannot see that being relieved.
The excellent framework of the Bill, therefore, may remain bones without flesh and the nightmare envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, may be realised. I hope not. It is up to the Government as the supervisor and co-ordinator to see that the scandal of discharged patients who have in the past been put out into the streets is not perpetuated.
Strong central monitoring and supervisory functions are a cardinal necessity. We recall that the first recommendation of Sir Roy Griffiths was that a Minister should be designated specifically for community care with machinery to identify the results of local authority social service activities and to distribute the specific grant. I doubt that the Bill will work satisfactorily without that.
1364
I would like briefly to mention training requirements. As noble Lords have pointed out, a vast army of specialised and trained staff is necessary to implement the Bill properly. I believe my noble friend Lord Seebohm mentioned the figure of 115, 000 in relation to one of the grades. Are the Government setting in motion the training arrangements now to enable this very large personnel requirement to be met? In previous debates on mental illness in your Lordships' House we have referred to the disparity between the requirements for community psychiatric nurses and the actual force at present on the ground. That will be multiplied. I endorse the hope expressed by other noble Lords that the framework will be balanced by adequate resources.
10.21 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships' House and to my noble friend the Minister for not having been here at the beginning of the debate. I was in Kent speaking to Kent magistrates on the Children Act. I shall be speaking in the main, except as regards one particular point, on community care. I began to wonder whether that subject was in the Bill at all because I am the 33rd speaker and only seven of them have mentioned community care in their speeches. So I almost gave a shout of joy when the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, rose to his feet and spoke entirely about community care.
The directors of social services have taken the challenge and they are looking forward to implementing the Bill on community care. In fact, many of them at this moment, having read the Bill, are working towards plans in their areas for community care. I am in a very real dilemma because, on the one hand, I understand the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that uncertainty is a bad thing. If it goes on too long people are uncertain. They do not know where they are going and they want matters to come to a final point.
On the other hand, the time-scale for the social services departments to plan for this Bill is very short. I also have to bring to the attention of your Lordships that not only will the social services have to implement this Bill; they will be implementing the Children Act in the same year and at the same time. Therefore, I am bound to ask my noble friend the Minister whether that fact has been taken into account by both Ministries. Has he taken into account that the two Bills will have to be planned for and carried out at the same time? I am sure that my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State have taken this into account. If they have, it has not been made clear either to the directors of social services or to us.
Therefore, I am in a dilemma. The sooner this Bill comes into operation the better because uncertainty is bad for patients, doctors, nurses and social workers. Equally, the Bill must be implemented well. The National Health Service had extra money both to plan and to institute changes following the publication of the White Paper Working for Patients.

1365
But local authorities have had no money to carry out preparatory work and to plan. Nevertheless, realising their responsibilities, many have embarked on plans. Two local authorities have told me that 10 per cent. of their staffs time is spent on planning. If 10 per cent. of the staffs time is spent on planning, other work is not being done. This indicates that extra staff will be required.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, gave some figures. They are accurate, I am perfectly certain, and they are frightening. I speak on this point with deep feeling as a retired director of social services and local government officer. In local government, as is probably well known to the House, estimates are prepared in August, September or October for the following year. How are social services departments to produce estimates for the implementation of the Bill when they do not know how much money they will have? I support the Bill. I agree that some things need to be altered. I support community care because I think it is in the best interests of patients. But this point must be explained to the House and in particular to those who are planning in social services departments.
I support noble Lords who have spoken about the recommendation in the Griffiths Report for ring-fencing of money for this purpose. I speak with feeling for my colleagues in local government. If one has only a certain amount of money and then a crisis arises, the local authority treasurer will look to take a little money from one department and a little from another department. As a director of social services I would arrange my estimates. But then something would happen in the local authority. The treasurer would send for me and say, "I am afraid that you cannot have that £ 10, 000 this year because something else has happened". Unless there is ring-fencing, and unless money is allocated for the implementation of the Bill, what I have described will happen and money will not be channelled to local authority social services.
Perhaps I may say to my very dear and noble friend Lady Cox that I cannot agree wih her. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, will speak after me. I was going to say to the noble Lord that, with two people from Oxford, the last shall be first. The noble Lord will know that there was a close relationship in Oxford between social services and the medical profession. We were friends. We worked as equals and we listened to one another. We worked as partners not only with the doctors but with the health visitors and the district nurses. We were one service, not three. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that the medical workers and the social workers do not work together.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I pointed out that in many areas there is good co-operation. I know that people are being well served and will be well served. But I am afraid that in many areas— and examples will be forthcoming in Committee— there are genuine problems. I do not see that these solutions will help those problems. However, I recognise the point that the noble Baroness has just made in regard to some areas.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps she will tell me one day where the bad areas are. I should like to know.
It is late. I should have liked to say many things but I shall cover only one or two other points. I shall deal first with residential care. We all talk about community care as if it were the horizon and the sun. However, there are some people who wish to be in residential care and not community care. It is most important that there should be a choice for individuals. If there is no choice for these people, and they are merely assessed and put into places where they do not wish to go, they will not do well.
In mentioning residential care, I know that I am straying into the fields of social security, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw. I am aware that there has been an increase in grants; namely, £ 5 per week for residential care, £ 10 for nursing and £ 15 for hospices. Nevertheless, I regret to say that those increases will not cover the costs incurred. I am patron of an Alzheimer's disease hospital which has received enormous gifts. It has no loan charges and no mortgage. But, despite that fact, the lowest cost for residents is £ 320 per week. In the case of Alzheimer's disease a great deal of residential care is needed. There are many other points that I should like to make about residential care but I shall leave them for the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Many noble Lords have mentioned mental illness and mental health. They have spoken in particular about schizophrenia. Between now and 1991 will the Ministry close more mental hospitals? If that is the intention, it will redound in 1991 on the community care of the social service departments. I am thinking especially of the Maudsley Hospital and of the Cassel Hospital. If mental hospitals are being closed now, what will happen in 1991 when, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, pointed out, no patient can be discharged from a mental hospital without a plan having been made for his future? No such plans are being made for these people at present. If the Cassel Hospital is to be closed and the Maudsley Hospital's facilities reduced how will that affect the standard of community care when we reach 1991? That is not so very far away. Many of us are deeply worried about that aspect of the matter.
I should also like to point out just how important it is that we look after our children, that we ensure that there is an integrated service for them, that the standards of care are high and that there is inter-agency collaboration. I refer especially to collaboration in regard to the new Children Act.
I speak with diffidence on the health side of the matter. Although I have worked very closely with doctors, health visitors and district nurses, this is not specifically my ground. However, I should like to say a few words about the general practitioner service. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, has already spoken on the matter. The GP service is the gateway to the health service. It is the bridge which lies between the health service and the social workers.
In Oxford we had a very notable medical officer of health. We had a population of 110, 000. We now have seven health centres, five of which are

1367
purpose-built. Before those centres were built, the plans were sent to me for my approval. I found that no room had been provided for the district nurse or the social workers. However, at present the health centres— that is, all but two of them— have a room for the social workers, a room for the health visitors, a room for the district nurses and a room for the doctors.
At this point I feel that I should mention a most incredible health centre at a funny little place called Hinckley in Leicestershire. One of my colleague doctors is now running that centre. The health centres should be developed and they should become day hospitals in the community. That is where people should go. It means that they are in their community. That sometimes has its disadvantages: the last time I went to my health centre, my name was called out to see the doctor but I never reached her. One woman rushed up and said, "I wanted to talk to you about my meals on wheels which are not arriving". These are medical, social work community centres. That is how we should develop them. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rea, agrees with me. Many surgery buildings would not lend themselves to this, but these are the lines along which we should go. I should like to speak for longer but I shall not do so. Again, I ask my noble friend the Minister how the social services will deliver what they are keen to deliver in the short time during which they have to implement two Bills at once. Perhaps the Minister will be able to inform me.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, there can be few Bills coming before your Lordships' House which have generated so much frenzied debate elsewhere as this one. I much regret the aura of confrontation which has clouded many of the consultations between representatives of the medical profession on the one hand and government Ministers on the other. Let us hope that the debate will now proceed in an atmosphere of constructive collaboration, exploration, trial and assessment. Then those proposals of demonstrable benefit to patient care can go forward expeditiously while those shown by experience to be potentially detrimental can be modified or even perhaps abandoned according to the needs of the service.
One major difficulty which I and others who have spoken have found in commenting upon the detailed provisions of the Bill is, first, that it is not, to say the least, in its use of construction and language, light bed-time reading. Secondly, so many of its proposals are to be implemented by order or regulation by the Secretary of State that one is compelled to take account in debate not just of the Bill itself but also of the proposals set out in the White Paper which preceded it.
Your Lordships have had the benefit of hearing the clear and comprehensive statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in introducing the Bill into your Lordships' House, and many notable contributions by noble Lords this afternoon and evening. Perhaps I may now attempt to highlight what I see as being some of the principal proposals
1368
in the Bill and White Paper which I personally commend to your Lordships as being likely, in my view, to improve the NHS and to bring substantial benefits to patient care.
First, it is good to see that the Government have reaffirmed their commitment to providing a National Health Service which will in most respects be free to the consumer at the point of delivery. It will be largely funded from the products of general taxation.
Secondly, I welcome the proposal to introduce clinical audit into both general and hospital practice. That will not mean in this sense a financial or management audit, but a systematic, critical analysis of the quality of medical care including the procedures used for diagnosis and treatment, the use of resources and the resulting outcome for the patient. However, while I and I believe the medical profession, now give this proposal enthusiastic support, it is important to recognise that such activities are time-consuming. They will inevitably divert some resources away from direct clinical care, with obvious implications relating to staffing levels and funding.
Thirdly, I also commend the Government's emphasis upon value for money and upon improving the information being made available to patients about services available at hospitals and in the community. That will enable them to make better informed choices about where and from whom they will seek medical services, subject only to some relatively minor reservations which I shall mention later.
Fourthly, though again subject to some reservations which I shall mention, I offer a cautious welcome to the proposals in the new GP contract to set general practitioners targets for immunisation and various types of screening. The proposals which will bring family practitioner service authorities within the jurisdiction of the regional health authorities, and the arrangements relating to the transfer of funds when patients move from the ambit of one health authority to another, are also to be commended. I also favour a much needed improved complaints procedure.
What are the principal problems which I see in relation to the major provisions of the Bill and of the White Paper? Why is it that I and many other doctors have serious concerns about some of them? I listened carefully to the lucid speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, but I make no excuse for returning yet again to the issue of funding. The potential demand for health care is, of course, infinite and Her Majesty's Government are now devoting more financial resources to the NHS in real terms than did any of their predecessors.
Despite the fact that more patients are being treated, the service still remains chronically underfunded, as several noble Lords have said. I shall not labour the point, but in cash terms in 1987 we spent about £ 300 a head while France spent £ 500 a head and Germany £ 600 a head. We need more consultants in all specialties and we need more funds to provide for the immense advances in medical care and treatment which are being discovered almost daily, and to cater for an ageing population.

1369
However, I find it exceptionally difficult to see how the complex financial accounting systems which the Bill will introduce can be implemented speedily, even with increased staff, when existing salary scales make it almost impossible in many districts to recruit qualified accountants and when medical secretaries are leaving the service in increasing numbers because of the greatly increased rewards they can obtain in the private sector. Therefore, we need a new baseline for NHS funding. I hope very much that the additional funds which the Secretary of State is able to obtain in the future for the service will be used to fund the much needed additional consultant posts to which I have referred and to reduce the intolerable pressures, especially upon junior medical staff, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rea.
I should say again in passing that I only wish the Treasury were not so implacably opposed to earmarked taxation. If it were not so, how nice it would be to have an index-linked, income related health tax. Can we assume that the Chancellor's recent decision to allow tax relief on substantial single charitable donations is the first chink in the Treasury door? Perhaps that is not the case.
In general medical practice I personally regret the emphasis upon increased remuneration via the capitation fee with the specific objective of encouraging general practitioners to compete for patients. I am not personally in favour of unrestricted advertising by doctors, having seen the unfortunate effects of such advertising in other countries, as well as the results of advertising by laymen of the services provided by some private clinics in the UK which have clearly shown that some of the most effective advertisers are the least able providers of high quality services. However, I am greatly in favour of the widespread ethical dissemination via practice leaflets and annual reports of detailed and comprehensive information by doctors and practices to enable patients to make a better informed choice.
Two further concerns that I have relate, first, to the fact that some excellent doctors work in areas of the country where they have a virtual monopoly of medical care in the local population and therefore no prospect of increasing their list size, and, secondly, to the fact that for many years the profession has been urging that GP lists should be reduced in size to enable doctors to spend more time with individual patients. I also hope that in confirming targets now set for cervical screening, for example, the Government will accept— I know they are fully aware of this— that some practices number many nuns and members of ethnic minorities among their patients and therefore simply cannot meet the higher targets proposed.
With respect to practice budgets, I trust and believe that the Secretary of State has been able to reassure the profession that no unreasonable constraints will be imposed upon freedom to prescribe. But it is clear that budgets can only be set in close consultation with the profession. I recall the concerted professional opposition which was widely orchestrated when the limited list of drugs prescribable under the health service was introduced. That list has proved to be adequate and generally
1370
accepted. I greatly deplore the reported suggestion by some doctors that they might decide to remove from their lists certain patients with conditions which are expensive to treat.
Variations in prescribing costs from one practice to another throughout the country suggest that some with very high costs could usefully scrutinise and reduce them without detriment to patient care. However, in other practices it is probable that drug costs are too low.
The final issue in relation to general practice which concerns me is that relating to hospital reference in which the money will follow the patient. I believe that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for practices and health districts to introduce the necessary financial accounting procedures within the timescale envisaged. I strongly urge a prolonged period of trial and careful assessment of those changes in a limited number of practices.
Secondly, I accept that it is reasonable that GPs should normally refer patients for specialised advice and treatment to one or other of the hospitals in the district where they reside and that where, for special medical reasons, a patient is referred to a hospital outwith the district the appropriate funds should be transferred. However, I am concerned lest those arrangements may mean that a budget-holding practice would be tempted to choose the cheapest of several options rather than the best. That arrangement might result in an unfortunate reduction in references to the inevitably more expensive hospitals in teaching districts. That would have serious consequences not least for patients who may sometimes be deprived of the highest standards of care but also for undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and research.
I turn lastly to the hospital service. I do not propose today to comment on the very important proposals in the Bill on community care which, as certain noble Lords have said, might well have deserved a separate Bill. The interest and involvement in all health matters of our great universities with medical and dental schools is now very intimate in relation not only to the provision of services through clinical academic appointments and undergraduate teaching but also in relation to postgraduate and vocational training, continuing education and research throughout all regions. In my view, it is therefore absolutely crucial— as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has proposed— that a university voice should be heard as of right in all health authorities, from the region down to each district.
Similarly, I am convinced that such authorities must each contain within their membership a suitable number of health care professionals responsible for providing clinical services to patients as well as other members able to express the consumer interest. In my experience, advice from officers is not enough. I shall hope in Committee to give more detailed reasons. I recommend a university voice in each district. Although this is of the greatest importance in teaching districts, virtually every health district in every region is now to some extent involved not only in undergraduate

1371
medical education but also to an increasing extent in postgraduate, vocational and continuing education of doctors and other health care professionals.
Perhaps I may mention research— briefly at this late hour. For many years, the support of medical research in our universities has been based upon the so-called dual support system. Through that system the universities, with funds derived from the UGC, now the Universities Funding Council, provide the environment, accommodation and infrastructure of technical and secretarial support in which the research can be done. The Medical Research Council, charities and foundations cover only the direct costs without payment of overheads.
A similar situation has long been acknowledged, if never formally agreed, in relation to research in NHS hospitals in which much fundamental research, bringing outstanding benefits to patient care, has been and is being done. It is similar to the so-called knock-for-knock agreement through which the clinical services provided by university staff with clinical contracts are compensated for by the teaching given by staff employed by the NHS.
A December 1988 survey in the Oxfordshire health authority, reported to the steering group, under the chairmanship of Sir Christopher France, which is examining in depth the inter-relationship of DES and Department of Health funding for teaching and research, found that expenditure on research in that district was about 1–5 per cent. of the annual revenue budget. That is one good reason why I and many others believe that such costs require to be separately identified and protected within the budgets of all health districts alongside those for teaching, thus changing SIFT (the service increment for teaching) into a service increment for teaching and research.
It was good to learn last July that the Secretary of State seemed to agree to that proposal when he addressed some members of the medical profession, but I do not see any evidence that those important matters are addressed in the Bill. Similarly, it is all too easy to overlook the absolute necessity of identifying separately in authority budgets the funds needed to support postgraduate, vocational and continuing education. Many financially hard-pressed authorities have tended of late to overlook the agreement formally enshrined in the original National Health Service Act of 1946 and in the regulations which stemmed from it that, whereas postgraduate education in taught courses or whole-time research leading to a higher university degree is the financial responsibility of the universities, the postgraduate and vocational training of physicians, surgeons, general practitioners and all other medical specialties, as well as that of all other health care professionals, clearly falls within the responsibilities of the NHS, as is the case with continuing education of all doctors, in which medical audit will clearly play an increasingly important role. Earmarked funding within health authority budgets to enable postgraduate deans to fulfil that responsibility is clearly essential.
1372
Finally, perhaps I may say a few words about self-governing hospital trusts. I am not fundamentally opposed to that proposal, especially if the small, independent governing bodies of directors of such trusts become in some respects comparable with the boards of governors who used to govern many of our large teaching hospitals. As a former member of a regional hospital board, several hospital management committees and an area health authority, I was often disturbed by the fact that some members of those bodies appointed by local authorities all too often appeared to put the interests of their constituents first, ahead of the needs of the service. However, I hope that, if and when such trusts are established, in the beginning they will be relatively few in number until we can assess fully how they work.
Secondly, I believe that it is essential that they cannot opt out of providing the range of services which the regional and district health authorities require them to provide. Thirdly, their directors must include in my view some who are able to explain and support university teaching and research interests as well as some clinical staff working in the relevant hospital or unit.
Fourthly, I am opposed to the proposal that they should be allowed to set their own salary scales for all grades of staff as uniformity in such scales, certainly in medicine and nursing, has been one of the strengths of the service. That proposal would create a difficult situation for academic clinical medicine and for junior medical staff in training. However, I would not be opposed to paying local allowances comparable with London weighting to assist in the recruitment and retention of staff. Finally, in order to ensure the maintenance of high standards of care in those hospitals, I believe that an independent system of accreditation or inspection is clearly needed.
I hope to have the opportunity of addressing again some of those important issues in Committee with the sole objective, shared, I am sure, by all noble Lords, of improving this important Bill in the interests of patients and the service. Many members of my profession have been accused of being deliberately obstructive and of opposing the Bill in its entirety, but most, I am sure, wish to be helpful and constructive. I well recall one hospital administrator who said that his job required him to serve the interests of 200 consultants, of whom 193 owed allegiance only to God and the other seven did not even accept that jurisdiction. However, it is significant that for the first time the royal colleges and other bodies representing all the caring professions have come together to urge slow and selective implementation and careful assessement of the results of those fundamental and as yet untried changes.
I hope therefore that the Government, in recognising the principal concerns which I and many of my colleagues feel about some aspects of the Bill, will recognise that we also wish sincerely to acknowledge its good points upon which all of those working in the service will hope to build, given adequate resources and adequate time and information in order to be able to do so.
10.55 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Bill that is before your Lordships' House today is only the most recent in a long line of Bills which have been based upon Greer. Papers. Yet the Bill offers some exception to that because the community care section, to which I shall devote most of the few words that I wish to say, was preceded by the excellent report of Sir Roy Griffiths. I suggest that that is one reason why the community care recommendations have had widespread acceptance and not met with anything like the degree of criticism that has been encountered by the rest of the Bill.
It would be very interesting to know who drafts the Green Papers. Who are they and what are their qualifications? Those who draft the Green Papers set the agenda for the whole debate. Noble Lords who have sat on committees will know that if you can set the agenda, you are three-quarters of the way toward achieving the conclusions that you wish to have. I have challenged before (and shall do so again) the practice which has grown up of deserting the old idea of having a public inquiry into matters of such a degree of importance on which will sit representatives of the various interests concerned. They are people who have special knowledge and experience and who have differing points of view. They have to thrash out those differences and arrive at a report to which their names are attached. They have reputations to be lost should they produce half-baked ideas. I believe that that is a very much better way to produce legislation than by way of anonymous Green Papers.
I suggest that if that process had been adopted before this Bill was produced to your Lordships' House, a great deal of the criticism that has come from all sides, not only from the medical profession, would have been averted. Those who voiced their criticism would have contributed to the formation of ideas before the Bill was produced. Surely that is the way to achieve acceptance for change.
The people who are involved in change have to be involved also in determining and discussing the nature of the changes to be undertaken. I regard the abandonment of that method as an extremely bad practice that has grown up. We are given instead anonymous Green Papers. I should truly like an answer as to who drafts them, how those people are selected and what are their qualifications. I think that Parliament is entitled to know.
There is another bad practice which finds its place in this proposed legislation and about which we on these Benches and other noble Lords have complained; namely, that so much of what determines what happens when the Bill is turned into an Act and its provisions implemented is to be left to regulations. A great number of decisions about what happens to patients at the end of the day will not be on the face of the Bill or in the Act. There will be no primary legislation. Matters will be decided by discussions and by civil servants to a very large extent. Parliament will have no opportunity effectively to alter what is decided in those regulations. In particular, all that is of importance
1374
in the whole (it is indeed the whole but a very short whole) of the community care section will be embodied in regulations.
That is just not good enough in a country which is supposed to have parliamentary control over the important changes and developments in social policy. That is all that I want to say about the background to the Bill. I do not intend to speak about the health side of the Bill. I am not qualified to do so and many other noble Lords have spoken from a deep basis of knowledge about that.
I want to talk about the community care section. Like other noble Lords, I believe that it should be in a separate Bill. If it had comprised a separate Bill, we could have hoped to have— and perhaps more easily insisted upon having— more of the important detail that will determine the nature of community care written into the Act, which is where it ought to be.
Even after what has been said today, I do not know whether the Government are fully conscious of the scale and importance of the developments proposed in connection with community care. It is not only a question of emptying the institutions. There are a great many people who will need community care who do not find their way into institutions. That is one of the purposes of the legislation: to keep them out. The community care will be good enough. Therefore they will not find their way into institutions. I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that for some people community care is the better option. The idea that one should have almost everybody in community care seems to me a great mistake.
However, that is not the most important factor. The important factor is the scale of, and the need for, community care and the cost of it. There is no indication in the Bill as to how those factors will be met, or indeed a full recognition of the enormous nature of future needs. Unless very adequate services of a good quality are provided, we are heading for a disaster. I use that word deliberately. I can foresee a situation in which there are not adequate resources to back up those who are put back into society, into the community.
"Community care" is a nice phrase. But how much does the community care? How much will it be prepared to pay? How much will the Government put in? I wish to give one or two examples.
One of the most important aspects of community care— a very down to earth one— is the adequate provision of domiciliary help. Those are people who come into the houses of old, infirm people who cannot do the housework, the cleaning and all the humdrum jobs that have to be done. Unless they are very good quality, well trained people, the results can be appalling. A great many people who work in this field are very concerned about it. They are doing all they can to ensure that there are good staff available. There is nowhere near enough staff at present to deal with that aspect alone; namely, the provision of the domicilary care workers who need to be properly trained. Such care workers have a great deal of responsibility. They work on their own

1375
in the houses of people who are very often elderly and who cannot stand up to them if there is any abuse. Those old people are afraid— I have experience of this happening— to complain to the organisers because they are so dependent on the people who come into their houses. Unless there is proper training, supervision and control the whole scheme can break down on that one issue alone.
We urgently need better community nurses. There have to be plenty of people who can go into the houses to help with the bathing and other tasks that need to be undertaken. They are very time-consuming, skilled tasks done without supervision in respect of people who are not in a position to stand up for themselves if things go wrong and who again will be afraid to complain because they are so dependent.
We need day centres. They are not cheap but we need them very badly, both to help the old, frail persons themselves, and to help those who are looking after them. We need respite centres. Those are only a few examples. Another is Meals on Wheels. I could go on.
If one considers the numbers involved, they add up to an enormous bill. If we do not have a considerable amount of resources there could be a squalid disaster. I beg the Government to think again about ring-fencing money for those purposes. Unless that is done, when hard pressed local authorities are looking for money for any urgent causes, the temptation to raid the money which they know ought to go on community care but which can be grabbed for something else will be almost irresistible. Unless there is ring fencing, we have no guarantee that resources will be adequate to meet the needs of the people about whom we are concerned.
I wish to speak in particular this evening not so much about the people who need the care but about the carers in homes, in families. They will be asked to do a great deal of the caring. I declare an interest as the President of the Carers National Association. It is estimated that 6 million people are caring for people in their homes who are not capable of caring for themselves. Not all are desparately sick but they need care. Two-thirds of those are caring for people single handed. That is a figure which should give your Lordships pause for thought.
They need protection but I do not see the word "carer" anywhere in the Bill. If the services are inadequate— and to some degree they certainly will be— who will undertake the caring? It is normally a female member of the family living in the house. Perhaps it is a daughter or the wife who is available. However, about 25 per cent. of known carers are men. They must cope as best they can.
Almost everyone in your Lordships' House must know someone in that position and therefore I ask you to be realistic about the matter. If you are looking after an infirm or disturbed person you can be raised two, three, four or five times during the night. Most people can put up with that for two or three months. But if it continues for six months it will drive them almost round the bend. Unless the services are adequate that is what we shall be asking
1376
of carers. Even if the services are adequate the burden on the carers will be considerable. They will be caring for the person 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year when the help from outside is not available. Some of the rights of the carers should be incorporated in the legislation.
I do not wish to sound harsh but one must also recognise that a so-called carer has a right not to care. It must not be assumed that a member of the family will automatically assume responsibility. Many of them do so for a mixture of reasons but mainly because they feel a desire and an obligation. However, some do not and it is wrong to take for granted the fact that because someone lives in a particular house he or she will be prepared to make drastic changes in the way they live. That is what is required. I know carers who cannot get out for an hour to do the shopping because the old people for whom they care will not let them out of their sight. Not all those old people are sweet and agreeable; often the only power that they have left is the power to bully the person looking after them. Unless we recognise those rights the difficuties experienced will be great.
Furthermore, alongside the needs assessment of the person to be cared for there should be a corresponding needs asessment of the person undertaking the caring. Such a person's needs are different but just as heavy. There should also be a more generous invalid care allowance than now exists. Adequate, full-financed community provision— and it will be expensive— is essential. Legal protection for the rights of and help for the carers is also essential. Unless we provide that the proposals contained in the Bill will have positively evil results.
11 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have said that we are considering two Bills. I propose to concentrate on that part of the Bill concerned with community care. I am aware of the lateness of the hour, but I also wish to comment briefly on some of the points raised in the debate.
In her clear introduction of the Bill the Minister poured cold water on the evaluation exercise of the Royal Colleges. She said that in her view it had doubtful validity. How do the Government know, or do they assume that they know the answers before the questions have been asked? She also said that the Government have taken time over consultation. No fewer than four months were given for the responses to the White Paper— the biggest change in the health service since 1948. Things certainly speeded up by the time we reached community care because the Government allowed four days between the publication of the White Paper Caring for People and the publication of this Bill.
The noble Baroness also said that responsibility for care would be firmly in the hands of local authorities. I believe it is correct that local authorities and health authorities are still awaiting a proper definition of their respective responsibilities. The Association of London Authorities has pointed out that the local authority associations are particularly concerned

1377
that the timetable for implementation of the transfer to local authorities by April 1991 seems unworkable. This was a point that was made extremely well by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
I should like to say a few words about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and his brave new world of customers, competition and the monetary disciplines of the deviant behaviour of the businessmen managers— a world where altriusm is not enough. This was an idea supported by a curious combination of secret disciples and bright-eyed enthusiasts. I hope the noble Lord will not be offended if I say that I was irresistably reminded during his speech of the well known remark of John Maynard Keynes, who said:
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist".
I think the noble Lord said that the more work the doctors do, the more they will get. We have seen what can happen when that is taken to extremes. We have seen what can happen in America, with evidence of all the unnecessary tonsillectomies, appendectomies, hysterectomies, and the rest. There are real dangers of the practice of the marketplace being taken much too far in the health service. We must be sure that there are safeguards against this.
Perhaps the noble Lord's most revealing remark was when he said that managers should decide if hospitals should become NHS trusts. Apart from the fundamental lack of democracy in that approach, and the unspoken assumption that the professional will always know best, surely the noble Lord knows that in non-profit-making organisations the managers who have no entrepreneurial or equity stake get their kicks by making their organisations bigger.
Another point which we welcome from this side concerns the intention of the Government to introduce an amendment to deal with pharmacists. I am delighted that the Government intend to amend the Bill and to recognise their wider role. It is one which is relevant to health in general and to community care in particular.
I must say a word about the outstanding maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. I think he will be pleased to know that there is an intention to put down an all-party amendment which deals with complementary medicine. There was also the outstanding maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. We have a particular reason to thank him because there is concern over the way low-incidence disabilities such as deaf-blindness with only a few people in each of the local authority areas with the condition, will be cared for under the new proposals. The noble Lord did a great service to the House by bringing that to our attention.
Returning to the evaluation exercise that was mentioned in the outstanding speech of my noble friend Lord Ennals when he introduced the debate from our side— and indeed there were many of your Lordships who pleaded for more time, and this applies just as much to the community care aspect of the Bill as to the health service aspects— perhaps I may give some friendly advice to the Minister. She
1378
might remember that it was originally intended to introduce the poll tax over a period of ten years. Then it was to be introduced over three to four years while it was run-in and all the problems were ironed out. Then, with all the excitement of the Conservative Party Conference, it was agreed to bring it in overnight. With the poll tax we now have the classic case of Nemesis duly punishing hubris. We could have exactly the same position with the National Health Service reforms if the Government are not prepared to give more time. There are strong arguments for a similar evaluation exercise in the field of community care. As I said, local authorities are very concerned at the rushed timetable with which they are faced.
The Bill proposes a fundamental change in the planning and provision of community care. The mixed economy of care, the promotion, a choice of independence and the monitoring of the quality of community care are all extremely laudable, and we agree with that. However, the Bill seeks to secure those changes by making local authorities responsible for planning and enabling the provision of care.
The Government, to their credit, accepted the central recommendation of the Griffiths Report, regarding the lead role of local authorities. However, they effectively torpedoed the implementation of the recommendation by rejecting the other and crucial recommendation that community care and the budget should be protected by ring fencing or ear-marking. A number of noble Lords drew attention to that point.
No additional funding has been provided for the infrastructure of administration. Just eight of the new functions of local authorities are to produce and publish a community care plan and revise it regularly; to publish the criteria for the undertaking of individual assessments; to carry out individual assessments; to carry out the assessment and collection of the contributions towards the costs of services; to create the monitoring and inspection units; to set up the complaints procedures; to create the purchasing and budgeting systems and to set up the systems of the case management. They have to undertake all of that with no extra funds. In addition, local authorities have to provide all the information technology and the software systems with no effective database of the potential demand that there may be.
Following the introduction of the poll tax in all its glory, there is now genuine reason to doubt whether the proposals in the Bill for community care will work at all. That was a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. If additional resources are made available to local authorities, they now come either through the revenue support grant from Government or by increasing the poll tax locally. The Bill comes into force in April of next year. Can anyone imagine that extra resources for community care will be made available next year? We read that billions of pounds of revenue support grant will have to be thrown at the poll tax to keep it at the same figure as this year. Local authorities will be under the most intense pressure to keep the poll tax down.

1379
In that situation, I should like to ask the Government where the money is intended to come from to fund the new proposals and to meet the existing level of unmet need? The refusal by the Government to protect the community care budget by ring fencing has been strongly criticised by every organisation in the field, and indeed by the social services committee in another place in its third report on community care and the funding for local authorities. It is also criticised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the district and the county councils.
There is a further problem. There will be every incentive for health authorities which have overspent to relabel the sick and disabled people in need of community care and try to shift them on to the community care budget. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities estimated that local authorities will inherit a deficit on the funding of residential care of around £ 90 million, which will increase to £ 700 million by 1994–95. I repeat that with all the problems of the poll tax, the pressures on the revenue support grant, the deficit in the cost of residential care, the refusal to provide funding for the setting-up of an administrative infrastructure and the refusal to ring fence the community care budget, where will the money come from to provide the level of community care which we all agree should be provided? We certainly wish to table some amendments to deal with that.
I turn now to a number of specific aspects of the Bill. The area of disability was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and others. The Bill contains the worthy aims for the disabled of promoting choice, independence and the monitoring of the quality of care. That is the intention, and the simple question which has been asked so many times before is: why will the Government not implement all the sections of the 1986 disabled persons Act? If the community care proposals are to work, there must be a right to assessment, a right to be represented, and a right to appeal. We look forward to the Government amendments mentioned by the Minister regarding the complaints procedure. We shall also be tabling amendments dealing with that aspect of the Bill.
Section 3 of the 1986 Act provides the framework for involving disabled people in the decisions about the services that they need, and which in fact can result in cheaper provision. Why are the Government so reluctant to build in the rights of consultation and access to services for the users of those services? In other fields of activity we are constantly told that the consumer is king. Why is that not the case in the provision of community care?
There is great concern about the deliberate discrimination between local authorities and the private sector in the provision of residential care. Perhaps I may repeat the point I made at Question Time today. A recent excellent independent report, an analysis of home care trends and costs by the London Research Centre, has calculated that there will be a need for 81, 000 more places in residential and nursing homes in England alone in the year 2000 and that less than 10 per cent. of elderly people will
1380
have sufficient income to pay for private residential care without some form of public support. In the light of those figures it is extraordinary that the Bill is introducing a deliberate financial disincentive for the placing of the elderly and the infirm in local authority homes and deliberate financial incentives for placing old people in the private sector.
The voluntary organisations are extremely concerned about the failure to require the registration of small residential homes; those with fewer than four beds. The Bill would seem to be the ideal place to deal with that problem.
There are no proposals for any form of regulation of private domiciliary or day-care agencies, though there is for residential homes. That could be more than an anomaly. It might provide a loophole for the unscrupulous or the inefficient to profit at the expense of the elderly, the infirm and the disabled. We shall seek to improve the Bill in that respect.
Your Lordships will be aware that there are many aspects of community care, but with the lack of time and the lateness of the hour I will leave them for the moment but will certainly wish to deal with them at later stages. However, I should like to return to the point made by so many of your Lordships regarding the time for evaluation and assessment. I urge the Government to listen to those pleas very carefully and seriously.
We were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to detail what the Labour Party would do. I make clear that it has been stated in another place that some parts of the Bill will be repealed by an incoming Labour Government unless a satisfactory system of evaluation and assessment is found and accepted. There has been widespread concern right throughout the debate that the Secretary of State is rushing in at a dangerous speed before any evaluation system has been established and before there has been adequate preparation in terms of training, information technology and resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said; more haste, less speed.
We cannot ignore the views of those who work in the National Health Service, all of whom think that the timetable has not been properly worked out. It may be that we need a phased programme over three to four years as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Nugent. It is crucially important that we get this right in Committee and on Report. The Government must give urgent thought to evaluation and staging so that some sensible compromise can be found.
We are fortunate to have had some outstanding speeches from those in the medical and nursing professions, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady McFarlane, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunter of Newington, Lord Walton of Detchant, and Lord Smith, all of whom speak from vast experience.
I return finally to the central problem of resources for community care. Without sufficient resources the plans for community care will certainly fail. Sir Roy Griffiths, commenting on the major difference between his proposals and those in the White Paper which are now in the Bill, said:

1381
"I had provided a purposeful, effective and economic four-wheel vehicle, but the White Paper has redesigned it as a three-wheeler, leaving out the fourth wheel of ring-fenced funding".
I can assure the Government that, in regard to community care, as this Bill proceeds through this House we shall be doing our utmost to put that fourth wheel on again.
As regards the National Health Service proposals, we believe profoundly that the market place is a peculiarly inappropriate mechanism for allocating health and community care. We shall be doing our best to inject into the Bill the concept of a public service which is the foundation and bedrock of both the health service and community care.
11.24 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is many hours since I last rose to respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at Question Time. It is now eight-and-a-half hours since my noble friend Lady Hooper opened the proceedings on this Bill.
I begin by welcoming the stout defence by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, of the rights, privileges and prerogatives of this House and by saying that I look forward, as do my noble friends on the Front Bench, to many hours in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. However, I should stress that many hours have already been spent on this Bill in another place. Two days were spent on Second Reading; 109 hours were devoted to the Bill in Committee and a further 23 hours of debate were spent at Report stage on the Floor of the House. I also join all other noble Lords in congratulating both maiden speakers. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that we very much hope that we shall hear a great deal more from both of them, particularly during the very many hours at Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading which I suspect we shall be having.
It has been a very useful debate. What I have found interesting about it is that there has been much general agreement from all sides of the House. I am not trying to include the two noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite. They were in agreement on some aspects. I think it was my noble friend Lord McColl who said that on about two-thirds of the Bill there was much agreement.
Our proposals for making further improvements to our health service build on this Government's impressive record over the past 10 years. Spending on the health service stands at £ 26–3 billion in 1989–90 and will increase still further to £ 29–1 billion in 1990–91. That represents an increase of 42 per cent. over and above inflation since 1979. Equally important, those growing resources have been well used to fund higher levels of care than ever before. In the 10 years from 1978 to 1987–88 the number of inpatients treated rose by 22 per cent. from 5–4 million to 6–6 million and the number of day cases from 562, 000 to 891, 000, an increase of 58 per cent. Those patients have been treated by a workforce that has been increased to provide better standards of care. There are 67, 000 more nurses and midwives working in the NHS today than in 1979.
1382
These developments over the past 10 years have helped bring about real improvements in the health of the nation.
I have set out this record because I believe it is one that any government would be proud of. There is no more powerful response to the charge that we are not committed to the health service. Our commitment to the founding principles of the health service is the starting point of the reforms we are discussing today. We are convinced that the National Health Service is the right health system for this country. The public affection and support for it is well justified. Our reforms therefore build on and improve the existing National Health Service. To suggest, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester suggested, that we cannot be committed to it just because we also see a role for the private sector, is not true.
Our reforms of the health service and of community care focus firmly on quality. In the NHS, the effect of contract-based funding will be to reward those providers of services who deliver effective, timely and high quality health care. Quality means not just the effective treatment of patients but also takes in a high standard of medical and other staff training and an innovative programme of research. This emphasis on quality is mirrored in our community care proposals where the new role of local authorities as purchasers of community care services will give greater flexibility in arranging care for individuals in the most effective way.
Our reforms strengthen the hand of the user of health and community care services. Health authorities will need to take account of the views of GPs— surely the best spokesmen of the patient— in placing any NHS contracts. Our proposals for GPs to become fund holders will give family doctors the scope to tailor the services they offer to the specific needs of patients on their list. In the field of community care, our aim is to provide a range of services to accord with individuals' requirements rather than to expect them to adapt to existing patterns of care. Our proposals aim to put people's needs where they belong, at the centre of decisions over care provision.
Finally, the reforms in the Bill before the House will help provide a service that makes the most cost-effective use of resources. I cannot be alone in regarding cost effectiveness as a virtue, not a vice. In fact, I am not alone. The point was stressed by my noble friends Lord Carr, Lord McColl and Lord Nugent. As my noble friend Lord Carr said in responding to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, it is not just a duty but a moral duty. It is our duty to make sure that money is used to bring the maximum benefit. Devolving greater responsibility to local level— whether NHS trusts or GP fund holders— will help in this respect. In community care, our proposals will remove perverse incentives which have led to people being accommodated in residential homes when they could be better and more cost effectively looked after at home.
I am not sure that I shall be able to respond to all the points raised by noble Lords. However, certain matters were raised again and again to which I

1383
should very much like to respond. I start with the community care proposals. For some reason our proposals were raised in speeches of noble Lords towards the end of the list of speakers. I do not know whether this was deliberate or happened just by chance, but as the half-way point of the debate passed, I wondered whether anyone would mention community care at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, was worried about how little there is in the Bill on the community care proposals. My noble friend Lady Hooper spoke at some length on this issue some eight and a half hours ago. In framing the Bill we have aimed to include only those items for which legislative provision is essential. I have no doubt that if we included everything which has been suggested, the Bill would be nearly as long as the White Paper itself. To have done that would have been severely to have curtailed the freedom of local authorities to plan and manage their own services. We have powers of direction which we can use to reinforce guidance. I prefer to rely on that rather than on writing inordinate detail into the Bill.
Two other items arose in regard to community care. Many noble Lords referred to resources. The White Paper says that the Government recognise that local authorities will need adequate resources to enable them to discharge their new responsibilities. Net expenditure has risen by some 37 per cent. in the 10 years to 1989–90, more than enough, we feel, to allow for the demographic changes. The new funding system will encourage cost effectiveness and accountability. Funds will be transferred from my department, the Department of Social Security, and final decisions will be taken on resources in the public expenditure survey. I am sure that noble Lords would not expect me to anticipate the outcome of that survey but I repeat that the Government recognise more than anything the need for adequate resources.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was worried that we had not taken into account the fact that local autorities have to look this year both to the implementation of the Children Act and the community care proposals. We have taken account of the agenda facing local authorities in drawing up proposals for implementing the White Paper on community care. This is one of the reasons why we expect an evolving system rather than the big bang, to which my noble friend Lady Hooper referred in her opening speech.
My noble friends Lady Cox and Lady Faithfull, the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm, Lord Hastings and Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, all mentioned ring fencing. The Government believe that decisions about community care resources should be made locally by local authorities accountable to their own electorates. There is no suggestion that local authority expenditure on community care has lagged behind that on other services. We therefore do not wish to disrupt a system which seems to be working well. Indeed, our proposals for community care plans and for the
1384
assessment of care needs are designed to make it work better. In short, we see no need to give special status to the community care funds.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked why there is a specific grant only for mental illness. We are particularly concerned that local authorities should improve and increase the services they provide for people with mental illness. That does not belittle concern for other groups. But with none of them is there the need for rapid expansion from a low base as there is in the case of mental illness services. We feel that that justifies the specific grant for these services.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and other speakers, especially, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the implementation of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the 1986 Act. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has recently agreed that consultations should begin with local authority associations on the cost implications of Sections 1, 2 and 3. In the light of the proposals contained in the White Paper, we have made it clear that we do not intend to implement Section 7 at present.
I refer once again to the question of ring fencing. My noble friend Lord Hastings asked why Wales was to be treated separately in that it was to receive specific grants while England and Scotland would not. The Welsh Office has long had a successful programme on joint health authority plans for mental illness and mental handicap services which are approved by the Secretary of State and supported by specific grant. That model works well in Wales because of the limited number of Welsh authorities. We feel that it is neither practical nor desirable to apply that regional solution on a national scale in England or Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Hastings also raised several points of detail regarding the operation of the new community care arrangements. I am afraid that there is not sufficient time tonight for me to respond to him in detail. However, I, or my noble friend, will write to him, if possible, as soon as we can. In saying that I should stress that we shall of course try to respond in writing to as many points as we can which I am not able to cover this evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, asked about the involvement of community nurses in the community care assessment. Our proposals in this respect clearly envisage that members of all the caring professions will be involved as appropriate. In her opening speech today my noble friend indicated that we hoped to bring forward an amendment which will make clear the fact that local authorities should bring any apparent health care need which emerges in the course of assessment to the attention of the district health authority.
I turn now from the community care proposals to those regarding the National Health Service. I think that I should begin with the issue which I can describe as piloting. This aspect received a great deal of attention during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was the first speaker to raise it and many other noble Lords said that they wished to see pilot studies in two regions. I have received at least some

1385
support in the matter. My noble friend Lord McColl felt that pilot studies in two regions would dragoon the unwilling and exclude the well prepared and enthusiastic.
In regard to GPs and their practice budgets, I should stress the fact that this process is also voluntary. As my noble friend explained in her opening speech, we are taking an evolutionary approach to implementation with pilot projects built into our proposals. That is not the same as an artificial trial in two specified regions. The analogies with clinical trials are, I think, misplaced. The National Health Service is a single whole that cannot be split into its constituent parts for examination. How, for example, would we identify which two suggested trial regions we should use? How would we agree that the results had national validity? I do not believe that this is practical. Moreover, the Government would be failing in their duty as custodian of the National Health Service if they allowed change to be delayed by three years.
The Labour Government of 1948 which I am sure many noble Lords remember rightly put on one side the ca!l of the BMA for the National Health Service to be phased in. They pressed ahead with implementation, learning from experience as they went. This Government are rightly following the same course in pursuing these changes. I remind noble Lords that at that time the then Minister of Health, Mr. Bevan, talked of phasing in the national health proposals as being stupid nonsense.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at that time there was enormous public demand for the service? The whole nation wanted to see a health service. It was totally different from the present situation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not see that it is different at all. I do not remember because I was not born, but the noble Lord may remember that the BMA fought the proposals of Mr. Bevan.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the right reverend Prelate asked about chaplaincy services. We appreciate the concern about those services. Chaplains often provide a valuable counselling service in addition to spiritual comfort. It is right that both suppliers and purchasers of the service should take full account of the valuable role of chaplains in planning services for the future. In addition, the Government will look at the future of chaplaincy services in the 1990s, taking account of the changes under the Bill and the wider issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also spoke about spinal units. I agree with heron the importance of those units and their work. I assure the House that spinal units and, for that matter, all supra-regional services will be protected by a proportion of the costs being met centrally and the balance regionally. We shall consult interested parties on a system for doing this and will issue guidance in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned excessive hours for doctors. He might remember that my first performance at the Dispatch Box was on the Third Reading of his Bill last year. That measure concerned
1386
junior hospital doctors' hours. There is no single solution to this longstanding issue, but I feel that we have made real progress. A major initiative began in 1988. Reports indicate that by September of this year, one in eight juniors will be on one in three rotas, compared with more than a quarter on one in three or even worse rotas before the exercise began. We accept that more needs to be done, but changing the law will not solve the problem. We need a concerted approach.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has therefore initiated discussions with representatives of the BMA, the joint consultants' committee and the National Health Service management. These will be wide ranging talks. We want all the parties to commit themselves to a programme of action. This is an excellent opportunity to move forward. I am sure that the House will welcome this further initiative.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in a thoughtful speech, welcomed the prospect of many of our proposals, including some aspects of the National Health Service trusts and funded GP practices. He asked about the whole district trusts. Where these make sense, and the units involved are truly complementary, they will be considered on their merits. The key point will be whether they enhance choice rather than constrain it. As to the family practitioner committee/district health authority mergers, the White Paper saw these as a future possibility. However, in the short-term they would entail significant structural changes and so act as a distraction for all concerned at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, asked about the practicality of introducing National Health Service contracts. We agree that we have further improvements to make in measuring quality, but we are making progress. Specimen contracts provided as guidance already contain clear specifications on quality. Again, as my noble friend Lady Hooper has said, greater sophistication will develop over time. The development of medical audit will play a part here, and we were pleased to hear of the noble Lord's support.
Finally, I wish to turn briefly to the question of consultation and co-operation between the Government and the professions. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, alleged that we had not consulted or co-operated with the professions. I agree that co-operation with the National Health Service professions is vital. Since the White Paper Working for Patients was published last year, Ministerial colleagues, senior officials and the Secretary of State have met representative bodies and other groups and leaders of the medical professions on over 100 occasions. Meetings have also taken place with other professional groupings. We have been able to listen carefully to the views of the professions and have taken their points into account in developing the Government's proposals. We are always willing to enter into further constructive dialogue with them about how best to implement our plans. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has invited representatives of the Royal Colleges for discussion tomorrow.

1387
I appreciate that I have not answered a great many of the points that have been put to me in this long and interesting debate. We are now approaching a quarter to midnight and the debate has lasted almost nine hours. I hope that I have laid to rest some of the misconceptions and assuaged some of the more prominent concerns expressed, but noble Lords will appreciate that we shall have many hours in Committee and at other stages of the Bill to take discussion further forward.
The National Health Service and our social care services have provided a high quality of care over the past 40 years. But it would be a mistake to suppose that they can continue to respond, unchanged, to the constantly changing demands and pressures on them. The provisions in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill seek to build on all that is best in the health and social care services and to create a framework for services that can face the 1990s with confidence. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before midnight.

  COMMUNITY CHARGE: SERVICE PERSONNEL ON DETACHMENT
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: SERVICE PERSONNEL ON DETACHMENT
  WATER SHARE OFFERS: ADMINISTRATIVE COST ESTIMATES
  WATER SHARE OFFERS: ADMINISTRATIVE COST ESTIMATES
  RENT ARREARS
  RENT ARREARS
  UNESCO: UK MEMBERSHIP REVIEW
  UNESCO: UK MEMBERSHIP REVIEW
  IVORY TRADE BAN: HONG KONG
  IVORY TRADE BAN: HONG KONG
  INCONTINENCE: HEALTH AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE
  INCONTINENCE: HEALTH AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE
  EC ECONOMIC AND FINANCE COUNCIL, 31ST MARCH
  EC ECONOMIC AND FINANCE COUNCIL, 31ST MARCH
  PESTICIDES: APPROVAL FRAMEWORK
  PESTICIDES: APPROVAL FRAMEWORK
  PRISONS: INDUSTRIAL WORKSHOPS
  PRISONS: INDUSTRIAL WORKSHOPS
  PRISON MEDICAL SERVICE: NURSING POSTS
  PRISON MEDICAL SERVICE: NURSING POSTS
  PRISON POPULATION: ETHNIC ORIGIN
  PRISON POPULATION: ETHNIC ORIGIN