Sitting of 24 April 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  New Writ
  For the county constituency of Upper Bann, in the room of James Harold McCusker Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Molyneaux.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Low Wages
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to raise the number of prosecutions for firms paying below wages council minima.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The policy of the wages inspectorate under all Governments has been to seek compliance with wages council regulations by advice and persuasion and to prosecute only where an offence is deliberate or repeated and the evidence is considered sufficient. There are no plans to change that policy.
    Mr. Boyes: Is not it a scandal and an outrage that tens of thousands of workers are being paid below the minimum wage in companies such as Superbadge in my constituency? In view of the Minister's remarks, I hope that he will look into that company. The Government have been particularly vindictive in several ways. First, there is now only one inspector for 5,000 workers and there were only nine prosecutions in 1989—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question, please, not start a debate.
    Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I started by asking a question.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You did not.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did, but hon. Members should seek to limit their questions to one so that more hon. Members have an opportunity to participate.
    Mr. Boyes: I asked only one question. We should not give way to one hon. Member who shouts silly remarks.
    Is not it time that the numbers of prosecutions and inspectors were increased? Is not it time also that low-paid workers were protected by the Government instead of allowing companies to flout the regulations?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is to be complimented on packing a lot of nonsense into a short space of time. Far from there being evidence of widespread under-compliance by employers, even in premises checked by inspectors 96 to 97 per cent. of those employed are being paid in accordance with the law. On prosecution policy, it may be of some comfort for the hon. Gentleman to know that the rate of prosecutions is higher than it was under the Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular constituency case, I shall of course be delighted to look into it.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend firmly reject the Labour party's proposal for a statutory minimum wage? Does he agree that that would lead to people on low pay having no jobs at all, the misery of unemployment and all the consequences for families which go with that?
    Mr Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The overwhelming number of studies show that the minimum wage policy advocated by the Labour party would have that effect. The difficulty with Labour Members is that they cannot appreciate the fact that no job is worse than low pay.

    Government Training Schemes
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently engaged on Government training schemes.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): There are 377,700 young people currently engaged on Government training schemes. That figure does not include young people being educated and trained in the 29 inner city compacts and the 3,000 schools and colleges involved in the technical and vocational education initiative, which together cover a further 656,000 young people.
    Mr. Flannery: I hope that the Minister will agree that the quality of training depends on the availability of resources to train young people. Why is he cutting the cost per unit for training of our young people when our competitors in West Germany, for instance, are giving far more than we do to train their young people? Will the Secretary of State give serious thought to that when seeking to justify those cuts to the House?
    Mr. Howard: One thing that we are often told about West Germany is the contribution that employers make to the training of young people there. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the contribution made by our employers to the training of young people here has increased from £33 million to £200 million in the past four years. We expect that trend to continue and to contribute a great deal towards increasing the quality of training for our young people.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the criticisms that were made of the youth opportunities programme and the improvements that have been made in YTS? Would he like to tell the House that four out of every five people who go on a youth training scheme either get a job or go on to further education? Does he agree that that is a considerable achievement?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no comparison between the virtually nothing that was

    143
    done for training young people when the Labour Government were in office and the quality training received by 2 million people under the youth training scheme. My hon. Friend was right in his identification of the proportion who go into jobs or further education.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new contracts for training providers, especially in the voluntary sector, are in a state of near chaos with literally thousands of training places for those with special training needs being put at risk? Is he aware that one voluntary organisation, for the resettlement of young offenders, has put the whole of its 250 youth training staff under threat of redundancy? What steps is the Secretary of State taking as a matter of urgency to ensure that those with special training needs—the most vulnerable in our work force—are not the first casualties of the enormous cut in youth training?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly will not confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said. The contracts with the training providers are still under negotiation. They have not yet been finalised. When we finalise them we shall take full account of those with special needs. Before the hon. Gentleman talks about resources, he should have a word with the shadow Chief Secretary who has conspicuously omitted to include training as one of the two priority areas on which it is claimed that a Labour Government would increase spending.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Employment Training Services (East Midlands) Ltd. at Hinckley in my constituency, which was formed under his programme, has been so successful that it has had a 90 per cent. occupancy rate with 50 per cent. of those being trained there going on to take up jobs? Indeed, I was privileged to be able to open its new training centre in March this year.
    Mr. Howard: I know of the close interest that my hon. Friend takes in that scheme, which is typical of the excellence of the training being provided for young people all over the country.

    Engineering Apprenticeships
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of engineering apprenticeships available in the west midlands (a) in 1979, (b) in 1984 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Nicholls: Engineering apprenticeships are essentially a matter between an employer and the individual trainee; no regular statistics are maintained about them. There are a number of training routes for skilled engineering and technician workers, of which apprenticeships are only one.
    The engineering industry training board however, compiles a register of those completing the first stage of engineering craft and technician training. For the west midlands area the figures are 3,710 in 1978–79, 1,320 in 1983–84 and 1,903 in 1988–89.
    Mr. Grocott: The House will understand why the Minister wanted to fudge that reply. The answer from official Department of Employment statistics in that in 1981 manufacturing apprenticeships in the west midlands
    144
    totalled 17,700 whereas in 1989 the figure had fallen to 6,900. Is not that a dreadful indictment of 10 years of Thatcherism? How on earth can we expect to compete in the 1990s if we are not giving our young people the apprenticeship opportunities that they have had in the past?
    Mr. Nicholls: The only indictment is that of the hon. Gentleman for not having read his own question before coming into the Chamber. He has just asked a supplementary question about manufacturing apprenticeships when his main question dealt with engineering apprenticeships. I have given the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question. I assume that other opportunities are of some interest to the hon. Gentleman, so he should note that there were 4,700 engineering training places available on YTS in the west midlands and 4,500 trainees. That is something which he ought to welcome, but clearly he will not.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that many good things are happening in training in Birmingham, as is shown by the fact that Rover is taking on 1,200 more people with its almost unique 24-hour scheme for building cars? Does my hon. Friend also agree that one of the problems in training has been that unions are loth to have apprenticeships because they often demand starting salaries which are too high for people who are learning? Also, unions think that people who are training are taking their jobs. How are we to create new jobs when that obscurantist attitude persists?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If one considers the decline in the apprenticeships system, one realises that, by and large, what killed that system off was union pressure to pay apprentices virtually the same rate as qualified people. The good thing about that is that in recent years, under this Government, ways of obtaining training other than traditional apprenticeships have been devised. That is good news, and it underpins the good news to which my hon. Friend referred a moment ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is not the real decline in apprenticeships in the west midlands a direct result of the Government's policies on training? Has not the 100 per cent. decline in apprenticeships over the past 10 years led to skill shortages in the engineering industry in the west midlands? It is clear from the Minister's answer that the Government have been concerned with quantity and not quality. That is why so many firms in the west midlands engineering industry are looking for skilled workers. The Government have failed young people and the engineering industry in the past decade.
    Mr. Nicholls: Virtually nothing in what the hon. Gentleman says accords with the facts. He bemoans the fact that in his constituency firms are looking for skilled workers. We can accept it from him that under a Labour Government they would not be making that search because there would be no possibility of offering jobs. The hon. Gentleman's position would be a great deal more credible if every training initiative that the Government have launched, such as employment training, training and enterprise councils and the youth training scheme had not been attacked and denigrated by the Opposition. That is their contribution to training and it is a thoroughgoing disgrace.

    Job Clubs
    Mr. Ashby: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs have been established in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): At 28 February this year, there were 994 job clubs in Great Britain.
    Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend confirm that more than half the people who enter job clubs find jobs and that in the past five years some 200,000 people have come out of job clubs into jobs? Is not that a good record?
    Mr. Eggar: I can, indeed, confirm that. In addition to the 216,000 people who found jobs via job clubs, a further 55,000 have gone into training or some type of full-time education. I recommend that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have not already done so should go and see their local job clubs in action. They are an impressive way of getting people back into jobs.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is a Westminster job club for people who are after the Prime Minister's job? How many Tory Members, Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers have joined that job club? Will the Minister be one of those voting for the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)?
    Mr. Eggar: One thing is absolutely certain. Hon. Members on neither side of the House would want to be advised on their job club search by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that job clubs in those parts of the country where unemployment is low have a problem dealing with clients who have difficulties with reading and writing? To what extent could increased efforts be made to help people with such difficulties to find the confidence to go out and obtain jobs?
    Mr. Eggar: Yes, indeed. This is a growing problem. We have started some 15 pilot job clubs which specialise in helping people with literacy and numeracy difficulties and with difficulties with English as a second language. The preliminary statistical evidence of the results of those job clubs has been that as many people have found jobs from them as from job clubs in general.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current total of unemployed in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Howard: In March 1990 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,603,600, which is 5·6 per cent. of the work force. The European Community average rate for February, the latest available date, was 8·6 per cent.
    Mr. Allen: As the Secretary of State always refuses to tell us when the unemployment level will come down to 1979 levels, does he recall the Prime Minister's remark in 1983 that unemployment would return to 1979 levels in the long run? Is this one of the Prime Minister's long runs which will go on and on and on?
    Mr. Howard: I have good news for the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will share my rejoicing in it. There are
    146
    1·5 million more jobs now than there were in 1979—more than 27 million jobs in total. Will he join me in rejoicing at that figure?
    Mr. Dunn: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to speculate on the impact that the high-spending, high-taxing, high-inflation, trade-union-dominated policies of the Labour party would have on employment levels?
    Mr. Howard: Unemployment levels would undoubtedly be far higher than they are now, not least because of the one policy above all to which the Labour party is utterly committed—that is, making striking easier. That would undoubtedly have a devastating effect on employment.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware of the exploitation of the unemployed represented by the growth in private security firms which pay as little as 95p per hour and make overtime of up to 12 hours per week mandatory on employees? Is he saying that that exploitation of the unemployed is a matter for rejoicing? Is not it time that he got off his backside and started to bring the excesses of such cowboys under the control of the law?
    Mr. Howard: I do not see how that could be regarded as exploitation of the unemployed. It is important that jobs are available to the unemployed, as they now are to a greater extent than ever before.
    Mr. Madel: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government will not interfere directly or indirectly in wage negotiations and that it is entirely up to management and unions to work out settlements to keep the maximum number of people in work?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is equally incumbent on all concerned to have regard to the long-term consequences of their actions so that jobs are not lost because of excessive settlements.

    Tourist Accommodation
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of accommodation within the British tourist industry after the introduction of the poll tax.
    Mr. Nicholls: There is no evidence to suggest that the introduction of the community charge will have any significant effect on the provision of tourist accommodation.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister not understand that bed-and-breakfast accommodation owners who will have to pay double poll tax if they open for more than 100 days a year will simply shut their doors after 99 days? Does he not understand that that will inhibit the promotion of tourism, especially in our region where it is spread throughout the year? At best, will not it force up bed-and-breakfast charges?
    Mr. Nicholls: No, the hon. Gentleman is confusing several matters. The 100-day exemption was introduced as a result of pressure from the tourist industry which wanted such a concession made. At present such a concession can be based only on the views and, if the hon. Gentleman likes, the fears that people have. In due course the evidence will be available and it must be taken into account. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been using

    147
    his question as an opportunity to remind the House that business rate bills in Birmingham for 1990–91 have been reduced by just under 30 per cent. on average—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not have answers to questions that have not been asked.
    Mr. Bevan: Would it not, by implication, do far more damage to those running bed-and-breakfast accommodation if a roof tax were introduced?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I suspect that, once again, that is a policy which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and his colleagues will not tell us about today.
    Mr. Wallace: May I direct the Minister's mind to another possible and worrying implication of the poll tax for the tourist industry and for other small businesses—the fact that many small business employers will find that they are obliged to attach the wages of many of their employees who have not paid the poll tax? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of that on industrial relations in small businesses and of the administrative burden that it will impose on those businesses, including those in the tourist industry?
    Mr. Nicholls: I do not see how a question about enforcement arrangements relating to legislation passed through the House properly arises under this question. However, I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman if he feels that such arrangements would be an inhibition to the tourist industry.

    Career Development Loans
    Mr. Moss: T: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been approved for career development loans.
    Mr. Eggar: Since the career development loans became available nationally in July 1988, more than 8,300 people have taken advantage of career development loans to pay for their own vocational training. Those loans had a total value of more than £20 million.
    Mr. Moss: After last year's expansion of some 48 per cent. in the career development loan programme, can my hon. Friend confirm that it is due to increase by a further 65 per cent. in the current year? Is that a concrete example of the Government's commitment to increase incentives and opportunities for people to train?
    Mr. Eggar: I can certainly confirm that. The programme is an extremely exciting and innovative proposal, which has been widely accepted and taken up. It is a cost-effective way in which people can get additional vocational qualifications to further their careers.
    Mr. Rowe: Is not it true that the gradual shift towards people appreciating that training themselves is their responsibility and their opportunity constitutes our best chance of turning the country into one which can compete with our European competitors in training? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the career development loans are just one shot in an armoury, which I hope is well stocked, of measures that will encourage people to take responsibility for their own training?
    Mr. Eggar: Yes. That is also the thought behind the formation of the new training and enterprise councils, which are designed so that local employers can provide the kind of training and enterprise assistance appropriate to the locality. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recently announced the training credit system to help young people. That is yet another example of the kind outlined by my hon. Friend.

    Health and Safety
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to extend health and safety protection at the workplace.
    Mr. Nicholls: The Health and Safety Commission is responsible for bringing forward proposals for the progressive modernisation of health and safety legislation. Details of the commission's future legislative programme will be contained in its plan of work for 1990–91 and beyond, to be published shortly.
    Ms. Mowlam: I thank the Minister for that answer. Obviously we are interested in 1990–91, but we are also interested in the record that went before. Given that the employment medical advisory service has cut the number of doctors from 78 to 47 and there have been 147 deaths in the construction industry, can the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied with the amount of funding that the Health and Safety Executive receives?
    Mr. Nicholls: The figures for EMAS arise under a later question, but the hon. Lady asks primarily about funding. In recent years, requests by the Commission under the public expenditure survey have been met in full. How the commission decides to allocate resources in accordance with the sums for which it has asked is clearly a matter for the commission.
    Mr. Paice: Rather than extending the already high standards of health and safety provisions in this country, is not it more important to ensure that equally high standards obtain throughout Europe? Those standards should be monitored effectively to ensure that European competition is fair and is not advantaged through exploitation of foreign workers.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the dimensions of being part of the European Community is phasing together approaches to health and safety that may not always be in kilter. We must take that into account and I will bear in mind the warning that my hon. Friend has given.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the internal review document of the Health and Safety Executive says that even if the short-term recruitment plans for the inspectorate are met it will still be 16 per cent. short of the numbers that it estimates necessary to meet all demands? It states:
    "It seems unavoidable that for the foreseeable future the inspectorate will continue to have a considerably greater workload than it can cope with."
    In the light of that, how can the Minister hold to the view that he has already expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam)—that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for its own budget? Clearly, the HSE did not ask for enough money and, as a result, the Government did not make enough money available to it.
    Mr. Nicholls: I hesitate to say to the hon. Gentleman that he should have read that internal document more carefully, but it is a fair point for all that. The position is exactly as I said, that the bids made by HSE in recent years have been met in full. If the commission feels that, in the light of developments, more money is required, it will put forward that view. For the time being, the position is precisely as I described it.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures the Government are taking to encourage donation of funds by companies to training and enterprise councils.
    Mr. Howard: The Government are providing matching funding on a pound-for-pound basis against donations by companies and other private sources to training and enterprise councils up to a limit of £125,000 per TEC in the first operational year. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech that any individuals or companies that donate funds to TECs to support their activities will be able to claim tax relief on their contributions.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that companies are responding extremely well to the challenge of setting up local training and enterprise councils? Is he heartened by what has happened so far, and is not that far better than the Labour party's proposal in its recent policy document to set up a national network of quangos at a cost of more than £1,000 million a year?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm surrounding the setting up of training and enterprise councils. I pay tribute to the Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council, in my hon. Friend's constituency. I expect to receive its proposed corporate and business plans next month, and I look forward to that.
    Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to let hon. Members go away this afternoon without recognising the great concern among TECs throughout the country, particularly those setting up, at the major cuts in the training budget, which mean that they will be unable to carry out work of the quality and in the way that they would like. I particularly ask him to look at the problems in Durham county, where industries say that they will simply be unable to meet the shortfall. Where there are still high levels of unemployment and skill shortages, it will be impossible to deliver the quality and amount of training needed.
    Mr. Howard: There are no major cuts, and what the hon. Lady said was entirely wrong. We have already signed contracts with 12 training and enterprise councils, which are now operational and delivering the services and training needed in their areas. This is an extremely exciting initiative, and instead of carping and whingeing, it would be nice, if only for once, if the Opposition were to recognise its importance.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the principal benefits of training and enterprise councils is to allow local business men more adequately to focus the wide variety of training schemes,
    150
    in both the Government and private sector, on the needs of their local areas? Does he further agree that crucial to this enterprise is the ability of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to rationalise equally the 12,000 different technical qualifications available to the benefit of employer and employee alike?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's question. Local employers are in the best position to know what training is needed to fill the jobs available in their areas and to match the training with the skills required. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the part played by vocational qualifications in achieving those objectives.
    Mr. McLeish: Is not it a pity that the Government have to rely on charity to tackle Britain's skills crisis? Will the Secretary of State admit that, as a result of Government cuts, his training and enterprise programmes are in a state of disarray? Will he come clean and tell the House why, in this financial year, £164 million has been cut from youth training, £40 million from the enterprise allowance scheme and £88 million from employment training? Is not the Government's flagship of training, TECs, likely to head for the rocks soon as a result of insensitivity, investment cuts and sheer incompetence?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. What the Labour party cannot accept is that what it is proposing to achieve by compulsion—increasing employers' contributions to training—we are achieving through voluntary means. That is the great achievement of this Government; we have seen it happen over the past four years and we are seeing it happen increasingly. I should have thought that Opposition Members would recognise that and pay tribute to it instead of denigrating it as the hon. Gentleman just did.

    Tourist Infrastructure, Hexham
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will visit the Hexham constituency to assess the tourist infrastructure; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to visit Hexham. However, my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde has recently met representatives of the tourism industry in the north-east and hopes to pay further visits to that region soon.
    Mr. Amos: I am sure that my hon. Friend will enjoy his visit to what is generally regarded as the most beautiful constituency in the country, but will he have discussions with his colleague in the Department of Transport to ensure better access to sites such as Hadrian's wall and Langley castle by improving signposting to those areas and by dualling the A69 west of Hexham? Will he also ensure greater private sector involvement with the Northumbrian tourist board?
    Mr. Nicholls: Coming from a tourist area myself, I share my hon. Friend's concerns about signposting. He will know, I think, that the English tourist board has asked the regional tourist boards to consider again the whole issue of signposting for tourist purposes. I am sure that that will reassure my hon. Friend.

    151
    I understand that there are no present plans to dual the A69, although other improvements are being made to it, but that is a matter which my hon. Friend will want to take up with the Department of Transport.
    As for funding, I, like my hon. Friend, pay tribute to the work done in Northumbria. But I fully accept that in an industry in which self-employment is highly represented, the more private sector money that can be injected, the better.

    Engineering Training
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what methods he uses to assess value for money with regard to engineering training for young people.
    Mr. Nicholls: We assess value for money in public expenditure on youth training by the number of young people obtaining the skills needed by employers reflected in the achievement of recognised vocational qualifications.
    Dr. Clark: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite considerable efforts in recent years, this country has fallen consistently behind its major competitors in respect of the number of young people in engineering and the quality of their engineering training? Are the ad hoc, ever-changing, piecemeal schemes that we have now appropriate, or should we return to a structured but modern form of apprenticeship?
    Mr. Nicholls: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. Youth training in recent times under this Government has improved considerably on what took place under the previous Government. Engineering training on YTS is extremely effective; more than 50 per cent. of trainees leave YTS with a vocational qualification. Overseas comparisons are difficult because different countries do these things in different ways, but apprenticeships in themselves are only a delivery mechanism, and other factors must be taken into account, too.
    Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that engineering training received a great boost in my constituency in the form of a £1 million extension to Stroud college recently, and that 60 per cent. of that money came from local employers, so that courses can be directly relevant to local employment prospects? Is not that a good thing?
    Mr. Nicholls: It certainly is. It also says something about the quality of training in engineering provided under YTS. About 75 per cent. of engineering trainees on YTS are in a job within three months of leaving the scheme, and that is obviously good.

    Training Schemes
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many individuals under the age of 21 years are currently being trained under Government-sponsored schemes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: There are about 371,500 trainees on YTS and about 6,200 on community industry. They are all under the age of 21. In addition, 656,000 young people are being educated and trained in the 29 inner-city compacts and the 3,000 schools and colleges involved in the technical
    152
    and vocational education initiative. I have no information on the number of the 210,000 people on employment training who are under 21.
    Mr. Brown: Is not it clear that cheap labour schemes are no substitute for fully fledged apprenticeships? Is not it time that the Secretary of State learnt the lesson of West Germany, which believes in that system? Is not it time that he responded to the needs of this country? Will he meet the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and indeed the Amalgamated Engineering Union, to discuss this matter, which is one of the most pressing issues in the country? Unless the Government invest in people, they invest in nothing.
    Mr. Howard: These are not cheap labour schemes. They provide high-quality training and the sooner that the Opposition recognise that instead of denigrating and opposing every initiative that is taken to improve training, the better we shall all be.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the guarantee that training is of good quality for those under 21 is that employers are willing to invest their own money in the training? If they were not willing to do that, it would show that the training was not of good quality.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen a spectacular increase in the extent to which employers contribute to the cost of training, especially of young people, and we expect that increase to continue.
    Dr. Reid: Has the Minister or any of his colleagues had the opportunity to study the Scottish Trades Union Congress youth committee report on YTS, which was presented to the STUC last week? Is he aware that that report illustrates that three out of four people leave YTS before the end of the scheme, that the training content is normally derisory and that the scheme has led to the abolition of apprenticeships in industry? Is it not about time that the Minister listened to those with real experience of the workings of YTS and tried to remedy the major defects in the scheme?
    Mr. Howard: I have not seen the report that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but it is completely at variance with the fact that 80 per cent. of those who complete their training on YTS go into jobs or further training. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind, because it is a tribute to the efficacy and success of YTS.

    Training, Fylde
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what forms of training that receive Government financial support are available in Fylde.
    Mr. Nicholls: My Department currently provides training in Fylde through a range of programmes including youth training, employment training and business growth training. A prospective training and enterprise council is also undertaking a wide-ranging assessment of the training needs of west Lancashire and will set out its proposals to meet those needs in its corporate and business plans.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. His comments about the new training and enterprise council in

    153
    west Lancashire are warmly welcomed. Will he ensure that his Department responds properly to concerns expressed to me about changed arrangements for the funding of training of young people in the Fylde area?
    Mr. Nicholls: I fully accept that the recontracting processs has inevitably caused such concerns. If my hon. Friend has a specific concern that he would like to raise with me, I should be more than happy to see him.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for unemployment benefit were refused in 1989; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eggar: No applications were refused, but under established procedures independent adjudication officers made some 634,500 decisions to disallow or disqualify claims for unemployment benefit.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that an increasing number of people are losing unemployment benefit, because, even though they qualified for it by paying the stamps while at work, many employers nowadays do not hand the money over to the state? That means that when people become unemployed they are unable to get unemployment benefit because the stamps have not been paid. Will the Minister now reverse the process of 1984, when this Tory Government passed a law enabling such employers not to hand over the money and not to be prosecuted? Is not it time that they were prosecuted for taking money out of somebody's pocket and depriving that person of benefit?
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that in the few places where employers have not followed the correct procedures, action is taken. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had welcomed the fact that we have saved some £62 million as a result of fraud investigations over the past year.
    Mr. Dickens: Is not it about time that the Opposition showed more concern about benefit fraud? It is disgusting for somebody to register as unemployed and not to give evidence that he is actively seeking employment. Many people are seeking a free ride.
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is for precisely that reason that we have put significant additional resources into work to ensure that fraud is uncovered.

    Skill Centres
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department takes to ensure that new owners of skill centres are equipped to meet the demands of local industry.
    Mr. Eggar: My Department took professional advice to ensure that all successful offers met the Government's objectives for the sale. The major objective was the sale to the private sector of viable training businesses. Skill centres in the private sector will be more responsive to the needs of local businesses.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the St. Helens skill centre was disposed of without local staff or
    154
    local organisations being given an opportunity to bid for it? Does he acknowledge that the new owners have no knowledge of the requirements of industry in St. Helens?
    Mr. Eggar: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. The St. Helens skill centre has fulfilled a valuable service to the local community. The new purchasers have every intention of ensuring that that continues. The staff always had the facility to make a bid for the skill centre had they so wished. Indeed, the management buy-out scheme through Astra was actually a buy-out by management of 48 skill centres.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later this afternoon I shall leave for Turkey to be present at the 75th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing tomorrow.
    Mr. Oppenheim: When my right hon. Friend has an opportunity, will she remind Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand that their countries have steadfastly refused fully to open their markets in areas such as telecommunications, transport and air travel? Will she also take the opportunity to remind them that it is complete nonsense to talk about political and economic union when we have not yet even achieved a fully open internal market?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I agree that it is far better to complete the task that we already have in hand, especially the completion of the single market, to ensure that there is fair competition throughout the Community and that the directives for the single market are enforced equally throughout the Community.
    When it comes to other matters such as political union, it is best first to define that, because it means different things to different countries. If it goes to the root of different institutions we would have quite a lot to say, including the fact that the powers of national Parliaments must continue to be conserved and that the Community should do only those things that it can do better than individual countries.
    Mr. Kinnock: Following the right hon. Lady's inquiries, does she now think that it is true that Walter Somers and her hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) were told by the Department of Trade and Industry that the export order to Iraq did not need a licence?
    The Prime Minister: I made the position on export licences for the gun absolutely clear in my answers to the right hon. Gentleman last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) has provided some very helpful details and officials are matching them with their records and recollections. Investigations are in hand by Customs and Excise which is the proper authority to discover the facts and it is getting together all the documents. It is for Customs and Excise to make a

    155
    decision on how to proceed. In the meantime, we should congratulate it on intercepting the parts of the gun before they reached Iraq.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister and I warmly endorse her congratulations, which have been well earned, to Customs and Excise. If a company that has experience in these matters says to a Government Department, "We have doubts about an order"; "we are willing to withdraw from that order"; "we are willing to carry on with that order"; or "we are willing to have it traced", what advice does the Prime Minister think such a company should receive from a Government Department?
    The Prime Minister: The first advice to any investigating authority is to find out all the facts. That is the task of Customs and Excise, which, as it is the authority which decides whether there should be any prosecution, is the investigating authority—all the facts, and find them first.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the review of the top European companies in The Sunday Times, which shows that of the top 50, two came from Germany, eight from France and 28 from Britain? Will my right hon. Friend find time to congratulate each and every one of those British companies and will she use all her persuasive powers to get the tiniest little cheer on behalf of British achievement from the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I saw the report in The Sunday Times and gladly offer our congratulations to those British firms among the top 50 companies, which are quite excellent and give a great lead to Europe. It also augurs well for the Government's policies. We do not want protectionism for Britain because we can compete in the markets of the world and implement all the Common Market directives. We hope that others will follow our example.
    Mr. Beggs: Is the Prime Minister aware that families in Northern Ireland have to pay £5 to £6 per week more for energy because we are cut off from the national gas grid in Great Britain? Is she aware of the proposal, presently funded to the tune of £100 million by the EEC, to pipe gas from Morecambe bay to Dundalk in the Irish Republic? What will she do to ensure that gas for the Irish Republic from Morecambe bay is routed through Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the town gas industry in Northern Ireland was closed down many years ago because it was not economic and it would be enormously expensive to start it up again. A few years ago we considered the possibility of obtaining gas from Kinsale in the Republic, but we came to the conclusion that it was just not worth the colossal expenditure, and I think that that would be our conclusion about the present proposal.
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to carry on conversations? It is very disruptive.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a Scotsman sitting for a Welsh seat can face as great a dilemma about which team to support as an Asian living in Bradford? Does she further agree that the true test of a person's loyalty to his country is the contribution that he makes to it, not which cricket team he cheers, and that we can look forward to as viable a contribution from the Hong Kong Chinese who come here as we have long had from the West Indians, the Ugandan Asians and many others?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I gladly pay tribute to the contribution made by all communities to Britain's national life. We are pleased that the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill had a good Second Reading and that the Labour party's squalid, cynical and opportunistic behaviour on that Bill has been so widely recognised for what it was.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the group of general practitioners who banned constituents of mine from their future lists because those constituents live on two council estates? The doctors said that they were expensive and difficult patients to treat. Does not that prove our argument that the general practitioners' contracts will mean a two-tier service—a well-financed and well-organised service for the rich, and a second-rate, second-class service for the rest?
    The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the details of the case that he mentions, and knows that the practice in question was pursuing only its usual policy in respect of the areas from which it takes patients. The council estates are some way from that particular practice. The general practitioners concerned have written a public letter, in which they make it clear that there was nothing unusual about their decision and that they were following only their usual policy. No part of their action was due to reforms of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Bevan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bevan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain needs a high-wage, high-productivity economy to produce the type of industry that this country requires? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the settlement reached at Longbridge proves that management, by employing large sums of capital, can create even more highly paid jobs round the clock—and in that instance produce fine motor cars?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that high wages must be earned by high productivity—and, we hope, with something left over to help reduce prices to the consumer. I congratulate Rover on the agreement that it reached, which provides for the first time in this country continuous operation for 24 hours a day, seven days a week—which will lead to 1,200 extra jobs and

    157
    increased productivity. Rover is rapidly becoming one of this country's most efficient manufacturers, producing about 20 vehicles per employee, compared with only six in 1979.
    Mr. Kaufman: Thanks to its workers.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, they are to be thoroughly congratulated. I hope that Britain will achieve more sales at home and more exports.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: With the number of people undergoing eyesight tests falling by one third since the introduction of charges, and with one optician in five threatened with closure—one practice closed in my own constituency only today—will the Prime Minister review the introduction of charges for eye tests and at least help all old-age pensioners, who comprise the group most at risk from eye diseases that are in some cases sight threatening and life threatening—and who, by and large, are those least able to pay?
    The Prime Minister: No. Quite naturally, the number of eye tests increased shortly before charges were introduced, so it is not surprising that it has fallen subsequently. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are special arrangements for people who have particularly bad eyesight or who are related to those who suffer from conditions such as glaucoma.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that those of us who have close, family connections with the Gallipoli campaign of 1915 are very glad that she is to attend the commemoration marking its 75th anniversary? Will my right hon. Friend also emphasise that ANZAC day for the Australians and New
    158
    Zealanders, like Remembrance Sunday for us, is a very sacred day when, blessedly, party politics are forgotten and we remember those who served and suffered so that we may live in freedom and peace?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and thank him for letting me have his book on the Gallipoli campaign. We shall not only remember our dead from all parts of the United Kingdom, but we shall pay tribute especially to those from Australia and New Zealand who played such a glorious part in that battle. We shall all commemorate it in precisely the spirit expressed by my hon. Friend.
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Mowlam: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that Customs and Excise cannot be expected to decide which Government Department is responsible for the Iraqi gun affair? Will she therefore now tell the House which Department and which Minister is responsible?
    The Prime Minister: Customs and Excise, in a case such as this, is the prosecuting authority. It is not for Government Departments to decide whether there was anything wrong in the application. That is for Customs and Excise. It cannot do that until it has completed the investigation.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must have a chance to answer.
    The Prime Minister: In all legal matters, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, it is as well to find out all the facts, particularly before Customs and Excise cart reach a conclusion.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a tradition of this House that, when the Government are represented in matters such as ANZAC day, invitations are extended to the Official Opposition party of the day? Why was that not done?
Mr. Speaker: I am not aware that the House is being represented and therefore that is not a matter for me.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister made the point that we—[HON. MEMBERS: "Can't hear."]—ought to get the facts in relation to what is happening in relation to the so-called gun for Iraq. How can we get the facts when the Secretary of State concerned refused to answer questions in this House on the basis that there might be or could be or possibly would be a court case pending? You said, Mr. Speaker, that there was no question of sub judice. How can we put questions about getting the facts when the Secretary of State concerned refuses to answer questions? How can we put it to the Government when they are not prepared to give us the answers?
Mr. Speaker: How the Secretary of State answers questions is a matter for him. The content of his answers is not a matter for me.
Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to return to a matter which other hon. Members have raised. However, the first half minute of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) was almost entirely inaudible on the Conservative Benches. The question of the microphones must be addressed as a matter of emergency.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that there is a written answer on that matter today in Hansard.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I seek your advice on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Among the many amendments which the House will debate tonight, several have not been selected—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I stop the hon. Lady there? That is not a matter for me. When the House is in Committee, the hon. Lady should raise the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means when he takes the Chair. I do not select amendments for Committee stages of Bills.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for the Environment to go to a constituency without informing the relevant Member? Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for the Environment visited my constituency today? He sneaked in unannounced and issued a press release excusing his poll tax capping of Calderdale.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly it is a convention of the House that, when we go to the constituencies of other hon. Members, we always inform them. We have a very heavy day in front of us.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Brian Wilson rose——
Mr. Donald Thompson: On a point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson: I genuinely seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. It is a recognised fact, which has been written and commented on, that on several occasions, wholly inadvertently, the Prime Minister misled the House because——
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the word was "inadvertent".
Mr. Wilson: It was definitely "inadvertent". I am referring to poverty statistics. The Prime Minister repeatedly—and, I have no doubt, in good faith—came to the Dispatch Box and quoted statistics that, it has now been accepted, were diametrically wrong. The corrected statistics have appeared in Hansard in answer to a written question. However, Ministers came repeatedly to the Dispatch Box and used the figures to boast that the rate of economic improvement of the poorest in this country was twice the national average. Now that this has been diametrically denied by the Department concerned, surely Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who used the false statistics are obliged to come to retract them.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman on such procedural matters. He must find other ways of dealing with it.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Donald Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: This is getting contagious.
Mr. Thompson: I apologise for intervening, Mr. Speaker, but, as a result of the accoustics of the House, I did not hear you call the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), is it not right and proper that those who call themselves shadow Ministers should inform us when they visit our constituencies?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us always stick to the conventions of the House, which are of long standing. We should always as a matter of courtesy inform hon. Members if we go to their constituencies.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I call Dr. Cunningham.
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The High Court has just announced that it has agreed that the 21 poll tax-capped Labour local authorities have the right to have the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment reconsidered and examined by judicial review. As the matter is related to the subject down for debate tomorrow, and as in this case,

161
unlike the fiasco of the Iraqi gun, a case is proceeding, is it in order for the subject to be discussed tomorrow, and can we expect Ministers to answer questions on it?
Mr. Roger Knapman rose——
Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should need to look carefully at the Opposition motion to decide that matter. I was not previously aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said. As a general principle, I believe that it would be in order for him to proceed, bearing in mind that he should not mention anything that is sub judice. It seems to have been a rather lucky choice.
Mr. Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely all that the High Court has done is give leave for a determination of the facts; it has not as yet determined any facts.
Mr. Speaker: I have already told the House that I have no knowledge of the matter. I shall need to look into it.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, 650 unsolicited and unwanted boxes were delivered to the House. I believe that such——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We dealt with that matter yesterday.
Mr. Rowe: But I am raising a totally different point.
Mr. Speaker: How different can it possibly be?
Mr. Rowe: I believe that such deliveries constitute a serious security risk. It is highly likely that they could put us all in danger. In any event, are you satisfied——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the same point. I said yesterday that I was looking into the matter, for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take one more—Mr. Knapman.
Mr. Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There may be an error in the Order Paper today. In question No. 15, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was asking about Government sponsored schemes for training under-21s. Is it not more likely that the hon. Gentleman meant to ask about training for the over-21s?
Mr. Speaker: I have no idea. Let us now move on the the ten-minute rule motion. Mr. Amess.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Very well. Dr. Paisley.
Rev. Paisley: When replying to the various points of order that have been raised today, you commented. Mr. Speaker, that it was a convention of the House for Ministers visiting the constituencies of hon. Members to make it known to the Members in question that they intended to visit their constituencies. May I ask you to call the attention of Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office to that convention, as they never abide by it and certainly never inform Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies when they intend to make such visits?
Mr. Speaker: I was not referring just to Ministers. I was referring to a convention of the House that should apply to all.

Dogs Bill
3.42 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the keeping of certain breeds of dog; to provide for a licensing scheme in respect of those breeds; to provide for increased penalties for the ill-treatment of dogs and for connected purposes.
I freely admit to being a dog lover, although I do not at present own a dog. I have a young family who keep us fully occupied, often behaving as though they were wayward puppies. It is with sadness that I feel it necessary to introduce this Bill, which deals with a serious matter that should be widely discussed.
We are a nation of animal lovers, particulary compared with the way in which the people of many other countries treat their animals. Many people in Britain look after their animals wonderfully well. In certain respects, some of them have a higher regard for animals than they have for human beings. But there is a section of the population who treat animals, and dogs in particular, in an utterly despicable fashion.
Cruelty to animals is intolerable in a civilised society and I hope that the House will view with alarm the RSPCA's recently published statistics, revealing an increase in animal cruelty. Of 2,026 convictions last year, 1,131 involved cruelty to dogs. Owning a dog is a considerable responsibility, and is not to be taken lightly.
My Bill attempts, no doubt in an imperfect fashion, to halt the trend in cruelty. It is in no way directed towards dogs but, rather, towards irresponsible dog owners. I propose that offences involving cruelty to dogs would result in an obligatory disqualification, similar to that imposed in drink-driving offences. Such disqualification could be made automatic in all cases involving cruelty to dogs under section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.
I propose a minimum disqualification period of three years. There would be an obligatory disqualification for owners of dogs, subject to orders being introduced under the excellent measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. There would be obligatory life disqualification from keeping any animal on a second conviction within 10 years of the first conviction for cruelty. There would also be power in severe cases to commit defendants convicted of cruelty to dogs for sentence at the Crown court. In such circumstances, maximum sentences would be extended from six months to five years imprisonment.
Over recent months, there has been widespread concern about the number of dog attacks on children and adults. In the past year, there were some fatalities as a result of such attacks. There is a clear lack of confidence in the ability of certain owners properly to control the behaviour of their dogs. Of course, there are differing views of what could be termed dangerous dogs, but there can be little doubt that certain breeds are strong candidates—for example, rottweilers, German shepherds, pit hull terriers, dobermans, Staffordshire bull terriers and bull terriers. I am quite certain that it is not beyond the wit of the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for the Environment, together with the Kennel Club and the RSPCA, to draw up an agreed list of potentially dangerous dogs.
Because certain dog owners have not looked after their dogs properly, some horrific attacks have resulted in
164
terrible injuries being inflicted upon people. Perhaps to balance that statement, I should draw to the attention of the House an attack last month on a six-year-old girl, when her pet Alsation jumped on her and threw her about like a rag, with the result that she needed 120 stitches and considerable plastic surgery.
Sadly, violence in society today is commonplace. The aggressive behaviour of certain individuals is increasing and is being reflected in the behaviour of some irresponsible dog owners. During a 12-month period in which dog attacks caused 20 deaths, researchers in the United States found that most were caused by so-called defence breeds. Further concern has centred on the cross between a pit bull terrier and a Rhodesian ridgeback. All animals in the study were kept by young people between the ages of 18 and 25. Sadly, half of them had served prison sentences. Also, 40 per cent. of the owners had committed violent crimes and half the dogs that carried out the attacks had been cruelly treated and bore the scars of such cruelty. Clearly, violence on the part of dog owners is likely to encourage similar behaviour in their dogs.
The Bill would require the breeders of potentially dangerous dogs to acquire a licence through a register compiled by a local authority. The register would note to whom the dogs were sold, and it would be a condition of the breeding licence that such details were provided annually. Such a list would serve a useful purpose in tracing the owners of potentially dangerous dogs and crossbreeds. The register would be welcomed by responsible breeders and help to improve the esteem of a slightly tarnished activity. The police would also welcome such a measure, as it would help their investigations when attacks are carried out.
The Bill would also require owners to muzzle potentially dangerous breeds when they are not on a lead in public places or not in their habitual quarters—that is, their keepers' private premises. Section 3 of the Pet Animals Act 1951 should be amended so that no animal, in particular a dog, should be sold to a minor.
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: What's wrong with miners?
Mr. Amess: I am referring to a minor in the sense of a young person between 12 and 16.
It is utterly indefensible that a 13-year-old child can purchase a rottweiler. That may seem harsh, but before even a hamster is purchased, it is absolutely essential that the parent gives full consent. Children may love animals and may be eager to obtain all sorts of species, but they can soon tire of what is involved in giving the care and attention that is needed when looking after all sorts of pets.
Finally, the Bill would require the owners of potentially dangerous dogs to have some form of third-party insurance as an obvious protection for the general public, who are always in danger of such attacks. I am not suggesting that the measures that I have briefly outlined provide all the answers to the difficult problems that we face in controlling potentially dangerous dogs. However, I believe that they provide a foundation for constructive legislation on what is a growing problem.
A dog may be a man's best friend, but a man is not necessarily a dog's best friend. I hope that the House will redress that by supporting this sensible and constructive Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. David Alton, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Terry Lewis, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Dogs Bill
  DOGS
  Mr. Davis Amess accordingly presented a Bill to restrict the keeping of certain breeds of dog; to provide for a licensing scheme in respect of those breeds; to provide for increased penalties for the ill-treatment of dogs for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
Orders of the Day
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

    SECOND ALLOTTED DAY
    Further considered in Committee
    [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]
    3.52 pm
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Having seen the selection list I note that two important amendments to new clause 4—amendments (aa) and (bb)—have not been selected; nor has amendment (ee), which would exempt Scotland from the legislation. If we are not to have the chance to consider those amendments, will there be other opportunities for debating those issues?
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): I am required not to give reasons for my selection or non-selection of amendments. I expect that the debate will be a wide debate and if the hon. Lady is fortunate enough to catch my eye, I shall give sympathetic consideration to allowing her to cover the substance of the matter that is reflected by her amendments.
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I have heard what you have told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) about amendments, but should like to seek your guidance. My amendment—amendment (u)—is the only amendment that deals with the grounds on which an abortion can be obtained. It adds the word "serious" to new clause 4 which has been tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. Is the fact that my amendment has not been selected a bar to it being raised during future debates on the Bill? Would it be in order for it to be referred to on Report—subject, again, to selection?
    The Chairman: All that I can do is offer the hon. Gentleman the advice that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). He has raised this matter with me. I assure him that I am not being facetious when I say that I take his point seriously. The selection of amendments on Report is a matter for Mr. Speaker. No doubt his attention will be drawn to what has been said, the representations that have been made about today and those which the hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly make in future.

    New clause 4

      AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY
      '.—(1) For paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 (grounds for medical termination of pregnancy) there is substituted—
      "(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
      (b) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
      (c) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.".
      (2) In section 1(4) of that Act, for "to save the life" to the end there is substituted—
      "(a) to save the life of the pregnant woman, or
      (b) to prevent grave permanent injury to her physical or mental health, and, in the latte r case, that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week.".—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
      The Chairman: With this we may consider the following amendments to new clause (4): (a), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'eighteenth'.
      (b), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-eighth'.
      (c), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twentieth'.
      (d), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twenty-sixth'.
      (e), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twenty-second'.
      (f), in line 6, at end insert—
      '(aa) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or'.
      (g), in line 6, at end insert—
      (aa) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or'.
      (x), in line 8, leave out from 'woman,' to 'or'.
      (i), in line 9, leave out
      'that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and'.
      (j), in line 9, leave out 'twenty-eighth' and insert
      'twenty-fourth'.
      (s), in line 11, at end insert '; or
      (d) that the pregnancy is due to an act of rape or incest.'.
      (h), in line 11, at end insert—
      '( ) In section 1(2) of that Act, after "(a)" there is inserted "or (aa)"'.
      (k), in line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.
      (y), in line 12, leave out from 'Act,' to end of line 16 and insert
      'after "practitioners" (in line 3) the words "and to time limits" shall be inserted.'.
      (l), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'eighteenth'.
      (m), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twenty-eighth'.
      (n), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twentieth'.
      (o), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twenty-sixth'.
      (p), in line 15, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-second'.
      (q), in line 16, at end insert—
      '(3) For section 5(1) of that Act (effect on Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929) there is substituted—
      "(1) No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.".'.
      (r), in line 16, at end insert—
      '( ) In section 1(2) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (presumption that child is capable of being born alive), for "twenty-eight" there is substituted "twenty-four".'.
      (dd), in line 16, at end insert—
      168
      '( ) In section 1(2) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (Presumption that child is capable of being born alive), for "evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be prima facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive" there is substituted "to be considered being capable of being born alive, a foetus must be capable of sustained independent survival".'.
      We are also to consider at the same time the following:New clause 1—Amendment of Abortion Act 1967—
      '.—(1) The Abortion Act 1967 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) For subsections (1) and (2) of section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 ("the principal Act") there shall be substituted—
      "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is teminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve—

      (a) risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or

      (b) risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

      (c) risk of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

      (d) substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

      (2) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to health as is mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of this section, account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment:
      (2A) No pregnancy may lawfully be terminated after the end of its twenty-fourth week—

      (a) under sebsection (1)(b) of this section, unless two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of the pregnancy is essential to prevent serious damage to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman; or

      (b) solely on the ground of subsection (1)(c) of the section.

      (2B) Where at the time of the termination of pregnancy two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week, that opinion shall, for the purposes of subsection (2A) of this section, be conclusive."
      (3) For section (5)(1) of the principal Act there shall be substituted—
      "5.—(1) No offence under Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
      (4) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which it is passed.'.
      New clause 2—Time limit for termination of pregnancy—
      '.—(1) Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (termination of pregnancy not to be a criminal offence where specified in the section) shall apply only to a termination up to the end of the twenty-fourth week of gestation.
      (2) It shall not in any case be an offence under the law relating to abortion for a pregnancy to be terminated by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of the opinion formed in good faith, that the termination is immediately necessary to save the woman's life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

      169
      (3) For section 5 of the Abortion Act 1967 there shall be substituted—
      "5. No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
      (4) In this section, "the law relating to abortion" means sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and any rule of law relating to the procurement of an abortion.
      (5) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which it is passed.'.
      New clause 3—Medical judgment: termination of pregnancy—
      '(1) The Abortion Act 1967 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After section 1(1)(b) there shall be inserted—"and
      (c) that the foetus is not viable and capable of sustained survival at the time the pregnancy is to be terminated."
      (3) For section 5(1) there shall be substituted
      "(1) The provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (protecting the life of the viable foetus) shall not apply to any treatment for termination of pregnancy carried out under the provisions of this Act.".'.
      New clause 5—Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment of 1967 Act)—
      '.—(1) Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is amended by leaving out the condition imposed by the words beginning with the word "two", following the word "if' in subsection (1) to the end of the subsection, and by leaving out subsection (2).
      (2) In place of the words left out there are inserted the following words—

      "(a) the pregnancy has not exceeded its twelfth week and the termination is with the consent of the registered medical practitioner on whose list the pregnant woman is, or

      (b) the pregnancy has exceeded its twelfth but not its twenty-fourth week, if both the practitioner who carries out the termination and another registered medical practitioner of not less than consultant level certify in good faith that the pregnancy puts at grave risk the mother's physical or mental health, or that there is a foetal abnormality with a strong probability that the child would suffer a condition both incurable and wholly destructive of the quality of life, or that conception arises from rape or child abuse or that the mother was a minor at the time of conception,

      (c) the continuation of the pregnancy would result in the death of the pregnant mother or irreversible grave damage to her health."

      (3) Section 1 of the 1967 Act is further amended by leaving out of subsection (4) the reference to two medical practitioners in subsection (1).'.
      Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Could you explain to the House in the best and most clear form available to you exactly how the procedures will operate today and how the voting will take place on the amendments on the order paper?
      The Chairman: I am bound by the recommendations of the Business Committee. We shall have a debate lasting until 11 pm, on the assumption that hon. Members sustain the debate until then. All the signs are that that is the case. On new clause 4, the various amendments listed in the selection list and the substance of new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5, the voting will follow the sequence of the amendments and new clauses on the selection list, conditioned, of course, by the outcome of each Division. We shall follow the sequence on the selection list.
      Mr. Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Could you make certain that it is made clear to hon. Members exactly what they are voting on before each Division takes place?
      The Chairman: That is a matter for the judgment and common sense of hon. Members. Of course, when the time comes to put the amendments to the House, we shall seek, as far as is practicable for the Chair, and short of appearing to advise hon. Members on how they might vote, to respond to what the hon. Gentleman said and to make sure that hon. Members know what they are voting on. In the course of the debate, Members will be aware of what they are discussing and what the Division about.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not think that that is good enough. Yesterday, a list of amendments was put in the No Lobby. It showed what type of amendments would be taken today. Even they were complicated. Nevertheless, that is what we expected. Today the agenda is different. I have no doubt that many Members of Parliament here today are working on the principle that what they saw in the No Lobby yesterday will apply. Apparently, that is no longer the case. We have already heard that certain amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not been selected. Those amendments apparently will not be taken.
      Furthermore, we are dealing with an unusual procedure. It is not normal practice for the House of Commons. In the first place, the idea that the debate will continue until 11 pm is unusual. From then on, a series of amendments will be put to the House. In many cases, which one is called will depend on which amendments have been carried. That is not the case on any other occasion. This procedure should not have been started in arty case. It is only because of the pressures brought by certain individuals that we are dealing with abortion on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. People have been twisting and turning on the Bill ever since it began.
      The Chair has a duty to explain, before the business begins, exactly what amendments will be taken, in what order, and which will fall subsequently if others are carried, so that everyone is aware of what is happening. There is a serious danger that, if certain amendments are carried, some hon. Members will think that that is the end of the business. They might leave this place, with the result that a change might take place at 2, 3, or 4 o'clock in the morning. It is high time that the Chair fully explained what the amendments are, in what order they will be taken and which will fall consequent on others being carried.
      4 pm
      The Chairman: The normal procedure of the House has been followed for the selection of amendments. There is nothing unusual in the fact that, for various reasons, some amendments have not been selected. I have explained that I am not required to give reasons for non-selection. There is nothing unusual about that. The extension of our sitting time to 11 pm was decided by the House following the recommendations of the Business Committee.
      Mr. Skinner: The Front Benches.
      The Chairman: I am bound by the decisions of the majority of the House. The hon. Gentleman asked about the sequence of the amendments put to the House. At the conclusion of the debate, the occupant of the Chair shall

      171
      again follow the usual practice of the House and put them as they are set down on the selection paper. Clearly, some amendments are conditional on what may happen to preceding amendments, but that can be determined only in the light of events after 11 pm.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Is it right that this debate will be more like a Second Reading debate than an ordinary Committee debate on abortion? In answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), you said that the debate would be wide. Does that mean that it will be like a Second Reading debate on abortion, only with amendments?
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct, in so far as the new clause deals with abortion. We are responding to the question whether the clause will be read a Second time, and to that extent it will be like a Second Reading debate. It may be a little unusual that, within that one debate, we shall also discuss all the amendments which I have selected and which are set down on the selection paper.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Walker. Is it not the case that the lists for today and yesterday are identical except that today, not surprisingly, the words "First Allotted Day" are omitted?
      The Chairman: The hon. Lady is correct.
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Walker. I am sure that the public at large, as well as hon. Members, feel that this complicated procedure has been drawn up to confuse, in the hope that the anti-abortionists will at last get their way. I am disappointed that we shall not have a full explanation of each amendment and clause as it is debated.
      The Chairman: If the hon. Lady finds the procedure difficult, the Chair finds it no less difficult. Like all hon. Members, I have to recognise the Standing Orders and established procedures of the House. It provides difficulties for the occupant of the Chair no less, and perhaps even more, than for ordinary Members. Surely, the explanation of the amendments rests not with the Chair, but with those responsible for them. It is not for me to guide the House on the merits of the amendments. I am following the established procedures of the House, and on an occasion such as this, they become rather difficult and complicated.
      We are taking up valuable debating time. Perhaps we can move on.
      Mr. Wells: Just before we get on to the debate, may I urge you, Mr. Walker, because of the views put to you from various parts of the House, to recognise that this is an unusual procedure which you have adopted? Members of Parliament will be in difficulties if you follow exactly the same sort of procedures which are normally followed by the Chair. Members of Parliament would appreciate a great deal more clarity when you announce the various questions about exactly what we are voting on. I urge you to consider that.
      The Chairman: I must tell the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that they are not procedures that I have adopted but the procedures of the House, reinforced by the recommendations of the Business Committee, upon which the House voted. I have not chosen the procedures, but I must apply them. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that these are not easy matters and that, at the end of our debate, the House should be quite clear when it is required to vote. Certainly I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and, whether I or anyone else is in the Chair, we shall ensure that we are alive to the hon. Gentleman's point and that the House is clear, in so far as the Chair can make it clear, exactly what it is to vote upon. I do not think that I can go beyond that. Perhaps we can now proceed.
      The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): In rising to speak to this new clause I am clear that, perhaps above all others, this is an issue on which there are deeply felt and sincerely held views on all sides in the House and in the country.
      On questions relating to abortion, the Government, like their predecessors, do not have a collective view. The issue is one on which Ministers and Members of all political parties, and also adherents of many religious beliefs, take differing views. It is essentially a matter of individual judgment and conscience to decide in this area what the law should permit and what it should ban.
      On abortion it is also a matter of individual judgment and conscience what a person should do within what the law permits. In what follows I shall distinguish my role as a Minister and my position as the Member of Parliament for Surrey, South-West. Being a Health Minister gives me no special basis upon which to advise anyone on matters of conscience or morality. That is a measure of the special nature of the matter now before us.
      In speaking to the new clause on time limits for abortion, which stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, it would be helpful to the Committee to go into some detail about the background to it, its effect if carried in its present or modified form, and on the ways in which the Committee may be able to reach a coherent conclusion on those matters. In view of the importance and complexity of the questions, I have arranged for copies of my speech to be made available in the Vote Office as soon as possible so that hon. Members can study it in more detail and perhaps draw on it as the day proceeds.
      I shall concentrate on the new clause and the amendments in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Other amendments will no doubt be the subject of detailed discussion later in the debate.
      The Government have an inescapable role in administering what Parliament has decided to enact. With it comes the role of advising Parliament if a legislative proposal seems confusing, or difficult to operate in practice, or inconsistent with some other provision. With it also comes the further role of advising Parliament of ways in which changes over time and the recent developments in medical and scientific practices may have affected the existing legislation in ways in which Parliament should take account. It is in that context that the Government have considered the question of abortion time limits.

      173
      The Abortion Act 1967—private Member's legislation—applied to Great Britain but not to Northern Ireland and did not include specific references to time limits. It linked instead with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. That Act, which applies to England and Wales, made it a criminal offence to destroy the life of any child capable of being born alive, except where it is done to save the woman's life, and for that purpose provided a rebuttable presumption that a woman who had been pregnant for 28 weeks should be presumed to have a child capable of being born alive. At and above 28 weeks, the onus is on the defendant to show that the child would not have been viable. Below that time, the onus is on the prosecution to show that the child would have been born alive.
      The 28-week figure was established on the basis of the medical and scientific knowledge available at that time, more than 60 years ago. In Scotland, the only legislative proposals are those contained in the Abortion Act 1967. As I have made clear, the 1967 Act does not include reference to time limits, so in Scotland satisfaction of the grounds for abortion as set out in section 1 of that Act is all that is needed to ensure that a termination of pregnancy is lawful.
      Mr. Wells: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Before she goes on, will she accurately define what she means by "viable" in this context?
      Mrs. Bottomley: For a child to be born viable, it must have a beating heart and sustainable respiration. I shall go on to talk about the recommendations of several organisations involved with the subject as to what is an appropriate way to respond to the issue of viability. Under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, that is a matter for the prosecution to substantiate in the case of a child born under or over the limit. Since 1929, advances in medicine have altered the position on foetal viability. Some foetuses of less than 28 weeks gestation, which would at one time have stood little chance of surviving after birth, now have a greater chance of survival. That is the issue about which my hon. Friend is concerned.
      In 1980, the Government invited a working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, including representatives of medical and midwifery professional bodies, to consider the question of foetal viability. In 1985, they presented a report. Its conclusion was that the presumptive age of capacity to be born alive should be reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. That advice was confirmed by the royal college and the associated organisations when they reviewed the report at the end of 1987.
      In a statement issued only this month, the royal college reiterated its view that 24 weeks should be the age at which a foetus is considered viable. In their view, a gestational age limit below 24 weeks would have an inequitable and adverse effect on those women in need of having their pregnancies terminated. Ministers have indicated on several occasions, in this House and in another place, in debates on private Members' legislation on this subject, that a reduction to 24 weeks, as proposed in the royal college report, would be in line with current medical opinion and practice.
      The Government have taken administrative action to ensure that no abortions above 24 weeks are carried out in private clinics licensed by the Secretary of State for the
      174
      purpose of the Abortion Act. The number of such abortions carried out in National Health hospitals is now small—the figure for Great Britain in 1988 was 23.
      Mr. David Alton: Has the Minister had a chance to consider the ruling of Mr. Justice Brooke, who said that viability was to be defined as the capacity to survive for a few minutes unaided? Where does the definition that she has just given leave babies such as the Carlisle baby, which was born and survived for three hours struggling for life in a petrie dish before being incinerated?
      Mrs. Bottomley: The Carlisle baby case has been subject to much discussion, not least in a debate in this House in which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office took part. The other case to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter for civil law. I am making it clear that there is a considerable body of opinion which believes that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act limit should be reconsidered, and that viability should be reconsidered at the stage of 24 weeks. In cases where that is challenged, it is a matter for debate in the courts.
      Mr. Wells: I am sorry to press the point about viability, but I am concerned as to whether the viability test includes the lack of a brain, or its function, and major defects, both mental and physical, in the foetus in the women's body. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could make it clear whether or not her term "viability" includes those considerations.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that viability has to do with being able to sustain life, having a heartbeat and being able to sustain respiration——
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: The fundamental question to many of us concerns the life of the child. How many women miscarry after 20 weeks, because that seems fundamental to the question of how many children we are killing?
      4.15 pm
      Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot tell my hon. Friend how many women miscarry after 20 weeks, but I can tell him that there have been about 3,000 legal abortions after 20 weeks.
      Ms. Clare Short: I should like to return to the point in the Minister's speech when she first gave way, and to the recommendation that we should come down to a 24-week limit—which I support, with exceptions for hard cases. Can the hon. Lady confirm for the record that, of babies born at 24 weeks, only about 15 per cent. survive—with all the medical technology that we have—and that large numbers of them are brain-damaged? It should be recorded that we are discussing the very brink of viability of a child.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I can confirm that many of these early infants sustain either physical or learning disabilities. I cannot give the precise proportion, but it is considerable.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I hesitate to rise, because I realise that my hon. Friend is in the middle of her speech, but a far more important question with which the House must deal concerns the state of the present law. Does the Infant Life (Preservation) Act lay down that it is a crime to abort a child capable of being born alive? If we

      175
      relate that to the age at which children are being born alive and surviving, we get a clue—nay, an answer—to the issue which should constitute this debate.
      Mrs. Bottomley: As the Father of the House knows the terms of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act full well, he will know that it is for the prosecution to substantiate its claim to rebut the assumption of the limit at which a child should be presumed to be capable of being born alive. I know that my right hon. Friend feels strongly about this subject and no doubt he will have the opportunity to speak later in the debate, but I should make some headway.
      In the many debates on abortion, in this House and in another place, there has been movement towards changes which would include specific time limits for Great Britain within the Abortion Act 1967, rather than merely amending the 1929 Act. That was the proposal made by the Select Committee in another place and in various recent Bills, including the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which recently came to us as private Member's legislation from another place. For convenience I intend to refer to it as the current abortion Bill.
      Members are all aware of the lengthy and complex debates that have taken place on this subject in recent years in this House and in another place. The Committee now has this opportunity to debate and decide on these matters. Both outside and inside Parliament a view has increasingly developed that Parliament should decide where it now stands on this vital issue. There have been lengthy debates in the country as well as here. Parliament many now be ready to reach a conclusion on those questions.
      It may be the view of the House that a clear outcome should be reached which would take into consideration the changes in medical and scientific practices, but I must emphasise again that the Government are not seeking to lay down whether a change should be made or, if so, what the change should be. The Committee may wish to leave the law as it is, or to alter the Infant Life (Preservation) Act only, or to bring time limits within the Abortion Act at various possible levels.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Since the gynaecologists started to make their report on the viability of foetuses, and then brought in their revised report, a massive change has taken place in technology; so the so-called figures put on the so-called record by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) are quite fictitious because techniques are advancing so rapidly that disabilities of that kind can be overcome much more readily. We are supposed to be legislating for the future, not for the current state of play or what has happened within the year, but for what will happen in the next 10 years.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I am afraid that in a sense I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the learned bodies have only recently reviewed and reconfirmed their previous advice. It is estimated that about 40 per cent. of small infants born before 24 weeks have some learning disability or some other serious disability. Perhaps I could make some progress now.
      As hon. Members are well aware, the role of the Minister is to help the Committee, if it wishes to debate these matters and to reach conclusions, to do so in an
      176
      orderly and logical way. We have already agreed on timetable motions to ensure that there is adequate time for debate and to allow votes on the amendments. It is up to the Committee whether it uses those opportunities. It is evident that it would be possible to produce outcomes which were to a greater or lesser extent coherent or confused.
      From the detailed soundings that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has made in all parts of the Committee, it appears to be the overwhelming wish to avoid an inconclusive outcome and to produce a definite workable result. In view of the responsibilities of the Department of Health for administering the abortion provisions, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, with the Leader of the House, and with other Health Ministers considered how best procedural help could be offered to the Committee.
      The subject is complex not only because of the wide range of choices available, but also because of the interaction in England and Wales between the Infant Life (Preservation) Act and the Abortion Act. The House will be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for putting down a comprehensive new clause setting out a coherent scheme based on what may be a possible consensus. I use the word "possible" rather than "likely" because the new clause is not intended in any way to pre-empt discussion and decision. The position is quite the reverse. The new clause tries to cover the main aspects on which the House needs to reach a decision one way or another, both on the time limits for the various provisions in the Abortion Act and on the rebuttable presumption in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister tell us why we were not given the opportunity fully to debate the Houghton Bill as the Lords were? That is what we wanted.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I think that I have made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friends the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Health have used their best efforts to ensure that it is possible for the Committee to debate the main principles involved so as to try to reach some sort of consensus. These subjects have been debated frequently in recent years without reaching a conclusion. Efforts have been made to ensure that people are fully able to debate the key issues not only in the House but in the country.
      Mr. Skinner: The Minister has said that there have been soundings of hon. Members. I am not aware of who was sounded out. May we take it that she can tell us exactly who the Leader of the House spoke to? Were members of the pro-life group asked to give their opinion in order to try to get them off the Government's back? Notwithstanding the soundings of pro-life representatives, I can assure the Minister that from listening to interviews on the radio it is clear that the pro-life group will not go away. Irrespective of what happens today, they will come back because the Ceaucescu lobby is here to stay. I want to know who was sounded out. Was it Opposition Members, people on the Front Bench or members of the pro-life group? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was sounded out. How many more people were sounded out?
      Mrs. Bottomley: I have little sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It is clear that a period of time

      177
      has been set a part to debate these crucial issues. There is strong feeling not only in the House but in the country on these questions. I have made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has sounded out a number of people who have a strong interest. They were people in both parties with various interests and those who have strong views on the subject. He was trying to take a balanced view to make sure that everyone could contribute. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will have an opportunity to make a fuller contribution to the debate.
      The new clause is put forward in my right hon. and learned Friend's role as Leader of the House. It does not necessarily comprise his views as the Member for Surrey, East. The new clause contains only possible answers. We have been anxious to present the House with a range of possible amendments on various aspects of the new clause, drafted in what we believe, after taking advice, would be a workable way. The rules of the House understandably prevent my right hon. and learned Friend from moving amendments to his new clause. For that reason, to assist the Committee my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health agreed to put down a series of amendments. Some propose to relax particular limits in the new clause and others would make them more stringent.
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: I rise on a point of clarification, which my hon. Friend may not be able to answer. Perhaps our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State can answer when he replies to the debate. Some people feel that amendment (f) might have been inadvertently misdrafted. Perhaps we could have clarification on whether, if it is passed, the termination level would be unlimited, or whether it would be at the level that we previously would have agreed when we voted on the various weeks contained in earlier amendments. Perhaps we could have clarification of that before we reach the votes.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I can make that clarification now, but then I must proceed with my speech so that other hon. Members can have the opportunity to make their speeches. Amendment (f) has no time limit, whereas amendment (g) introduces a time limit of 28 weeks in the case of grave permanent injury to the health of the woman.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has already provided hon. Members with a fair amount of written material which sets out the background to the subject, the nature of the new clause and the amendments to it that he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health have put down, and the main procedural issues which seem to us to arise when the time for decision-making comes. I urge all hon. Members to study that material carefully because it seeks to set out as clearly as possible the effect of the new clause and of my right hon. and learned Friends' amendments to it.
      An attempt has been made to provide hon. Members with relevant material. It is nevertheless inevitably complex and difficult legally, over and above the moral and ethical complexities that the subject presents to us. It may help the Committee to go through the new clause in some detail, referring to possible variations which might be made in it and explaining at the same time how hon. Members may wish to reach a decision so as to avoid
      178
      inconsistency and difficulty in practical matters. I apologise to the Committee in advance that in discussing the new clause and my right hon. and learned Friends' amendments I shall need to go into complex options and choices where action in one area may impinge on what is done in other areas. However, if the Committee permits I shall try in my speech to make the position as clear as I can. Copies of my speech will be available.
      The main object of the new clause is to put specific time limits in the 1967 Abortion Act while leaving the system of the rebuttable presumption in the 1929 Infant Life (Preservation) Act to operate as well. I shall say more later about the 1929 Act. Unless changes are made in the 1929 Act to separate it from the 1967 Act completely, anything said about specific time limits needs to be qualified in respect of England and Wales by reference to the 1929 Act. If hon. Members do not wish to put time limits into the 1967 Act, they should vote against the new clause.
      Subsection (1) of new clause 4 deals with the ordinary case where termination of pregnancy has to be approved by two doctors. That is to be distinguished from the emergency provisions in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act where the approval of only one doctor is needed, and to which I shall return later. The new clause sets out three separate grounds for abortion. Those are essentially the same as those in the 1967 Act, but have been rearranged to bring them out more clearly. The 1967 Act included two of them in one paragraph.
      The first ground in new clause 4, subsection (I)(a), deals with abortion where two doctors consider that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, or any existing children of her family. I shall refer to this as injury to physical or mental health. That is by far the most common ground on which abortions are at present carried out, and accounted last year for 89 per cent. of the total. In such cases, the new clause would provide as a time limit that the pregnancy has not exceeded the 24th week.
      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the Minister give way on that point?
      4.30 pm
      Mrs. Bottomley: No.
      Under the clause, the 1929 Act would still apply in England and Wales, so that it would not be legal to perform an abortion even at or below 24 weeks if the child was capable of being born alive. Twenty-four weeks was selected as perhaps the most commonly suggested limit, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has moved amendments to substitute other figures at two-week intervals from 18 to 28 weeks. Those are amendments (a) to (e), and they appear on the Order Paper in what is referred to as the "pendulum order".
      If the new clause is accepted, the first of those amendments that is passed will set the time limit in the new clause. If no amendments are passed, the time limit will be the proposed 24 weeks. That may be so regarded by most people outside the House.
      Paragraph (b) provides for abortions where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. That makes no change from the 1967 Act. There is little or no dispute that that provision should remain.
      Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister give way on that point?
      Mrs. Bottomley: Unlike all the other provisions, it is not affected by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, since the 1929 Act makes a specific exception for actions done in good faith
      "for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother."
      Paragraph (c) of the new clause deals with cases where there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. That is regarded as the "serious foetal handicap" category.
      There is widespread recognition that such cases present particular difficulty for several reasons. A special factor is that foetal handicap may not be diagnosable until fairly late in the pregnancy, although we hope that new medical techniques will increasingly make earlier diagnosis of some of those abnormalities possible, a subject that we debated yesterday. A time limit of 28 weeks has been suggested. That is subject to the provisions of the 1929 Act.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has put down amendments which, if selected, would give the options of a 24-week limit for that type of case, amendment (i), or no limit at all, amendment (j), as provided in the current Abortion Bill passed by another place. In either case, the amendments would be subject again to the overriding provisions of the 1929 Act, unless the House decides to remove those too. I refer to amendment (q).
      The three criteria set out in the new clause and in the 1967 Act are not the only ones that can be proposed. As the first example of this, the new clause does not provide in abortions approved by two doctors for the special test of
      "grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
      That form of words is specified as a ground for abortion in the emergency provisions in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act to which I shall refer later.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has put on the Order Paper amendments to insert this as a ground, either with no time limit, amendment (m), or a 28-week time limit, amendment (g). Either would be subject to the 1929 Act unless, as I have made clear, the House decided otherwise, and that would be amendment(q)
      Subsection (2) deals with what are generally referred to as the "emergency" situations where an abortion can be carried out by one doctor without the second opinion that is normally required. That is covered at present in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act on two grounds—to save the life of the pregnant woman, or to prevent grave permanent injury to her physical or mental health. On the first ground—that of saving life—there is at present no time limit, and the 1929 Act does not apply. No change is proposed here.
      In the case of grave permanent injury, the effect of the 1929 Act in England and Wales is to apply at present a limit of, in effect, 28 weeks. That can be misunderstood. If time limits come to be applied in the Abortion Act to non-emergency abortion, it would seem logical that such time limits should also apply to this category of emergency abortions. The new clause proposes a limit of 24 weeks in line with the main limit. My right hon. and learned Friend refers to that aspect in his guidance for right hon. and hon. Members. In that area, in particular, it may be felt that the position should be different from the main limit.
      180
      My right hon. and learned Friend's amendments propose various alternatives. Amendment (k) would omit subsection (2) of the new clause altogether, thus leaving the situation as in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act, with the application of the 1929 Act as well. Amendments (l) to (p) set out other time limits for the emergency provision, varying from 18 to 28 weeks. My right hon. and learned Friend makes clear the importance of consistency in terms of the emergency and non-emergency limits. They should be taken in the same way as the similar changes proposed for the main limits.
      It is necessary to say a further word about the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which applied only to England and Wales and for which no equivalent exists in relation to Scotland. Under the new clause and my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments down to and including (p), the 1929 Act remains, and it provides an overriding test of viability where the rebuttable presumption remains at 28 weeks.
      My right hon. and learned Friend's last two amendments, (q) and (r), address that subject. Amendment (q) would separate the 1967 Act from the 1929 Act and would mean that any new time limits placed in the 1967 Act overrode the 1929 Act. That is proposed in the current Abortion Bill passed by another place. In other words, a main limit of 24 weeks, or for some other figure, would apply without consideration of whether or not the child was viable.
      The 1929 Act would remain for abortions above those limits. Under amendment (q) by itself, the rebuttable presumption on viability would remain at 28 weeks. The 1929 Act does not apply to Scotland, and the effect of the new clause is setting out time limits on abortion would be the only one relevant to Scotland.
      Amendment (r) amends the 1929 Act to make the rebuttable presumption apply at 24 weeks rather than 28 weeks. By itself, amendment (r) would simply mean that the 1967 Act and the 1929 Act both had to be taken into account but that the 1929 Act had a new and lower level for the rebuttable presumption.
      If amendments (q) and (r) were both accepted by the Committee, the 1929 Act would apply only to abortions that were not covered by the specific limits in the amended 1967 Act but it would apply at the lower level of 24 weeks instead of the present 28.
      In considering amendment (r), right hon. and hon. Members will wish to bear in mind difficulties that might arise if the levels set in the 1929 Act were lower than any of the levels set in the 1967 Act as amended, which were disapplied, unless amendment (q) were also passed to separate the operation of two Acts. For example, if the 1929 Act were reduced to 24 weeks, but the limit in the 1967 Act for serious foetal handicap was retained at 28 weeks, the resulting presumption that a child over 24 weeks is capable of being born alive would probably prevent abortions being carried out between 24 and 28 weeks for serious foetal handicap.
      This explanation is inevitably rather complex. It may help the Committee to understand the basis of the new clause and the main possibilities for amendment which arise on it. The arrangement is that there will be a single debate on the new clause and on the various selected amendments together. That will be followed by a vote on the new clause. If it is accepted, there will be votes on the amendments selected.
      Mr. Frank Doran: I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the Minister's explanation, but I am mindful that all her remarks relate to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and to the situation in England and Wales. Will the Minister clarify for the record the situation in respect of Scotland? She will be aware that the law there is very different from that in England and Wales. In Scotland, there is effectively no time limit—but the law is to be radically amended by new clause 11, apparently without consultation and in the absence of a Scottish Office Minister. Will the Minister confirm the precise impact of the new clause and of the amendments on Scotland?
      Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 Act does not apply in Scotland. That may be a subject for further discussion and the hon. Gentleman may wish to refer to it later. The Abortion Act 1967 applies, but the 1929 Act does not apply in Scotland. That is simple and clear.
      Mr. Doran: Regardless of which amendment the Committee finally agrees upon and what time limit, what would be the effect on the Scottish position?
      Mrs. Bottonley: The only time limits that would apply in Scotland would be those in the new clause. As I have made clear, the 1929 Act does not apply in Scotland. At a later date we may wish to tidy up the position to ensure that there is a coherent framework within which the law can operate. Certainly the position in Scotland will require careful consideration.
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?
      Mrs. Bottomley: No.
      Other new clauses and amendments to the Government's new clause will be moved and many issues will be raised during our debate today. They will cover a range of topics in addition to the strict time limits issue. For example, they will cover subjects such as the exemptions for rape or incest. They may specify the nature of the abnormality by the certfying doctor and alter the basis on which doctors may consent to a termination.
      At the conclusion of today's proceedings, I hope that the Committee may be able to reach a clear, coherent and workable position either to leave existing legislation as it is or to make a series of amendments to it. However, in this complex situation, it may not be possible to reach a position in which all the loose ends have been tied up. I referred to that point in relation to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran).
      The Government will carefully consider the outcome of the debate to see whether what emerges satisfies the tests of coherence and workability. If necessary, amendments may be moved on Report, and it may be the wish of the House that that should be so.
      In the end, the Committee will have made clear to the Government, to another place and to the large number of people outside the House who are deeply concerned about such matters, what the position is on the proper time limits for abortion in the light of current knowledge and experience. I hope that we can conduct our debate, in a way that is appropriate for such issues of individual judgment and conscience, always remembering that each individual instance where the question of abortion arises represents, whatever one's moral stance, a personal
      182
      tragedy to all involved. I urge the Committee to support the new clause standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
      Ms. Jo Richardson: I doubt whether any Minister has ever had the task which the Minister for Health has had to carry out today in taking the Committee through such a complexity of amendments and their consequences. I am glad that she said that a copy of her speech would be in the Lobby. I only wish that I had had time to dash out of the Chamber and pick up a copy, because her speech was extremely hard to follow.
      The method that the Government have used to arrange this important debate with new clause 4 as the core and amendments to it from every conceivable angle, is about as chaotic and crazy as the idea of attaching a clause on abortion to a Bill about embryology. We remain bitterly opposed to the inclusion of abortion in the Bill and we bitterly oppose the method of discussing it today.
      The Government have come forward with this method in an attempt to buy off those who bring in restrictive abortion Bills every year. I have been involved in these issues for several years. Other hon. Members have been involved as well, notably the Father of the House. Over the years he has taken the opposite position from mine and he has highlighted abortion every year. I have had to suffer his antics each year when he sought to try to restrict women's rights to abortion.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Richardson: No. Let me get going a bit first. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman if I feel like it.
      As far as I can guess, the deal is that if the anti-abortionists can have a vote tonight they will go away for a few years. That is absolute rubbish. If the hon. Members believe that, they are more stupid than I gave them credit for.
      It may be all very well for one or two people to have given undertakings. I do not know whether that has happened, but if undertakings have been given, other hon. Members may appear with different ideas. For example, we are two years away from a general election and there may be new Members and other people who may not feel bound by any commitments that might have been given.
      4.45 pm
      The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Lady has complained about the method by which we organised the debate. Does she accept that the fact that abortion law is within the scope of the Bill is a matter for the House authorities, not for the Government? That decision has been taken and we must address abortion in the Bill. The arrangements in the Order Paper, proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and myself, admittedly with some complexity because this is a complex subject, provide a wide range of opportunities to allow the Committee to have a properly conducted debate and to reach a decision after considering all the options.
      Does the hon. Lady further accept that neither she, from the Opposition Front Bench, nor the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from the Opposition Back Benches, nor anyone else has put forward the slightest alternative or constructive suggestion as to how the debate might be arranged? When the Business Committee met to

      183
      discuss the matter, the sum total of the Labour party's contribution to marshalling debate was shown by the fact that not a single member of the Labour party selected for that Business Committee turned up for the meeting.
      Ms. Richardson: We did not come to that Business Committee meeting because we did not want to be a party to such action.
      It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that the Government have tried to give the Committee every opportunity and every option. I appreciate that, but it has made the whole position tonight more complicated and more chaotic. If the Government believe that, by allowing abortion into the Bill through extending its long title, people who are per se anti-abortion will go away, they are wrong.
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: The hon. Lady said that no hon. Member can give an undertaking that, if we were to achieve a significant result tonight, we would go away. While it is true that any private Member may present a Bill—no hon. Member would dispute that—the hon. Lady must appreciate that the grievous pressure from which Parliament has suffered as a result of a series of non-decisions over the years has been caused not simply by the fact that one hon. Member presented a Bill. Rather it has been caused by the huge feeling in the House that a decision had to be taken and because outside the House a great deal of pressure was being mounted by pro-life groups. That is what caused the pressure. A single private Member's Bill does not cause that pressure.
      Therefore, even if an hon. Member decided to present a private Member's Bill, unless it was backed by the pro-life movement, it would not be a particular pressure on the House. What would be the benefit of returning to Parliament in a short while if Parliament has already taken a clear decision?
      Ms. Richardson: In spite of what the hon. Lady has said, I still think that some hon. Member, perhaps not her——
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: This one here, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
      Ms. Richardson: As my hon. Friend says, that one there. Perhaps an hon. Member will present a Bill to the House with further restrictions. There may well be pressures from outside.
      Mr. Alton rose——
      Ms. Richardson: If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is going to ask me to give way, the answer is no.
      The Government have plainly given in to what they believe is pressure. They have overlooked the fact that the overwhelming majority of people, particularly women, want to leave the Abortion Act 1967 as it is.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose——
      Sir Bernard Braine rose——
      Ms. Richardson: No, I shall not give way.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Will the hon. Lady give way now?
      Ms. Richardson: No, I shall return to the right hon. Gentleman later. I am sure that he will have some reason to rise later.
      The Government's deal will achieve nothing. With the number of Divisions that we shall have tonight, we could even end up with very bad law,. The Minister rather suggested that we might come up with what she called "loose ends" that may have to be tied up. I believe that we shall come up with bad law, and perhaps with law that has been made by mistake. People may go into one Lobby believing that they will achieve their aim when they should go into another Lobby. The voting will be extremely complicated. There must be about a dozen idiots' guides, trying to advise people on both sides of the debate how to vote, going round the House.
      Sir Bernard Braine rose——
      Ms. Richardson: The pendulum system swings from 18 to 28 weeks, from 20 to 26 weeks and from 22 to 24 weeks. That could result in mistaken voting and we shall be then be stuck with the law, despite the Minister's promise to tie up the loose ends.
      Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to me earlier. She and I have been in the House long enough to know that the House has given a Second Reading to abortion reform Bills, often by a substantial majority, yet those Bills have then been sabotaged by a relatively small minority of determined Members. As no Government were ready to give extra time, as was done with the Abortion Bill in 1966–67, all the other Bills failed. The will of the majority in the House was completely frustrated time and again by the hon. Lady, in her customarily charming way, and by numbers of her colleagues, contrary to the will of the British people.
      Ms. Richardson: Plenty of private Members' Bills receive a Second Reading, but are blocked later.
      Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) had one and look what happened.
      Ms. Richardson: That is right. The Bill of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was blocked. Bills are constantly blocked by the Government Whips, who do not even say who they are. It has always been considered that abortion would naturally fall within private Members' legislation. With private Members' Bills, one has to take one's chance with the procedures of the House.
      We may end up tonight with a law that we shall be stuck with and that we do not want. More importantly, women outside will be stuck with it. It is an insult to women that the Government should bring forward this lottery system to decide a matter that will have such a long-term effect on women's lives.
      New clause 4 is more restrictive than the Abortion Act 1967. Under the Act, for example, a registered medical practitioner may terminate a pregnancy if he or she is of the opinion that it is necessary to save the life of the woman or
      "to prevent grave permanent damage to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman."
      In other words, a time limit does not operate. New clause 4 is said to be the main core of the proposal. Under new clause 4, a medical practitioner may act to prevent "grave permanent injury" to the "physical or mental health" of the pregnant woman only up to the end of the 24th week.

      185
      I realise that the new clause could be amended later, but the proposal is monstrous and the new clause must be amended back to the position under the 1967 Act.
      Under new clause 4, after the 24th week, a woman suffering from, for example, serious and progressive kidney disease, serious and deteriorating lung disease or certain types of congenital heart disease, which may be aggravated by the stress of pregnancy, would not be able to have an abortion. Those conditions may not only worsen during pregnancy, but may be diagnosed during pregnancy. That is especially so in the case of the HIV positive mother, as health authorities are increasingly informing women of the risks of pregnancy and AIDS and more women may seek tests during pregnancy. We must consider those matters with the utmost seriousness to ensure that we get the law absolutely right.
      There is one point—there are probably several others—on which, although I tried to follow the Minister's speech carefully, I am still not clear. There is a possibility that at least one of the amendments—amendment (f)—is misleading or defective. It is intended to ensure that there is no time limit when there is a threat of "grave permanent injury" to a woman's health. I have taken advice and it seems that amendment (f) may be affected by paragraph (a) of new clause 4, and would therefore be subject to the time limits for which hon. Members vote—in other words, 18 or 24 weeks, or whatever. I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that amendment (f) would ensure that this ground was exempt from the time limits restriction.
      As a result of the complexity of the procedure—the Secretary of State asked why I did not propose something different—I tried to construct amendments to be taken first, which would have formed a package. That package would have included 24 weeks, but would also have included the maximum number of exceptions for 28 weeks and the maximum number of exceptions with no time limit.
      I tabled my amendments, which was difficult in the context of new clause 4. I now find that only two parts of my package have been included in your selection of amendments, Mr. Walker. I am not suggesting that you deliberately added to the complexity as I know that you would not want to do that. However, it is an illustration of what happens when we try to amend a new clause that we do not want by means of a package of amendments. I understand that you, Mr. Walker, from your position as Chairman of Ways and Means, may not have appreciated that my amendments were a package and should have been taken in that sense. We are stuck with our present selection, which makes everything more complicated.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am not returning to the argument about procedure. It is a bit unsatisfactory if the answer to the hon. Lady's question waits until the end of the debate, thus leaving continuing doubt about amendment (f). Amendments (f) and (g) both relate to the new category of "grave permanent injury" to the health of the woman. Amendment (f) would follow the word "or" in line 6. It would not, therefore, be governed by the reference to the "twenty-fourth week" in paragraph (a). It is important to confirm that amendment (f) would have the effect of introducing no time limit in the case of "grave permanent injury" to health. Amendment (g) would introduce a time limit of 28 weeks. The House must make a choice between those or the 24 weeks in the new clause.
      Ms. Richardson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying that point. Again, the position is complex, as the Secretary of State has given us two options and we shall have to get our heads round that later.
      I want hon. Members to look carefully at what we are doing. We are threatening the lives and futures of countless thousands of women who may need an abortion now or in the future. If we decide to bring clown the present upper time limit from 28 to 24 weeks, we shall deny the possibility of an abortion to a very small, but important, number of women and young girls. In 1988, the latest year for which we have published statistics, only 23 women had abortions over 24 weeks.
      There are young girls who become pregnant without knowing that they are pregnant. They may have had irregular periods, a not uncommon phenomenon in teenage girls. They may have unsupportive parents and be afraid of revealing that they are pregnant. They may feel unable to go to their GP or find it hard to locate a doctor—not just one, but two doctors—who will terminate their pregnancy. All such events lead to delays that may take them over the 24th week.
      When discussing the failure of young girls to recognise pregnancy, we must not overlook the stance of some hon. Members, which suggests that they are against sex education in schools. If we had more such education, more girls and young women would be better able to appreciate their sexuality and the way in which their bodies function.
      The Brook advisory centre points out in a paper the fear that many young women have at the discovery of an unwanted pregnancy. They fear the rejection of friends, families, boy friends and even school mates, remembering that some of them are still at school. For many, that rejection can mean homelessness, poverty and isolation. Are we to turn our backs, by reducing the upper time limit from 28 to 24 weeks, on that handful of young people?
      5 pm
      Ms. Short: I understand that the overwhelming majority of post-24 week abortions in recent years have occurred as the result of the late detection of severe foetal abnormality. We must also bear in mind in that context the categories of whom my hon. Friend has spoken, including very young girls, often having been sexually abused, who become pregnant and do not know it. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that if the Government's new clause is approved, girls as young as 11 and 12 might be forced to complete their pregnancies?
      Ms. Richardson: Yes, that is my reading of the Government's proposal. I am greatly concerned that, at such a vulnerable age, young girls will not be protected.
      Women in the menopause who become pregnant come within that small number who presented themselves in 1988 for abortion after the 24th week. Many women think that irregular periods are normal in the menopause, as they are, but sometimes they find that they are pregnant. They can then be horrified because their families may be settled, they may have grown-up children or they may need the money that they earn and be unable easily to leave work. They suddenly find that instead of being in the menopause, as they thought, they are pregnant.
      I have given details of a case of a 42-year-old married woman with children aged 21 and 20. She had successfully used a diaphragm for 25 years and did not suspect that it had let her down. She missed four periods, did a test and

      187
      was horrified to find that she was pregnant. She was opposed to abortion, but, because of her family circumstances—she also had aged and ailing parents for whom to care—she decided after several counselling sessions to request an abortion. Under the new clause, she and women in a similar position could not have an abortion. Many family circumstances lead people to decide to have an abortion, and the present social provision must be available.
      Let us not forget the distress that has been caused through delay in the National Health Service. It often depends on the part of the country in which one lives—[Interruption.] I am amazed to see at least a couple of hon. Ladies on the Government Benches expressing dissent, even smiling, at that remark, as though it were an old wives' tale. I assure them that it is not.
      People who live in the west midlands find it more difficult to get an abortion than those living elsewhere, in the north or in the south. Imagine finding oneself pregnant and being unable to find a doctor or hospital willing to treat one, or having little money and being unable to travel to a different part of the country to obtain an abortion.
      Even if we reduce the time limit to 24 weeks, the same problems will arise—but for more women. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Pregnancy Advisory Service and other organisations in the charitable sector are not permitted to do terminations after 24 weeks. Both those advisory services have compiled an interesting and moving dossier of cases that illustrate the problems that women face through delays or obstruction in the NHS, through doctors failing to diagnose pregnancy, through failure by patients to recognise pregnancy, through failure of methods of contraception or failed pregnancy tests, as the result of menopausal problems or because the females concerned are very young. I have cited some cases, but there are many more.
      It is well known that many surgeons err on the side of caution because of the law—as they do not want to be caught by the law—and in practice allow a four-week or, at the least, a two-week margin. So in practice, 24 weeks become 20 or 22 weeks in terms of the operation that the surgeon will perform. Or a 20 or 22-week limit would become in practice an 18-week limit, and an 18-week limit—should the House agree to that tonight—could become a 14-week limit. That would greatly affect many necessitous women.
      In an ideal world, there would be no need for late abortions. This is not an ideal world, and in 1988, 84 per cent. of all abortions were performed at under 13 weeks; 14 per cent. were performed at between 13 and 20 weeks; and, as I said, 1·7 per cent. were performed at over 20 weeks.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) tabled an amendment which I hoped the House would discuss and approve. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) also tabled a new clause, which allows women to have an abortion up to the end of the 12th week without seeking approval from a second doctor. Those who support the Abortion Act 1967, and who would like to see it liberalised, would strongly support it because we believe that it is the best way to reduce the number of late abortions, by allowing women to ask a doctor—one doctor—to give permission for them
      188
      to have an abortion without the need to seek approval from a second doctor. That practice is followed in many European countries with beneficial results. I regret that we shall not have an opportunity tonight to discuss those matters.
      We must make provision for those women, some of whose cases I have described, including women who require an abortion after an amniocentesis test and who need time to decide whether to continue with a pregnancy. A woman will have an anmiocentesis test at 16 weeks. If it is discovered that she is carrying a mentally or physically handicapped child, she is given the offer of an abortion. If we set the limits too tightly, such a woman will not even have time to reflect on whether to have an abortion.
      Miss Widdecombe: Is not that problem easily solved by doing what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and myself propose, which is now incorporated in the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and exempting from the restrictions the severe disabilities that would be revealed by amniocentesis, so that for those women there is no change in the law?
      Ms. Richardson: I shall look at that. It sounds all right, but why was it not in the new clause? The way in which the clause is presently phrased is ridiculous. We are leaving it to the lottery of whether an amendment is carried. That is the whole point. There may be some good amendments that we could carry, but will we carry them and will people know exactly what we are doing?
      We do not want women who are carrying babies who turn out to be damaged to have a pistol at their heads and to be told, "You are going to have a physically or mentally handicapped baby and you must have an abortion tomorrow or you will not be within the time limit." That could happen if our attitude is too tight and not relaxed enough. We must ensure that it will turn out for the best for those women.
      I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will think seriously about the effect of their votes tonight. Labour party policy is clearly to defend the 1967 Act. Some of my hon. Friends consider that that is a matter of conscience for them. If I were in that position, and I am not, I should also want to consider the difficulties in which many women find themselves—difficulties that are often inflicted on them by irresponsible men who do not have to face the traumatic consequences.
      If I were to exercise my conscience, I should also want to ask myself whether my conscience was more important than considerations involving the quality of women's lives. There could also be a conscience consideration for women now and in the future, which hon. Members will overlook if they vote to restrict the law. I beg them to take that into account when they vote tonight. I know that such hon. Members who exercise a conscience clause on this sensitive issue have compassion. I hope that they will extend that compassion to unlucky or unfortunate women who may be precluded from much-needed medical assistance.
      Last night there was a march through London to defend abortion rights. It was called at relatively short notice for a march. However, 2,000 to 3,000 women turned up to defend the 1967 Act. They were young, middle-aged and even older. They and their families represent the women who will be affected by our votes tonight. Their fears and anxieties must be reflected by us, as their only

      189
      way of expressing their fears is through us—they cannot speak for themselves or vote in this Chamber. We must not let them down.
      I repeat that a vote for 24 weeks will effectively mean a 20 or 22-week limit in practice. A vote for a 22 or 20-week limit will mean a 20 or 18-week limit in practice. An 18-week limit will mean a 16 or 14-week limit in practice. Women will be denied an abortion if we vote for those reductions.
      On the radio this morning the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said, "We will save 3,000 women from an abortion." Those 3,000 women who want an abortion will have to resort to the back streets. That is not to put it in too terrifying a way.
      I appeal to hon. Members to think carefully, to vote very carefully, to use the guidance that suits them and to ensure that we come out of the horrendous evening that faces us with law that we really can live with.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he has tried to give both sides an opportunity to put their views on the amendments. Had he merely approached the votes in an ascending or descending order, as we reached some compromise mid way, one section would have said, "But our opinions were never put to the test." The fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has devised what is called the complex pendulum has at least ensured that both sides have an opportunity to put their views to the test. That is desirable and I should like to record my gratitude.
      5.15 pm
      The aspect that I find most worrying is that in the two opening speeches there was mention of the rights of women, individual hon. Members', rights of conscience and of their beliefs, but no mention of the unborn child. It is as though we are determined to conduct the debate by turning away from the main issue, which is at what point, if at all——
      Ms. Short: It is not the main issue.
      Miss Widdecombe: It is the main issue. At what point, if at all, do the rights of the unborn child prevail over those of the mother?
      Ms. Short: If at all?
      Miss Widdecombe: I said "if at all"—that is the main issue.
      It is distressing that we have not discussed the basis on which we can decide whether a child's rights prevail. The only test that has been mentioned, and it was mentioned largely in the context of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, is that of viability. We should look at the context in which some of us wish to move a change. There is already in our law a recognised limitation of a woman's rights over those of her child at a certain time. For example, if anything goes wrong at birth, as it did in a case of Christie Nolan, no matter how grievously handicapped the child, no matter how appalling the circumstances of the mother, no matter if the mother has recently been deserted by her partner, no matter what the awful circumstances are, at that point we recognise that the child has full human rights.
      190
      Under our current law—the 1929 Act rather than the 1967 Act—two months before that point is reached we say that the rights of the child prevail. Some hon. Members think that that is right. Some hon. Members think that the limit is too low, and some hon. Members think that it is much too high. We already have in our law a recognised limitation of the rights of the mother over the child. We must ask whether we have drawn the line in the right place or whether it needs moving. That is what the first six amendments address.
      The line was set down in 1929, and it was a perfectly reasonable line to be imposed at that time. Before the 28th week there is a very low possibility of a child surviving. It needs considerable modern science and assistance to breathe and survive. In 1929, such aids were extremely rudimentary, so it was a reasonable limit at that time.
      Since then, however, medical science has advanced considerably and we now have situations in which children can be kept alive very much earlier and sustain permanent survival. There are other criteria on which we would judge lower limits, but the issue is between the 22nd and the 24th week if we are talking about permanent viability, which I do not necessarily accept as a definition.
      There seems to be some confusion. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made considerable reference to 24 weeks being the point of viability. However, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) in January this year, the point of viability at which an infant could sustain survival was put at 22 weeks. Two issues are involved. First, if the Minister stands by that written answer, it makes no sense to talk about viability while in the same breath setting the limit at 24 weeks.
      Secondly, laying aside the politics of this issue for a moment, the whole House wants the principle of this issue to be resolved for some time to come. Given that we can now keep children alive at 22 weeks, and given the gradual improvements and advances in technology, is it sensible to set a level above that at which the Minister has already admitted that there can be viability? If we are looking for a piece of good law——
      Mr. Doran: Regardless of what the Minister may have said, I am sure that the hon. Lady is well aware that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists made a statement at the end of last year that made it clear that although technical advances may enhance the survival rate above 24 weeks, it is unlikely that there would be any possibility of extra-uterine survival below 24 weeks.
      Miss Widdecombe: We are talking not only about probability but about what happens. The Minister would not have given an answer based on something conjured out of thin air. We know that it is possible to sustain viability——
      Mrs. Mahon rose——
      Miss Widdecombe: I should like to finish my point because I should like to answer the interventions of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran).
      Although admittedly in a small number of cases, it is possible to sustain viability below the 24th week. However, I should like to take the matter further. First, if the Minister is talking about viability, she must stick by the answer that was given by her Department. Secondly, setting a limit above that for viability does not make any sense in long-term law. Is "permanent viability" a good

      191
      method? Once again, there is a clear contradiction in our laws and in the interpretation of them. I think that the Minister will accept that until recently, the words
      "capable of being born alive"
      in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 were interpreted by the medical profession and the law as meaning "capable of sustaining survival". However, we have recently had the ruling of Mr. Justice Brooke, who put a different interpretation on the law and said, "No, if a child is capable"—
      Mrs. Mahon rose——
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Miss Widdecombe: If I may finish my point, I shall then give way to my hon. Friend for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), if he will remind me.
      Mr. Justice Brooke said, "No, the point at which a child is capable of being born alive is the point at which it can survive independently of its mother, even if only for a short period." If we take that as a definition, we are no longer talking about 22 weeks—we are talking about something substantially lower.
      Mr. Thurnham: The only point on which I agree with my hon. Friend is that there is too much abortion in this country. Where I differ from her is that she feels that the solution to that problem is to send doctors to prison. It is most important that she should not mislead herself and the House by getting her facts wrong. My hon. Friend spoke about the case to which she is now referring on 27 March—it is the case of Rance v. the Mid-Downs health authority. She told the House that Mrs. Rance had asked the doctors to abort her son and to their credit the doctors refused. That is wrong because as a result of administrative delays the doctors had not told Mrs. Rance that she had a pregnancy with a handicap in the foetus. Because it was running so close to the 28-week limit, the doctors decided not to tell Mrs. Rance. Therefore, she was not in a position even to have asked for the abortion. The hon. Lady is wrong. She should therefore withraw her allegation against Mrs. Rance and not mislead herself and the House with her argument.
      Miss Widdecombe: During this debate I do not think that I have mentioned the lady that the hon. Gentleman has now named. I was specifically addressing myself to the terms of Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling. The crucial issue is whether that ruling now overtakes the previously accepted definition. The particular cases to which it might be applied do not matter until we have established the principle. Furthermore, neither now nor in any previous debate can I recall talking about locking up doctors. When we have changed the law, I believe that the doctors will abide by the law and in those circumstances, I see no good reason for locking them up.
      Therefore, we have a problem with the definition of "viability", and with the definition of
      "capable of being born alive".
      We also have a problem about where to set any future limits. However, before turning to that, I should like to consider some of the problems that are occurring as a result of our present very muddled and in my view very bad abortion laws. At the moment——
      Ms. Short rose ——
      Miss Widdecombe: I shall not give way because I should like to finish this point.
      At the moment, a child in an incubator can be kept alive, loved and cherished with all the resources of medical science being devoted to saving it, while a child of identical age and identical gestation in the womb has no rights and can be destroyed. There is something wrong with a law which allows that degreee of inequity between two individuals who are exactly the same except that we can see one and we cannot see the other. That law has to be wrong. Therefore, we must bring about a situation in which there is at least equality. At present, we have a law which states that a child who is seen is protected but that a child at an identical stage who is not seen is not protected.
      Perhaps the issue is not whether one can or cannot see the child. Perhaps at that stage the issue is whether the child is wanted or not wanted. If there is no objective criterion for saying that two children of identical development are different, bringing the issue down to a matter of human perception and saying, " I perceive this to be a human being because I want it" or, " I perceive this not to be a human being because I do not want it" is extremely dangerous on all ethical and social grounds, whether religious or not.
      I do not want to raise the temperature of the debate by drawing difficult analogies, but there is a clear analogy to be drawn. The analogy is of racism everywhere, where one individual perceives another as less worthy of respect or less naturally possessed of rights because they are of a different colour——
      Mrs. Mahon rose
      Miss Widdecombe: I will give way in a moment. It is purely perception——
      Mrs. Mahon rose——
      Miss Widdecombe: I intend to give way to the hon. Lady because I want to hear her argument. If we are defining humanity in terms of individual perceptions, wants and not wants, that is dangerous.
      Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Lady is aware that any baby born prematurely needs a great deal of care and attention, so why did she vote for the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which will take resources away from such babies, and why she has never put to the House an argument for more resources for the hospitals which cannot take care of all the premature babies born at the moment?
      Miss Widdecombe: If I take interventions about other laws and other measures, I shall be wasting my time. I do not intend to be distracted from the major issue today, which is the rights of the unborn child, because of the defence of Health Service reforms which I have made in the House on many occasions.
      The law states that it is an offence to destroy a child who is capable of being born alive, yet in the NHS it is permitted to administer lethal injections to babies before an abortion to ensure that they are born dead. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State this question. If a doctor does not believe that the child whom he is about to abort is capable of being born alive, why seek to kill it with a lethal injection in the first place? Is

      193
      there any answer to that? Is it not an example of the extreme muddle of our laws? Quite apart from their ethical status, there is clearly a prize muddle.
      Ms. Primarolo: Is the hon. Lady insinuating that doctors deliberately give lethal injections to foetuses so as to escape the current law that a foetus capable of being born and sustaining life after birth cannot be terminated? Is she making that accusation against the medical profession?
      5.30 pm
      Miss Widdecombe: I am making a straightforward statement that if a doctor believes that a child is not capable of being born alive, he has no need to give it a lethal injection, so one presumes that if he gives it a lethal injection he is trying to prevent a child capable of being born alive from being so born.
      Mr. Alton: To help the hon. Lady on that point, perhaps I may inform her that today I received a letter from the Solicitor-General confirming that police investigations are being carried out into an incident described in correspondence between the Solicitor-General and us. The case involved a baby of 27½ weeks being stabbed to death through the wall of the womb with potassium chloride during so-called selective reduction. That took place in the City of London just a few weeks ago.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that further information. I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health that that case is the subject of a formal inquiry and that the House will hear more of it when that inquiry comes to a conclusion.
      Ms. Short rose——
      Miss Widdecombe: I now wish to deal with a case which is established and has been the subject of affidavits, a coroner's inquiry, two debates in the House and ministerial statements. It is therefore absolutely sustainable and no detail has been left unturned. I refer to the case of the Carlisle baby.
      Ms. Short: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss Widdecombe: I shall not give way for some time. I will take interventions later.
      I wish to address myself to the case of the Carlisle baby.[Interruption.] The degree of disorder prevailing on the Opposition Benches makes me think that Opposition Members are frightened of something in the case of the Carlisle baby. There is something that they do not want to hear.
      The Carlisle baby was aborted at 21 weeks' gestation. The grounds for the abortion were handicap, even though it was not certain that handicap was present. Nevertheless, under the 1967 Act the grounds were valid. It is important that hon. Members should understand that. We are talking not about some back-street abortion or something that was done improperly in the Health Service but about a supposedly legal, safe and decent abortion carried out by the NHS in Carlisle city general hospital.
      That child of 21 weeks' gestation was born alive, so we may assume that the doctor had not given any lethal injection. When the child was born alive, the two nurses and the doctor on duty on the ward that night did not
      194
      know what to do. They had not expected a live birth. Had it been a premature baby from an ordinary early birth, they would have known exactly what to do, but they were confused and distressed because they had expected what they would have termed a foetus and what they got was a baby which gasped and ran a pulse rate for three hours.
      What distresses me about that case is that during the three hours for which that little scrap lived she was not in an incubator or in her mother's arms. She was not even—spare us—wrapped up decently in a warm cot. She was on a kidney dish in a side ward for three hours, During that time one of the nurses became so grievously distressed that she carried out a rudimentary baptism. After three hours the child was incinerated. The mother was not told that her child had lived. The child was not registered for birth, nor was she registered for death. Until one of the nurses could finally stand it no longer and took steps to make sure that the issue was brought into the public eye and before a coroner, nothing was done at Carlisle city general hospital about what happened.
      I raise that case, not to introduce horror stories but to show that horror can result from our muddled laws. I repeat, had it been an ordinary birth, the doctor and nurses would have known what to do and there would have been no doubts about it. Anyone who can jeer at that case is not giving the matter the serious and humane consideration that it deserves.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: It is disputed.
      Miss Widdecombe: The case, and the facts to which I have confined myself, are not disputed. If the hon. Gentleman wants proof, he can go now to the Vote Office and ask for the report of the debate on the Carlisle baby on 8 June last year, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health replied. He confirmed all the facts to which I have referred. A late abortion took place and the result was to be a foetus—the language used implies that when a child is wanted it is a baby, but when it is not wanted it is a foetus—and when the result was not a foetus but a baby there was no good practice in place to cope with the situation.
      National Health Service guidance says that if abortions are carried out after 20 weeks, resuscitation equipment must be available. The Secretary of State will not license private clinics to carry out abortions after the 20th week if they cannot demonstrate that resuscitation equipment is available. In that case, the limit is 20 weeks. Does that mean that although resuscitation equipment must be available at 20 weeks, it need not be used because no rights are given until 22 or 24 weeks? At 20 weeks, the mother must be offered a funeral for the baby, so some status is given to the 20-week-old unborn child. Why must resuscitation equipment be available and a funeral be offered at 20 weeks when, if amendments allowing abortion after 20 weeks are passed, we shall not safeguard the lives to which we afford those dignities? We shall have a muddled law.
      Ms. Short: The hon. Lady will be aware that in some terribly distressing cases foetuses much older than t hose to which she refers are killed because the mother would otherwise die. Does she think that that should be done or not? Should the woman be allowed to die? That is my first question. Secondly, will the hon. Lady be straight with the

      195
      House? Does she think that any abortion should be legal, or not? We must know where her arguments are coming from.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to answer the hon. Lady's questions. I was coming to the exemptions that should be allowed. Where the life of the mother is at risk, an exemption should be made—not because I deny that in that case the life of the child is being removed, but in that case I must face a choice between two lives.
      Ms. Short: So the hon. Lady is not against all abortion.
      Miss Widdecombe: I never have been. I am trying to answer the question. The hon. Lady does not seem to want to hear the answer. I have said that where two lives are at stake, one cannot say that one is pro-life if one immediately condemns one of them. If there are two lives in conflict, one cannot rule out the possibility of an abortion. I do not deny that people elsewhere may be against it, but no hon. Member is against abortion to save the life of the mother.
      In answer to the hon. Lady's second question, I have never concealed my position on abortion. I made it clear to the hon. Member for Barking in a late night Adjournment debate some months ago. I believe that abortion should be available only in the most exceptional circumstances, such as where the life of the mother is at risk and perhaps in one or two other rare cases. That would certainly include cases in which the child suffers from a condition such as anencephaly and would not survive anyway. In those circumstances, I believe that it is humane——
      Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Miss Widdecombe: I will give way in a moment. In those circumstances, I believe that it is humane to allow abortion.
      The fact that I am anti-abortion is scarcely a great discovery today. It has been known for some time. We are drawing a line and fighting only late abortions for exactly the same reasons as a teetotaller will join a moderate drinker to combat abuse. Those who share my views are joining others who do not share those views so as to combat the worst abuses, which are encapsulated in the Carlisle baby case. This is tremendously serious. If any hon. Member is thinking of voting for a limit above the 21st week, I repeat that such a limit would not have saved the Carlisle baby.
      Miss Nicholson: May I ask my hon. Friend to comment on two of her points? I would not want her to mislead the House. The purpose of a funeral for a 20-week-old aborted baby, whether a natural or unnatural abortion, is to help the mother cope with her grief, not to award rights to the child. She says that she would allow abortion in cases of anencephaly where the child cannot live. I must tell her that anencephaly is not necessarily a cause of death. A baby born with no brain in my constituency is nearly two and I know of another who was born without a brain who has already reached nine years. How can she cope with that statement?
      Miss Widdecombe: I have to cope according to the advice that in some cases the child cannot survive either
      196
      the full nine months of pregnancy or birth. All I am saying is that in such a case I am confronted not with a choice between life and no life, but between no life and no life, and I do not find that particularly difficult.
      Mr. David Martin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry, but I wish to make some progress because I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak.
      The second difficulty with the definition of viability arises from the percentage of children surviving prostaglandin abortions where no lethal injection is administered.
      Mr. Martin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry—
      Mr. Martin: I have never tried to intervene in any of the hon. Lady's speeches.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
      Miss Widdecombe: I must ask my hon. Friend to resume his seat. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I have given way a great deal and now intend to make rapid progress.
      It is difficult to extract from the Department of Health information on the percentage of children born alive following prostaglandin abortions. When the prostaglandin tests were being done and prostaglandins were being introduced, the medical perception, as exemplified in many articles and writings, was the danger of live births. I ask the House to note the language used. The "danger" was that of live births. Tests run in the United States on prostaglandin abortions, where no lethal injection is involved, show a survival rate of up to 8 per cent.
      Will the Secretary of State come clean about the survival rate for such abortions in this country? Does he perceive it to be a problem? If there is a survival rate and if Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling is accepted—that a child capable of surviving independently of its mother for a short period is capable of being born alive—is not prostaglandin abortion in clear opposition to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929? Could that please be taken on board when the Minister replies?
      Although there has been much discussion of absolute principles, this is a case of extremely bad law being applied and not even being policed in its own right. There is precious little will in the Department to ensure that the joint workings of the 1967 Act and of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 marry well and are implemented. It refuses to address the vital questions of lethal injections, of live births during prostaglandin abortions and of children under 24 weeks who survive, all of which need to be addressed in reaching our decisions today.
      The exemptions are important. I did not want to exempt all severe disability from the requirement. However, in the Committee on the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, (Mr. Alton), we took on board what had been said on Second Reading. Many hon. Members had said that they would vote for a lower limit if and only if severe disability which could be detected by the amniocentesis test was excluded. At the end of the Second Reading debate the hon. Gentleman undertook to address the concerns of the House during further stages.

      197
      On that basis he asked for, and was granted, a Second Reading. Since then we have always said that we believe in the exemption of severe handicap from whatever limits the House decides to impose, subject only to the requirements of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
      5.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Barking suggested that that was not covered in the new clause. I understand that paragraph (c), where the provision is:
      "if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped"
      takes that point on board. However, it does not take it on board with the safeguards that my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and I would have wished. Although we shall support the exemption because we said that we would, we want to see the nature of the disability specified on the form, and we shall raise that again on Report.
      On several occasions during the passage of his Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill claimed that doctors were aborting for hare-lip and club-foot. Everyone said, "Oh, nonsense—the medical profession would not do that." Not long ago there was a great to-do in the national press because Guy's hospital advertised for mothers to come forward with children suffering from hare-lips and facial deformities to have pre-natal surgery, of which we are all in favour. They asked those mothers to come forward because they were considering abortions for those reasons. Did the Department of Health inquire whether abortions for such trivial reasons were encompassed by the 1967 Act'? No—it was allowed to pass by.
      If the disability must be declared on the form, we shall be able to see the difference between spina bifida and hare-lip. That must be so. We are pledged to keep our promise to exempt severe disability, so we shall vote for that exemption today, but on Report we shall wish to return to the matter merely to ensure that the disability is severe.
      Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Lady make her position clear? She referred to new clause 4(1)(c) which provides for an abortion where it is suspected that a foetus would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. Is she saying that she will not support amendment (j), which would reduce the time limit for serious foetal abnormality to 24 weeks, when some foetal abnormalities cannot be detected? Will she vote for or against amendment (j)?
      Miss Widdecombe: At present we are recommending that amendment (j) is supported. We have always said that these exemptions should be made subject to the requirements of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. Even if the House tonight sets an 18-week limit, there will be exemptions up to that level determined by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. We are trying to decide what that level should be. Currently it is 28 weeks, so we would say, "All right—exempt up to 28 weeks." If by any chance it comes down to 24 weeks, we would say, "Exempt up to 24 weeks." However, where there is a chance of grave permanent injury to the mother or where her life is in question, we support the emergency provisions to a much later stage.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Barking that we have a complex series of amendments and we must judge each
      198
      according to what has gone before. That is why I suport amendment (j). I do not do so because we want to reduce the limit artificially as I suspect that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 will be changed tonight. We made the pledge to accept exemptions from whatever limit we decide up to that imposed by the 1929 Act as well as exemptions regarding serious risk to the mother beyond that time limit. I gave way to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) as I believe that new clause 4(c) deserves further consideration, but I must now make some progress.
      We also pledged that we would make an exemption to the time limit for cases involving rape and incest. When we examined the clause produced by the Secretary of State we found no reference to rape or incest. We therefore asked the Secretary of State if rape or incest was covered by new clause 4. The Department informed us that it was, but when we looked at it we were not happy and therefore we have introduced specifically amendment (s). That makes the exemption specific beyond all doubt, as it is not encapsulated in some other phrase about grave physical injury. We have made the exemptions specific and we have kept faith with the House by introducing those concessions asked of us which we believe we should make.
      There has been a lot of misinformation, especially in the press in recent days, and it is important to stress that severe handicap is exempted beyond our limit and up to the 1929 Act limit. Rape and incest are also exempted under the specific amendment (s).
      Mr. Alton: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the clarity with which she is taking the House through this difficult series of amendments. Some Members on the Opposition Benches have recently introduced a Bill to extend abortion up to birth, but that is not the issue before the House tonight. Although many of us may have difficulties with specific exemptions and may not agree with the particular principles, the issue before the House, to which the hon. Lady has rightly drawn attention, is the upper time limit. In that respect, will she repeat her intention to seek clarification on Report about what constitutes disability, as many people outside the House will be concerned because the Carlisle baby was aborted at 21 weeks gestation with a non-inherited and in no way life-threatening skin disorder?
      Miss Widdecombe: I can confirm that we shall wish on Report merely to ensure that severe disability means just that. We shall not negative any clause exempting disability, but the specific agreement reached among those of us who feel strongly about this is that that disability should be specified. I do not believe that a doctor would put down the disability as spina bifida if it was a hare-lip, so we shall obtain some control of what is going on if the disability is specified.
      I have addressed myself to the complex series of amendments before the House. It is true that we may, at the end of the debate, finish up with something which needs further refinement in terms of coherence, consistency and workability.
      Mr. Doran rose——
      Miss Widdecombe: I will give way, but this is the last time.
      Mr. Doran: The hon. Lady has consistently used the word "we", and I am sure that she is not using it in the

      199
      same way as the Prime Minister. It would be helpful to us to know who she means when she speaks of "we". Earlier this year the hon. Lady gave an interview to The Times on this subject and she was asked about the abortion amendment being added to the Bill. She said, "We shall go away for a while if the Government concede the debate." Who does "we" mean, and what does "for a while" mean? How long will it be before we discuss the issue again?
      Miss Widdecombe: We are not a grandmother——
      Mr. James Pawsey: Yet.
      Miss Widdecombe: Nor ever, I am afraid.
      I am sure that most hon. Members understand that, when I said "we", I meant that group of hon. Members who have pioneered Bills on this issue and who have talked to other hon. Members who broadly support their approach. They have forged out what is and is not accepable. I was referring to hon. Members including the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who regrettably is absent, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and many others who share similar views.
      As to what is meant by "for a while", how long is a piece of string? A decent interval must mean just that. We, I or anyone may go to Government again to say that the House wants to take a decision on this matter and must do so, but if we simply get into the habit of coming back with a whole load of similar or different proposals, frankly we would not deserve the trust of Government, nor would I expect to receive it. Therefore, "for a while" means a decent interval.
      So far I have devoted time to the various amendments and I have spoken about 20 weeks, 22 weeks and 24 weeks. Finally I should like to consider the question of 18 weeks. That limit has not been dreamt up as some sort of arbitrary line. When the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was considering the subject of late abortions, he had to ask himself, what is a late abortion and where does it start? The figure of 18 weeks had come up in the Lane committee and it is the period beyond which growth but no further development takes place. That figure seemed to be a few weeks away from the point that medical science had reached as being able to sustain viability. Looking forward to the future, and in the desire for long-term law, 18 weeks seemed a reasonable limit.
      The Second Reading of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was marked by excellent contributions from all sides and two arguments were presented against the 18-week limit—disability and the amniocentesis test. We have conceded the argument on disability and the amniocentesis test and they have been taken out of the debate. The other arguments against the 18-week limit related to menopausal women, young girls and rape victims. We have specifically introduced an amendment relating to rape in amendment (s) because we were not satisfied with the clause introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. When we looked at the statistics relating to abortions carried out on menopausal women and young children we found that the percentages were so low—0·4 per cent. and 0·5 per cent., respectively—that that argument was not worth pursuing.
      200
      It is important to remind the House of one fact. We are told that late abortions are principally due to delays in the National Health Service. Some 50 per cent. of abortions carried out after the 18th week are done on non-resident women who come here to get around the laws in their own countries.
      Ms. Short: So what?
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady may think that that is all right, but it is important to remember that those women have not been subject to delays in the NHS. The 8 per cent. of abortions conducted because of severe foetal abnormality will not be affected by the proposals that we have put forward. As great a variety of reasons are presented for the remainder of late abortions as there are for those at an earlier stage.
      Given that we have exempted from the limit the major consideration of disability, and given that we need a law which will last and not need to be revised on the basis of some cataclysmic advance in medical science next week or next year, I ask the House to consider seriously the 18-week limit. Beyond that, the House should go no higher than the limit of 20 weeks, at which we give the dignity of a funeral and insist that resuscitation equipment be available.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss Widdecombe: We have all sorts of protection at the 20th week. If we go for the 22nd week, we are doing no more than accepting the Secretary of State's statement about where viability starts.
      Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Lady give way to the Member representing Carlisle?
      Miss Widdecombe: I urge hon. Members to think hard, when they vote today, about what it is that they are talking about. We are not talking about some abstract view of women's rights, nor even about conscience or religion, but about a living mortal in the womb whom we cannot see——
      Mr. Martlew: On a point of order.
      Miss Widdecombe: That living mortal is there in the womb. It cannot protect itself and it deserves the protection of the House.
      Several hon. Members rose——
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. I have a point of order from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).
      Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. Is it right that the hon. Lady can quote a case in my constituency at great length and not give way to me?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Whether or not she gives way is in the hands of the hon. Lady.
      6 pm
      Sir David Steel: It must be said in defence of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order.
      Sir David Steel: I am trying to say a word in defence of the hon. Member for Maidstone, who today made a more moderate speech to advance her view than those which we have listened to and read about outside the House, for which we must be grateful. I have two quarrels with her, which I shall come to later. The first is that she still tries to set herself up as a medical authority, greater than others, on the time limit that the House should accept. Secondly, I would not accuse her of telling horror stories to the House, but I accuse her of telling the same horror story over and over again.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: It is a terrible story.
      Sir David Steel: It is a terrible story, and it was a ghastly tragedy. But I do not believe that we should set the law based on the one ghastly tragedy of the Carlisle case. There is a raft of experience of the working of abortion law.
      Mr. Martlew: That case has deliberately been used by the opponents of abortion. The case was a set-up. The doctor who refused treatment was a member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. We accept that the foetus should have been put in an incubator and treated. The fact that the case has been used by the anti-abortionists is a slur on the good hospital and the good doctors in it.
      The priest involved, who was not the chaplain of that hospital, received evidence about the case in confidence, and he broke that confidentiality. The organisation has used the case time and time again, despite the agony and distress that it caused to the woman involved. Does the House know that the woman was interviewed at great length by the police after the tragedy because of the actions of those involved, who exploited the case? I agree with the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) that it was a tragedy, but it has been used gratesquely by those opposed to abortion at any price, not at 18, 22 or 28 weeks, but altogether. They are using the same tactics again today.
      Sir David Steel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his intervention. He made a helpful point, as the local Member of Parliament, about what happened in that hospital. His intervention underlines my point that we should not base future legislation on one experience, however tragic and unhappy. We should consider the totality of experience and the working of the 1929 and 1967 legislation when coming to our decisions tonight.
      I hope that the Committee will consider it reasonably appropriate that, as the promoter of the 1966 legislation, I should address myself——
      Miss Widdecombe rose——
      Sir David Steel: I shall give way later, but the hon. Lady should let me get going and cover some of my points, in the hope that I can prevent unnecessary interventions.
      We should survey what has happened to the practice of abortion since we changed the law in 1967. I start by reminding the House, particularly the hon. Member for Maidstone—she was not a Member of the House when we debated issues such as rape and incest and whether they should be included or excluded from the legislation—that there is nothing new in that argument. The House went over it time and again during the passage of that legislation.
      202
      More importantly, I should like to remind the House about the state of the law and the practice on abortion before 1967. We do not have the figures for abortion then, as we have since 1967. One of the stipulations of the 1967 Act was that every abortion had to be recorded and published. However, two surveys were done before 1967. I do not lay claim to their accuracy, but they were published in 1914 and 1940, and both estimated—I stress that it was only an estimate—that there were about 100,000 illegal abortions in this country. That compares with a figure, which many may feel is too high, of 182,000 in England and Wales last year.
      There were high numbers of illegal abortions before 1967, and there were none of today's campaigning organisations against abortion in those days. Such organisations have campaigned only against safe, legal abortions, not the illegal ones that happened then I do not have an exact figure of abortions, but I have some accurate figures from the Department of Health that give us a clue about the picture before 1967. The number of women discharged from hospital with post-abortion sepsis in 1965 was 3,050 and in 1982, just 390—10 per cent. of the pre-1967 figure. That gives an indication of the scale of abortion going on, about which we were supposed not to know.
      In the three years from 1961 to 1963, 160 women were recorded, in this country as dying as a result of abortions. In the three years from 1985 to 1987, the figure was four. How can anyone say that it has not been a major social advance to have achieved the end of the scourge of illegal abortion in Britain?
      The second argument of those who want to reduce the availability of abortion is that in this country we have an exaggeratedly high rate of abortion. I accept that some other countries have lower rates of abortions than we do, but a great many countries have high rates of abortion. I objected to an hon. Lady, who is not present, so I shall not mention her name, saying in the House some weeks ago that this country was a foetal dustbin. I resent and reject such phrases, because the figures do not bear out such claims.
      The rate of abortion is measured internationally by the number of abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age. Last year, in England and Wales, the figure was 14·8 per thousand women. In Scotland, it was 8·9. The last year for which we have total international figures is, sadly, back in 1983–84, for which the figure for England and Wales was 12·8. In France, in the same period, the figure was 14·9, in East Germany, it was 26·6, in Italy it was 19, in Denmark it was 18·4, in Sweden it was 17·7, in Poland it was 16·5, in Norway it was 15·9, in Czechoslovakia it was 34·5 and in Bulgaria—presumably because of the lack of any family planning policy—it was an appalling 61·9 per thousand.
      Let us set the British figures in the context of the legal abortion rate of other European countries. In this country, we are not carrying out an excessive number of abortions, judging by international standards. It is a slur on the practice of medicine in this country to go on repeating and conveying the impression that there is an outrageous level of abortion in Britain.
      I think, if I caught her words correctly, that the hon. Member for Maidstone said that 50 per cent. of late abortions were carried out on foreign women. She said that that was not due to delays in the National Health Service, and of course it is not. It stands to reason that, if

      203
      people come to this country from other countries, that takes time. Presumably they have undergone processes elsewhere, and then come to this country.
      In 1983, before the Spaniards changed their law, exactly 22,000 women from Spain came to this country for illegal abortions. They could not have them in Spain, and no doubt they were among the late abortion figures. Spain then changed its law, and the last figure I have, for 1988, was that that figure of 22,000 women from Spain had come down to 3,000. Figures change as other countries change their law and as the availability of abortion becomes uniformly more accessible throughout Europe.
      Mr. Alton rose——
      Sir David Steel: I shall give way when I have finished this point, and my hon. Friend may feel even more inclined to interrupt when he hears my next point. One figure that inflates British abortion figures is the number of women who have to come over from both parts of Ireland—from the Republic, the figure is 3,000 and from Northern Ireland, it is 1,500.
      Mr. Alton: Of those women who have children in southern and Northern Ireland, those figures represent a tiny percentage. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell the House that women came from more than 100 different countries to the United Kingdom last year, from as far away as Mongolia and South Africa. That does not suggest a uniformity of law, but that our laws are such that they come to this country because we allow later abortions than anywhere else. Does he agree that the assurance that he gave in the 1967 debates that his legislation would not lead to abortion on demand looks absurd when, at present, one in five pregnancies end in abortion?
      Sir David Steel: I shall come to that wider argument in a moment. I have never accepted that the intention of the law in Britain is to provide some sort of worldwide service. The hon. Member for Maidstone made the point that 50 per cent. of the late abortions about which people complain are performed on foreign women who come here because of the accessibility of legal abortions in this country. I do not particularly like that. I should much prefer other countries—they are doing so gradually—to reform their own abortion laws so that women there can seek redress of their difficulties in their own lands. That is a matter for those countries, not for us, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill knows, I have never liked the foreign trade in abortions.
      What is the state of the law in other countries? It has not been mentioned much in this debate, but in previous debates opponents of the Abortion Act 1967 have repeatedly said—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said it again a moment ago—that we allow abortions later here than they do in other countries. That is true in some instances, but it is not the whole truth. Those who keep saying that some of our continental neighbours have upper limits of 10 or 12 weeks should quote the whole of their law. It is based on a completely different tenet: on the right of a woman to request an abortion at up to 10 or 12 weeks. If we changed our law to reflect that idea, as some hon. Members advocate, that would naturally cut out many of the delays
      204
      that occur. But that is not our law; our laws are different, and we cannot compare them with those that provide obortion on request.
      Our laws attempted in 1967 to strike a balance—to make a neutral statement—between the rights of the foetus and those of the woman, and left it to two doctors to judge in any given situation and in good faith whether an abortion was necessary. Hon. Members should not take bits of other people's laws and claim that, because other countries set a figure of 10 or 12 weeks, we allow abortions later than they do. Their whole systems are different. So if hon. Members want to argue for a crippling reduction in the availability of abortion here, they ought to follow through the logic and accept that early abortions should be available on request, as some would argue—although that has never been my argument.
      It would be a great mistake—this is where I quarrel with the hon. Member for Maidstone—for the House to set aside the opinion of established medical bodies on the issue of setting a limit of 18 weeks. The survey published in The Lancet of 2 December 1989 showed that only 3 per cent. of members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists favoured a reduction to 18 weeks; 75 per cent. favoured 24 weeks. The British Medical Associaton is also firmly against 18 weeks and says, correctly, that such a limit would have
      "an inequitable and adverse effect on those most in need of having their pregnancies terminated".
      The representative professional committee on foetal viability, to which the Minister referred, also stressed in 1985 the harmful effects of setting the limit too low. Its report stated:
      "late attenders are usually the women in greatest need of help—the very young and socially deprived".
      We are not entitled to cast aside all these opinions as though they did not matter, or to pluck out of the air a figure that we think might be better——
      Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentlemen acknowledge that in 1967 he went against a considerable body of medical opinion and presumably thought it right to do so?
      6.15 pm
      Sir David Steel: Certainly not; I do not accept that for a minute. I worked with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the BMA throughout the passage of the legislation——
      Mr. Alton: They were opposed to it.
      Sir David Steel: There were differences about bits and pieces of the legislation, but fundamentally these bodies were not opposed to it——
      Mr. Alton: Yes, they were.
      Sir David Steel: My hon. Friend is beginning to sound like a parrot. The fact is that they did not oppose it. They supported it throughout its passage, and they still do. That is why they study these matters and send recommendations to Members of this House. They are not asking for fundamental changes in the 1967 legislation.
      There is concern about the rise in the number of abortions, particularly in the past two years. I rather share that concern, but I do not believe that any hon. Member can suddenly arrive at some correct number of abortions. How would one do that? Each case must be assessed under

      205
      the law and considered on its merits. In some cases, I or other hon. Members might not agree with the doctors that an abortion should have been allowed; in other cases, we might think that they made the wrong decision, but under the law, we leave that decision to two doctors acting in good faith.
      My worry about the rise in the number of abortions in the past two years relates not to the practice of the Abortion Act but to the declining standards of availability of family planning in this country. The "World in Action" television programme last night had done a survey of health authorities and found that a third of authorities in England and Wales had been reducing the numbers of family planning clinics for cash reasons. It was said that, in one area, there was a waiting list of 18 months to have vasectomies on the NHS, and there have been instances of local authorities under financial pressure reducing their subscriptions to the Family Planning Association and to Brook Advisory Clinics. Moreover, the new core curriculum in secondary schools leaves little time for non-statutory subjects such as sex education, so the picture is one of a rise in unnecessary abortions.
      If this were a less male-dominated House, we should have spent less time over the years debating abortion, and far more time discussing family planning facilities. I am convinced that there is a relationship between the unhappy cuts of the past couple of years and the unfortunate increase in the number of abortions. Whether we are caricatured outside this place as pro or anti-abortion—I do not accept the labels—it should be common ground in the House that Ministers and the Department of Health should pay more attention to that relationship.
      Finally, I turn to the time limit, and——
      Mr. Beith: My right hon. Friend has dealt with the two-doctor provision of the 1967 legislation. He must surely recognise that, under that provision, late abortions have taken place in circumstances that he would not have contemplated as part of that legislation; and that the provision has led to a wide range of assumptions, practised by different doctors, of what reasonable circumstances for an abortion are. If he does not recognise that, he does not recognise the significance that many hon. Members attached to the assurances that he gave in 1967.
      Sir David Steel: I go this far with my hon. Friend: I certainly accept that there have been cases—I hinted as much a few moments ago—in which doctors have taken decisions on abortion with which I or my hon. Friend would not have agreed, but the fact is that the onus was put on the medical profession to act in good faith.
      I may have said this before, but I distinctly remember going, during the passage of the 1967 Act, to see the secretary of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists perform an operation under pre-1967 legislation. When I saw the case notes in the clinic where he was operating, I told him that I had grave doubts about whether he was acting within the law.
      Of course there is room for variation in opinion. All we can say is that we have to rely on the ethics of the medical profession to act in good faith. I accept that, just as there are bad Members of Parliament and clergymen, so there are bad doctors. I regret that, and I have never denied it, but in the main the great majority of doctors are carrying out the intentions of the House as enshrined in the 1967 legislation.
      206
      I turn now to the time limits, and I should like to deal in passing with the vexed issue of the situation in Scotland. With great respect to the Minister, I thought that she was not exactly comfortable with this part of her remarks. I stand to be corrected by the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), who is a Scots lawyer, but time limits in Scotland are and always have been a happier subject, legally speaking, than they have been in England. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act does not apply in Scotland; the common law of Scotland makes child destruction a crime. Fortunately, because no time limit has ever appeared in a Scottish statute, there is a degree of flexibility there which has been helpful as medical science has developed.
      There has been no need for such a great debate north of the border. I looked up the figures and found that, in 1987, there were only two abortions at over 24 weeks in Scotland. In 1988, there was only one. The issue hardly arises there. This is a peculiarly English and Welsh problem. I do not wish to enter into nationalistic considerations, but I do not understand why that should be so. The problem does not exist in the law of Scotland, and we are wise to leave well alone there.
      For England and Wales, we put the provisions of the 1929 Act into the 1967 one. It is right—the Minister put the point fairly—that medical science has moved on a great deal since 1929 and it is now possible with resuscitation equipment to keep alive at least a small proportion—we should not exaggerate this—of those born between the 24th and 28th week of pregnancy. That is why there has been such deep consideration of the workings of the Abortion Act and the time limit by, among others, the Lane committee, which recommended a reduction to 24 weeks. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association, the 1985 committee to which the Minister referred and the House of Lords Select Committee all recommended 24 weeks.
      A wide section of expert opinion appears to have looked into the matter very carefully, and says that there is now a case for reducing the presumption of viability from 28 to 24 weeks. Before I finish on that matter, I again reiterate a point that is widely misunderstood. The fact that there is a presumption of viability in the law at 28 weeks does not mean the reverse. There is no presumption that a foetus is not viable before 28 weeks. That is important.
      It is precisely because of that, as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, that the medical profession usually allows a two-week safety margin in its judgment below the level that the law states. That is because the profession can be in danger of prosecution even if it is shown that the foetus was below the 28th week of pregnancy. There is no presumption that below that level viability does not exist.
      Let us be clear that, whatever decisions we reach, if we go for 24 weeks, which I will support because I think the law should now be changed, we are in practice introducing a clinical procedure in which 22 weeks will become the limit. If we go for 22 weeks the practice will be 20 weeks and so on. That is why I am wholly opposed to 18 weeks or any lower suggestion. That is nothing but a crude attempt to stop the availability of legal abortion to certain categories of women. There is no medical justification for it.
      All the expert medical bodies have told us that, whatever the advances in medical science, it will not be

      207
      possible to sustain life at such a low limit, except in occasional cases such as the one that has been widely quoted, where it was suggested that a baby survived at 21 weeks. By and large, the general medical opinion is that it is not possible to get any significant number of babies to survive below the 24th week of pregnancy. That is the simple reason why I believe that that is the right term. Anything lower is simply arbitrary and designed to deny women their rights.
      It is right that we should have this debate. Hon. Members have been plagued by endless pieces of mail, to put it politely. I in particular have been the target of an extraordinary resurgence of hate mail of the type that I thought I had last seen in the late 1960s. That is life. By and large, the House wishes to come to a conclusion. I shall support the new clause—with some of the amendments, because I do not think that the clause in itself is quite right. I hope that, at the end of the confusion, we will come to a decision and stick to it. There may not be another debate on abortion in this Parliament and, if there is not, the House must turn its attention to the issues of family planning and contraception facilities.
      Mr. Cormack: It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). I do not agree with everything that he said, but I have always admired him and he has always sought to act from the best possible motives. Although the Act that he introduced has not been the signal success that I am sure he wished it to be, no one who has paid any attention at all to this matter could accuse him of having acted for anything other than the social good of the nation as he saw it at the time. I speak with some diffidence because the last time that the House devoted a fair amount of time to abortion, I had the difficult task of chairing the Committee that examined the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
      Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman was a good Chairman.
      Mr. Cormack: I am grateful for that intervention because it was a difficult task and one had to be impartial. I hope that I was impartial throughout the sittings of the Committee. Because I chaired that Committee, for two years I have refused to make any public utterance on this subject. I did not think it right to give any sign of sympathy for one side or the other. When I chaired that Committee I learned a great deal from both sides. One of the things that I learned was that people felt passionately and, on occasions, spoke with some intolerance and misunderstanding, sometimes deliberate, of other people's opinions, which did not advance either case very much.
      I shall try to explain how I see the matter and how I shall vote. First, the interests of the mother are and must be paramount. If there is any question of a mother's life being at risk, then, faced with the ghastly choice of which life is to be ended, it is important to decide that the mother's life should be preserved.
      On the second matter I cannot go all the way with the Roman Catholic Church, much as I admire the courage of the statements on moral absolutes that are made frequently by the Pope. Certain categories of women must always be granted abortions. There can be no debate about cases arising from rape and incest. If a woman or a girl has
      208
      been violated by a member of her own family or by anybody else and a pregnancy that was never wanted or never sought has been thrust upon her, she must have the chance to have the pregnancy terminated.
      If there is evidence of severe abnormality, the family must have the opportunity to take counsel, to consider, and, if necessary, to decide that termination is the right course. In what I would loosely call certain social categories, after careful consideration it might be in the interests of other members of the family for abortion to be contemplated.
      However, we are not considering with sufficient care the sanctity of life. I was in the Members' Post Office on Saturday morning when all the parcels arrived and my initial feeling was of great sympathy for the staff. When I opened my parcel I found a legitimate and graphic piece of campaigning, because nobody disputes that that is what a 20-week-old foetus looks like. [Interruption.] If somebody had been able to produce medical evidence that this was a grotesque mock-up that was totally inaccurate and grossly misleading, it would have been the most obscene piece of campaigning that anyone could indulge in. However, nobody has suggested that. When I was in the Post Office yesterday an hon. Member came in, took his parcel, opened it and threw it in the bin. I could not help thinking that this is what happens to many foetuses.
      Over the past 23 years, we have developed a new attitude towards the sanctity of life which accords ill with our constant talk about the need to preserve the quality of life. I do not make the ridiculous mistake of blaming the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale for that. That would be absurd. However, I say to him and to other hon. Members that the climate that was partly—and I choose my words carefully—influenced by his Act has degenerated over the past 20 years. People who would never have contemplated abortion then, would do so now.
      6.30 pm
      Mrs. Mahon: If I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is suggesting that there are more abortions now because abortion is legal. Can he explain why there were 1·2 million abortions in Romania in 1989, most of them illegal? Obviously, the rich can always buy safe abortions.
      Mr. Cormack: For the sake of other hon. Members, I will not be sidetracked to Romania—a country which I have just visited and which is one of the saddest places that I have ever seen. I shall not talk about the obscene antics of the Ceaucesceu regime and the actions that people were driven to during that time. I am talking about our attitude to life. I am trying to put my case with a degree of calmness and moderation—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that I understand how passionately she feels. I know that she was a member of the nursing profession and must have just as great a concern for life as I have—[Interruption.] We view these matters differently, but she must allow me to develop my speech. I hope that she will have the opportunity to make her speech later.
      I was not defending back-street abortions. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill—he wanted to combat a terrible social evil. The choice to have an abortion must always be traumatic, and the right hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce a Bill that would make abortion available under proper clinical conditions for

      209
      those who needed it. I am suggesting that, unwittingly, his Act has helped to create a climate in which people do not have so great a regard for the sanctity of human life.
      Mrs. Mahon: Rubbish.
      Mr. Cormack: I do not think that it is rubbish. This is what I mean by the intolerance that these arguments sometimes provoke. The hon. Lady cannot solve the problem or salve her conscience—or, indeed, anyone else's conscience—by shouting, "Rubbish." People now have a much less serious regard for the really important decisions of life. We must recognise that, which is why——
      Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is because mothers are concerned about the quality of life for their whole families that they have abortions? Women sometimes feel that they cannot continue with another child, so they have an abortion. The law does not make much difference to them, because history shows that, when abortion was not legal, they went to the back-street abortionists. They risked their lives and the freedom of those who helped them because of their desire to maintain the quality of life for their families.
      I can count on my fingers the number of hon. Members who have carried a child to full term or who have had to face a decision on whether to have a foetus aborted. I know that it is hard for hon. Members to understand——
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech, not an intervention. I shall do my best to call her later in the debate.
      Mr. Cormack: I gave way because I know that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) has strong feelings. She was on the Committee that I chaired. However, she was not here when I began my speech——
      Ms. Gordon: I was.
      Mr. Cormack: I was trying to be kind to the hon. Lady by suggesting that she might not have heard my earlier points. I said that there were certain social categories where abortion might be right. However, it must never be lightly entered into and the law must not make it easy for that to happen. Currently, the law makes it too easy.
      On the question of how and at what point, I refer hon. Members to the model foetus that we were all sent. It showed a well formed, recognisable human body. When I intervened in my hon. Friend the Minister's speech, the substance of my question to her might not have been immediately clear. I asked how many women miscarried after 20 weeks. She said, quite honestly, that she did not know. My point, which I hoped hon. Members had understood, was that most women who carried a child up to 20 weeks went on to deliver that child. Most 20-week foetuses develop into healthy babies. That point was alluded to, very fairly, by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, and it needs emphasising.
      It is often said that we live in a throwaway society, and we do. We are always throwing things away. We do not pay sufficient regard to our environment. When we are chided and upbraided by members of the Green party, many of us deserve it, and I do not exempt myself. However, we must not allow that throwaway mentality to extend to the most important areas of life and lead to the throwing away of life itself.
      Sir David Steel: I do not deny that there is something in what the hon. Gentleman says, because the subject of abortion is now more open to discussion and, perhaps, is being treated too trivially. I hope that he will accept that there is a reverse side to the coin. It was well put to me by a friend who was a medical student at Edinburgh when I was a student there. He is now in general practice. He said that one of the effects of the 1967 legislation has been that people will come to his surgery and discuss abortion with him, whereas pre-1967 they would not have done so and he would have lost control of what was happening, and the patient might have ended up with a back-street abortion or going into a private clinic. That is the other side of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
      Mr. Cormack: I entirely accept that. The right hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, and I acknowledge it. All the right is not on one side and all the wrong on the other. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a devout and convinced Christian—so, I hope, am I. Because we are both Christians we both believe in sin and we are both sinners. Neither of us can be right all the time. I would never suggest that one must believe in no abortion if one is to be a Christian. That is nonsense. I must not refer to yesterday's debate or I shall be called to order. However, yesterday there was a tendency to polarise. In The Times yesterday there was an article by the Archbishop of York who, whatever else he might be, cannot be called anything other than a totally convinced, committed and devout Christian. He is a far better man than I am.
      My beliefs make me feel that there is a less deep regard for the sanctity of human life than I would wish. I know that many people in the House and outside do not share the Christian beliefs held by the right hon. Gentleman and myself. However, we still live in a country that has an established Church——
      Sir David Steel: I do not.
      Mr. Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman does not, but there is an established Church in England and we still subscribe to the general Christian ethic. Many people who are not Christians also subscribe to that ethic. At the centre of that ethic must be a regard for the sanctity, the decency, the quality of human life. It is about those things that we are talking today.
      Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when we debated the matter in the House 23 years ago, not even the keenest advocate of the new Bill claimed that any more than 100,000 babies, at the outside, were aborted each year? We know that the figure now is well in excess of 180,000 babies a year. Is my hon. Friend aware that those statistics back up his case?
      Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware of that and that is why I have been trying to make the case, imperfectly I realise. Many of the things that most hon. Members would hold dear are held a little more tenuously than they were 23 years ago. I was not in the House then but I came shortly after. My hon. Friend was. One has to face the fact that marriage is no longer the central institution that it was. One has only to do some canvassing, as I did in Mid-Staffordshire recently—not that it did much good—to realise that for two people of different sex to live in the same house in different names is much more common that it was 20 years ago. One has only to consider the statistics for children born out of wedlock,

      211
      or the increasingly powerful demands, which I shall not expand on at the moment because it would be out of order, from some sections of the community for women to be allowed to have children without any thought of marriage, to realise that there have been many changes.
      No one could have been married for 23 years as I have—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Too long."] I hope that it is not too long; I hope that I can carry on—without realising that monogamy is not always the easiest state to sustain. The old words of the old prayer book about natural instincts being directed aright show that that has always been recognised.
      We are talking about life and the quality of life and we in the House have a great duty, whatever our personal beliefs, to recognise that there is nothing more sacred than life.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Cormack: No, I shall not give way any more. You are nodding, Miss Boothroyd, and in fairness to others, I should bring my remarks to a close. My hon. Friend may then have a chance to address the Committee.
      We in the House have a great duty to sustain the concept of the sanctity of life. Whether or not we believe in the word "sanctity" is irrelevant. There is nothing more precious than a life. When two people come together and cohabit and create a third person they take on a great responsibility. The act of coming together should not be lightly entered into. The consequences of conception should not lightly be consigned to the flames, or anywhere else for that matter. Children should not be aborted, and that means killed, unless there is a paramount reason—the life of the mother, the circumstances of the conception or some overriding personal problem which can be assessed.
      This evening we should tighten up the law and reduce the time limit—I shall vote for the 18-week limit—to make abortion more difficult, but not impossible. The one thing that I could never agree to is abortion on demand. That demeans everyone, most of all the person who demands. It is with that sort of thought in mind that we should conduct our debate. I hope that at the end of our proceedings, whether it is in the small hours or not, we shall have improved the law so that those with legitimate needs will have nothing to fear and those whose attitude to life is rather a casual one will have to think more seriously about the consequences of their actions.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Doran: My main purpose in rising is to address the House on the uniqueness of the Scottish position, which has been ignored in all the amendments before the House. That was confirmed by the Minister's response to my intervention.
      I oppose new clause 4, because I am in favour of the status quo. If the legislation were to be changed, I would want it liberalised and the Scottish position imported into the English legislation. For that reason, I shall be supporting new clause 3.
      The Scottish position tends to be ignored and I am conscious that today's debate has concentrated on specific time limits. As a Scottish lawyer, that is an aspect of the English legal system which I have always found it difficult
      212
      to understand. The English adherence to precedent and strict rules makes legislation complicated and forces one into the sort of debate that we have heard today.
      The Scottish legal system is based on principle. The 1967 Act applies in Scotland, but the basic principle in the application of the Act is the medical decision on the viability of the foetus. When the 1967 Act came into force in Scotland, the limit of 28 weeks was accepted in exactly the same way as it was accepted in England and Wales, but it was accepted because that was the best medical view on the viability of the foetus. As medical technology has improved, so the limit has been lowered. Therefore, the effective limit in Scotland now is 24 weeks, but the limit progresses with medical technology and the ability of the medical profession to sustain the life of a viable foetus. It is on that basis that I present our principle to the House. It is much more flexible, it advances with the times and it would save us endless and interminable debates on the subject of abortion.
      To illustrate how flexible the Scottish system is, it is important to consider what was happening in Scotland before the introduction of the 1967 Act. Throughout the rest of the United Kingdom abortion was illegal, but in Aberdeen, the city that I am proud to represent, National Health Service abortions were introduced by the then consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology at Aberdeen royal infirmary, Dugald Baird, who had learned his medicine in the slums of the Gorbals in Glasgow. He had seen working-class women who had produced children year after year, and many of them were worn out in their mid-30s.
      With the legal authorities, Dugald Baird introduced the concept of an abortion where the pregnancy posed a risk to the health of the mother. With the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen, he devised a scheme whereby every case in which he as consultant considered that abortion was appropriate because of the risk to the health of the mother, was reported to the procurator fiscal and, if he was satisfied that an abortion was appropriate, it was carried out. The procedure was streamlined so that there were no delays, and many hundreds of abortions were carried out in Aberdeen before the introduction of the 1967 Act. That was possible because of the flexibility of the Scottish system, which declared abortion to be a crime but provided exceptions where, for example, there was a real risk to the mother's health.
      The Government amendments threaten that flexibility. No consideration has been given to the uniqueness of the Scottish situation. There is no Scottish Office Minister on the Government Front Bench now, nor has there been for any of the debate—and I do not expect to see one there. There has been inadequate consultation in respect of the Scottish position. When the Minister responded to my earlier intervention during her own speech, she said that the situation in Scotland was at a loose end and that it had to be "tidied up." I hope that she views it as something more than that, and that we can return to that aspect on Report.
      Sir David Steel: The hon. Member may be interested to learn that I discussed the matter with Sir Dugald Baird at the time of the Abortion Act 1967. He was much in favour of including Scotland in that statute, because during the time that he was carrying out the practice to which the hon. Gentleman referred, a particular Law Officer in Scotland wrote to him, warning in effect, "Watch it." Sir

      213
      Dugald replied, "The next time that I have a case, will you come and tell me whether or not I can carry out an abortion?" He did not regard the law in quite the ideal light that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Doran: Few doctors regard the law in the same ideal light that it is regarded by Scottish lawyers, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. Although I never met Dugald Baird, I know from his colleagues that his views were not quite those that I would like to present. He was not totally in favour of the 1967 Act, although he was in favour of establishing a statutory position. I am sure that he would be in favour of the operation of such a law today. Sir Dugald's colleagues recently established a trust fund in memory of the work that he did. The Minister for Health indicates surprise. Perhaps I may write asking her to make a donation to that trust, if she supports its objectives.
      Although Scottish law appears to be much more liberal than that of England and Wales, as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) mentioned, the number of late abortions performed in Scotland is very small. In 1987, there were only two abortions involving pregnancies later than 24 weeks, and only one in 1988. In 1984, the United Nations undertook a survey of abortion rates in every European country where abortion was legal. The rate in Scotland was only eight per thousand, compared with 13 per thousand in England. That bears out the point also made by the right hon. Gentleman that National Health Service family planning services are well developed in Scotland.
      Aberdeen's extensive experience of providing abortions on the National Health Service provides many other examples of the way in which abortion law operates north of the border. My local hospital, Aberdeen royal infirmary, has a well organised and streamlined system that aims at avoiding late abortions. No one favours abortion. Every abortion that is performed is a tragedy, but the Aberdeen system ensures that cases that fulfil the legal criteria set by the 1967 Act are dealt with, according to the woman's wishes, at the earliest possible opportunity.
      When a woman visits her general practitioner for the purpose of arranging an abortion, he is instructed not to write a letter or postcard to the appropriate consultant seeking an appointment for her but to pick up the telephone and contact a named individual. An appointment is made for the woman there and then. Bureaucratic delays are avoided and the case can be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. I am not frightened by the prospect of an 18-week limit for my own constituents in Aberdeen, although I consider it undesirable for all the other reasons that have been advanced.
      In Aberdeen, the latest date effectively for an abortion to be considered is 20 weeks, because the system is streamlined and all qualifying cases are picked up at the earliest stages. Virtually all Aberdeen GPs are tuned in to the system, having worked with it for many years. Even those opposed to abortion pass cases to their partners in the same practice.
      There are exceptions to the rule, but the majority of abortions are dealt with within 18 or 20 weeks. That is an excellent example of the way that the National Health Service can restrict the number of late abortions without right hon. and hon. Members having to tug at their heart strings and being the recipients of obscene items—at least, I consider them obscene—through the mail, to persuade them to take a particular view.
      214
      Even those who support the 18-week limit accept that abortions should be provided on the National Health Service. That may be to distort some of their views, but I am entitled to place that interpretation on their support for the 18-week amendment. They should also be looking for ways of removing the trauma and stress that is suffered by all women who have to endure an abortion, for whatever reason.
      Ways should also be found of taking the issue away from this House and interminable debate. I asked the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) what she meant by her statement of a few months ago that she and her supporters "would go away for a while". I do not believe for a minute that the issue will die once a decision has been made by this House. I certainly do not accept that the hon. Lady can guarantee that all those who share her view will stay in line.
      We need to establish a principle that is related to the best medical practices. We should not have to debate the matter year in, year out, but should place our trust in medical practitioners and give them a legal framework within which they can operate and which the public can understand. That would bring an end to the debate, except among those who are totally opposed to the concept of abortion. We could then enter into a much more honest debate on the arguments for and against abortion, rather than have to tinker with time limits and risk the dishonesty that they might engender. For all those reasons, l support new clause 3 and shall vote against new clause 4.
      Sir Bernard Braine: We can at least all agree that it is high time to legislate on this important issue. Right hon. and hon. Members who have been in this House for many years will recall repeated attempts by private Members to seek, in some cases, quite modest reforms of abortion law, who succeeded in securing substantial majorities in favour of such measures on the Floor of the House, yet were frustrated by a comparatively small minority who knew how to use our rules and regulations to prevent the House from reaching a final decision.
      Whether or not one agrees with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—and I do—hers was a remarkable speech, showing a great command of the subject. I listened to her with profit, and I hope that other right hon. Members, whether or not they agree with my hon. Friend, will acknowledge that hers was a remarkable performance.
      Clearly, it seemed to the pro-life movement that the only way to resolve the matter once and for all was to persuade the Government of the day—in this case a Conservative Government—that embryo experimentation and abortion law reform should be incorporated in a Government Bill. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) will be the first to recall that the Abortion Act 1967 would not be on the statute book had the Government of the day refused time for it. I do not complain about that. I complain about subsequent Governments who did not take a similar course, although there was an overwhelming majority in the House and in the country in favour of abortion law reform. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, therefore, in congratulating the Government on facilitating this debate.

      215
      7 pm
      The House has voted repeatedly to stop the scandal of late abortions and abortion on dmand, but we have been prevented from coming to a decision not by argument or reason or by a straight defeat in the Division Lobby, but by blatant filibustering, which is an open admission of defeat by the pro-abortionists. This debate, however, has been very different, precisely because those who used to use those practices know perfectly well that this is a Government Bill, that there is a time limit and that we are being given full facilities to express our views. I have listened with respect to the views advanced by those who fundamentally disagree with me. This has been a good debate for that reason, and we should thank the Government for making it possible.
      We have an opportunity now to decide on a reasonable upper limit for abortions. We should take decisions tonight that will be valid for years to come. We should take decisions that bear a relationship to the present situation but, having regard to the advances in medical science, to the situation that is likely to develop in the next decade. That is why I ask hon. Members to consider very carefully which way they will vote tonight. I declare straight away that I am in favour of an upper limit of 18 weeks.
      We must also recognise that we compare somewhat unfavourably in that regard, even if the Bill is enacted with the provisions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said that he is in favour of—namely, 24 weeks—with a good many countries in Europe. We are still way behind them and the details are available for hon. Members. Thus, the position in Germany and in France, to consider two of our nearest neighbours, is quite different from the position here, and it will be different again if the Bill is enacted with the recommendations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
      Let us consider the position in this country with regard to late abortions. In 1988, the last year for which I have figures, 183,798 abortions were performed under the Abortion Act 1967. The overwhelming majority were performed for social or non-medical reasons. Handicap was given as a ground for abortion in 3,817 cases, and only 486 abortions were performed because the mother's life was at risk.
      Down the ages, it has been acknowledged—it is not challenged now—that abortion is the only surgical operation involving two lives where one must die. It has been accepted down the ages by Christian societies that, where the mother's life is in danger, it is paramount. There is no argument about that.
      In 1988, only five abortions were performed to prevent grave permanent damage to the mother. Of late abortions—for the purposes of this debate, I will take those to be at 19 to 20 weeks—3,406 were performed. The total of abortions at 21 to 22 weeks was 1,983; at 23 to 24 weeks, it was 1,107; and at 25 weeks and over, there were only 23. Under the provisions of the new clause tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, the number of lives that would be saved on 1988 figures, if the House voted for an 18-week limit, would be 5,977. If the upper limit was set at 20 weeks, that figure would be reduced to 2,914; at 22 weeks, it would be reduced to 2,027, and at 24 weeks to nil.
      I was deeply moved by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). This debate is about life and death. Will we be
      216
      voting to save the maximum number of lives? We must consider the figures. The pro-life movement readily concedes that there are certain tragic circumstances in which an abortion is justified. We are not absolutists on the subject. However, for God's sake let us consider the figures. When hon. Members vote, they should weigh the figures very carefully.
      My right hon. and learned Friend's new clause is different from the amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in his Bill, in that an upper limit would apply at the end of the week that we decide upon. The new clause refers to a pregnancy which
      "has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week".
      The Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill set the limit at the beginning of the 18th week. I would like clarification from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health as to whether the words, "has not exceeded" means the end of the week in question. Perhaps that can be clarified later.
      We have clear choices before us. How many lives do we want to save? That is what the debate is about. How many unborn children do we condemn to death, and how many do we save? It is clear that 24 weeks is no decision at all. That is a fudge, because it would save hardly a single life. In a written answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), my hon. Friend the Minister for Health stated that the 22nd week is considered by doctors to be the earliest time that there is the possibility of a foetus being born alive. Wait a minute. We must remember that the Abortion Act 1967 does not have an upper limit. It refers to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which makes it the crime of child destruction to destroy a child capable of being born alive. The prima facie case of capability of being born alive at that time was 28 weeks.
      We should note that the 1929 Act does not require a child to be born alive and to survive, which no one can determine in advance, but only to be born alive. I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone told us that Mr. Justice Brooke defined "capable of being born alive" as surviving for only a few minutes. Twenty-eight weeks was the figure agreed in 1929, but medical science has moved fast since then, and that limit is now totally out of date.
      Does the Committee realise that, at this precise moment, an abortion carried out at 24 weeks is illegal and contrary to the 1929 Act if it turns out that the child could be born alive at 22 weeks? In short, a 24-week limit would put the clock back and legalise what at present is plainly illegal. Does the Committee realise that that would be the precise effect if we voted for a 24-week limit tonight?
      Last December, the Daily Mail featured a delighted mother holding her baby and girl, who had been born at 22 weeks. She weighed just 20 oz. She was not only born alive, but she survived. How against that can anyone defend 24 weeks and think that he is voting for reasonable upper limit? Parliament will be enacting nonsense. A vote for 24 weeks tonight is a vote for a nonsense. When the country realises that, it will not easily forgive us. Medical science will continue to advance, and more and more babies born prematurely will survive. Surely we should legislate for the future and not for the past.
      New Clause 1 does not apply a 24-week upper limit as it seems to do. I do not know whether my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), who tabled the new clause,

      217
      are aware of that. The new clause seems to allow abortion up to birth under the exceptions stated in paragraphs (2A) (a) and (2A) (b) of the new subsections. Those exceptions could be interpreted widely and the doctors performing such exceptional abortions could stand wholly unchallenged. They would not even be subject to the 1929 Act. I therefore urge hon. Members to oppose new clause 1.
      Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State aware of the effect of new clause 1? I am not seeking to draw my right hon. and learned Friend to his feet, and I do not expect a snap answer. The subject is too serious for that. However, I ask him to reflect on what I am saying and on whether I am right or wrong. God knows, there are moments when one prefers to be wrong. This is the moment of truth. As I said in respect of embryo research yesterday—although the vote did not reflect my advice—the buck stops here in Parliament. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider arranging for a statement to be made before we vote.
      It is now appropriate to describe the unborn child in the later stages of pregnancy. There have been several references to a package that hon. Members have received. I have not received one, and I am not especially in favour of such dramatic gestures. However, this is an adult House and hon. Members would not be here if they were not trusted by many of their fellow citizens. It is right to describe what we are discussing. Far from being an inanimate object and a mere clump of cells, the unborn child is sensitive to sound and touch. At 18 weeks, it is complete. All its organs are in place and what it needs between 18 weeks and birth is the correct environment in which to live and to grow.
      What is the difference between an 18-week baby and a 28-week baby? It is only size and weight. The unborn child will move spontaneously, it will react to bright light shining on the uterus, and it can recognise and react to its mother's voice. In January 1980, the British Medical Journal published an article entitled, "What the Fetus Feels". In describing the reactions of a nine-week unborn child, the article said:
      "the baby is well enough formed for him to bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand. In response to a touch on the sole of his foot he will curl his toes or bend his hips and knees to move away from the touching object. At 12 weeks he can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the base of the thumb. At 11 weeks after conception the fetus starts to swallow the surrounding amniotic fluid and to pass it back into his urine. He can also produce complex facial expressions and even smile."
      All these movements and reactions require a high degree of sense and organisation of the various bodily functions. That is the little creature about whom we are talking—a human being not yet born, yet with all the hope and expectation of life.
      When we come to vote, let us not vote for a figure. Let us remember that we are voting for the preservation of the lives of future citizens. God knows the number of those who have been sacrificed as a result of abortion since the passage of the 1967 Act. There were, of course, abortions before that Act—I am not criticising the right hon. Member for Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), but since its passage, 2·5 million to 3 million children have been lost, and the overwhelming majority, if they had been allowed to be born, would have been perfectly fit and healthy.
      218
      Where would they have been today? They would have been in our schools or at universities or at work, serving their country. That should be a matter of prime concern for every man and woman inside and outside the House. When we vote, let us remember that we are not voting about figures, but about unborn children who may one day make a contribution to our national life.
      7.15 pm
      I want to put another crucial question to hon. Members. Can the foetus feel pain? I am sure that we are all conscious of the need to safeguard the welfare of animals. How many of us are members of one of the animal welfare societies, go to dog shows in our constituencies and are revolted by cruelty to animals? Let us ask ourselves a question. Tonight, we shall decide whether a foetus should be allowed to live or die after the 18th, 20th or 22nd week, or later. Does this little creature feel pain?
      The distinguished Australian, Professor Peter McCullagh who, I am glad to say, is one of the advisers to my all-party pro-life committee, state in his 1987 book entitled "The Foetus as Transplant Donor" that the brain cells essential for consciousness of pain in the adult are present in the 10-week-old unborn child. The sensory nerve fibres transmitting pain are present even before those capable of inhibiting perception of pain. Some hon. Members have had the privilege of hearing Professor McCullagh speak to us elsewhere in this building.
      A study that appeared in 1987 in Nature, a well recognised and respected journal, stated that the unborn child's sensory neurones appeared to be more sensitive than those of an adult or a new-born baby. There can be little doubt that abortion is intensely painful for the child as well as for the mother. It is a gruesome business, but I doubt whether many people outside the House—or many in the House—know exactly what is involved.
      I shall describe one of the most vivid accounts I have read of a dilatation and evacuation abortion performed at 22 weeks in a London hospial. The House should know exactly what happens before we vote tonight. I quote from the book "Abortion: The Whole Story" by the well-known journalist Mary Kenny. This is her account of what she saw:
      "First came an arm, perfectly formed, a tiny baby's hand, fingers curled. A limb was extracted. Then two limbs lay in the bowl … The intestines, brain tissue, liver, lungs came away. Last of all—the most difficult part—was the cranium. The skin was torn, and there was not much more than a skull".
      Who passed that account to me? It was passed to me by the organisation called Doctors Who Respect Human Life.
      Many things have been said about the medical profession in the course of the debate. There has been the odd tribute here and there and people have said that the vast majority of doctors are honourable people who care for their patients, and so on. Thank God many doctors, men and women, take the view that such abortions are an obscenity and a crime that should be stopped. The quotation does not come merely from a journalist or someone who wants to tell an alarmist story.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the right hon. Gentleman read accounts of back-street illegal abortions or what happens when women attempt to abort
      themselves, with equally gruesome results, often resulting in the death of the women?
      Sir Bernard Braine: Yes, I have. It has been claimed strongly since the passage of the 1967 Act that the legalisation of abortion rendered back-street abortions unnecessary. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale would tell the hon. Lady if he were in his place—I hope she will not shake her head in dissent before hearing my answer to her intervention—the rate of back-street abortions was on the decline before that Act came into being.
      I am not arguing that there should not be effective control or that we do not have a responsibility, as a civilised society, to see that women who are in dire need and distress are cared for. Under French law, for example, a woman must be in a state of distress before an abortion can be granted. I am concerned about abortion on demand.
      It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is not in her place. If she had been, I would have asked if she could recall the grounds on which the Carlisle baby was aborted. Hon. Members will remember the terrible story that she told. I am not absolutely sure, but I believe that the grounds were largely trivial and that, if there had been effective control——
      Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: It was a skin disease.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that it was a skin disease, which is common enough among adults, some of whom do not even know that they have it.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 84 per cent. of all women in the United Kingdom believe that women should have the right to choose?
      Sir Bernard Braine: The right to choose what?
      Miss Nicholson: The right to choose their own pregnancies.
      Sir Bernard Braine: In most civilised countries, there is a requirement before an abortion is permitted that the woman—who, in such circumstances, will obviously be in a state of great distress—is counselled by a doctor. There is a pause during which she is given the opportunity to consider the situation. There is at least one organisation in Britain which not only gives counselling but which, if necessary, would help a woman in that situation to bear her child.
      Miss Nicholson rose——
      Sir Bernard Braine: No, I will not give way. My hon. Friend raised a trivial point—[Interruption.]—because a woman in that situation needs help. I am not saying that she should be denied help or that there are not circumstances in which abortion is not justified. I am not saying that, and have never said it. I am simply endeavouring to bring home to hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, what is involved in an abortion.
      Ms. Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that she does not know?
      Sir Bernard Braine: We should consider who benefits from late abortions. Who performs them? I am talking not about early but about late abortions. In a survey conducted by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists entitled, "Late Abortions", published in
      220
      1984, it was found that over 60 per cent. of very late abortions were performed, believe it or not, by just 11 private practitioners. That is killing for profit. Some would call it legalised murder.
      I trust that whoever replies to the debate will say, since I am referring to 1984 figures, whether the Department of Health has investigated those 11 doctors, whether they have ever been found to have transgressed the so-called gentlemen's agreement between the Department and the clinics performing late abortions, and, even more important, whether their activities have been found to be contrary to, or in line with, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.
      What happens in other countries, particularly in Europe? In West Germany, abortion is only allowed up to week 13 for social reasons and up to week 22 for reasons of handicap. In France, abortion is available up to the 10th week for a woman in distress, and after that only if the unborn child is handicapped or if there is serious risk to life or health. In Greece, abortion is available up to the 12th week and thereafter in limited conditions. Spanish law allows abortion up to 12 weeks for rape and up to 22 weeks for handicap. In Denmark, abortion is allowed on demand up to 12 weeks and after that on the authorisation of a special committee. The law is similar in Norway. Swedish law provides for abortion up to 18 weeks and after that only if the foetus is below the age of viability.
      In terms of an upper limit, we in this country have one of the most permissive laws in Europe. That is a disgrace to our nation, with women travelling from other countries to have their abortions here.
      There is a major difference between yesterday's debate and the matter that we are discussing today. On embryo research, many people honestly have doubts about when life begins. I am referring not to those who are certain about their uncertainties but to those who genuinely have doubts. But today we are concerned with the living unborn child who is capable of being born alive. Abortions carried out on such babies at 24 or 22 weeks are already illegal under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which makes it an offence to destroy a child capable of being born alive.
      We are dealing today, therefore, not with doubts or uncertainties but with the question whether the life of the unborn child is sacred or not. As I said in yesterday's debate, the buck stops here in the House of Commons. In my view, we have a solemn duty to protect those who cannot speak for themselves and to consider their interests when others manifestly will not.
      Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) concluded her remarks by talking about the role of irresponsible men in relation to the abortion argument. Although there are areas where she and I disagree, on that issue I agree with her. I accept that men are often the cause of women being pressurised into having abortions. That is a reason why, fundamentally, men along with women are involved in this issue.
      However, abortion affects every member of the human race potentially, so this is not a question that divides men and women. It is an issue on which we are all entitled to have an opinion and about which we should show responsibility.
      Ms. Richardson rose——
      Mr. Alton: Although the hon. Lady refused while she was speaking to give way to me, I happily give way to her.
      Ms. Richardson: I said—I may have said it badly—that women often suffered from men who did not consider them and who made them pregnant in an irresponsible way, not necessarily pressurising them into having abortions.
      Mr. Alton: I accept that, too. Men will often use their sexuality in a way that demonstrates a greater sense of machismo than it does responsibility towards their partners. At the heart of the debate about contraception and family planning, the subject raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), is the need to recognise that when love and a sense of responsibility is removed from sexual relations, there will always be tragedy. Sometimes that can result in men trying to pressurise women into what people often perceive as the quick fix of an abortion. They believe that that will solve the problem. Rather than solving the problem, it destroys a life and has consequences for the men, women and children involved and for the medical staff.
      Actions that we take in life are bound to carry consequences for us as individuals, and as we discuss this issue, we must accept our responsibility as parliamentarians in drafting the law. We must also accept that society's attitudes must change and that the massive taking of life that has occurred in the past 23 years, with the authority of the law, can never be regarded as desirable.
      Mrs. Fyfe: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that another form of irresponsibility could occur? Far from pressuring a mother to have an unwanted abortion, a father could be quite happy to let her get on with it and take no responsibility for the child. What would the hon. Gentleman advise the woman to do in those circumstances?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has often put forward views on that subject, which I entirely support. Indeed, the Prime Minister has put forward views about the subject with which I agree also. Many hon. Members will agree that the man who is involved in the creation of life should be forced to take far greater responsibility for the child. Like the hon. Lady, I represent an area in an inner city with many single-parent families and many women who have been left by men. Our concern about life—we shall come to different conclusions—does not mean that we should assume that those who take my position do not also care about doing something about alleviating the distressing poverty and misery that many other people face.
      I am sure that many Conservative Members share my view. I am not prepared to say that all Conservative Members are wrong and all Opposition Members right. I have never accepted that in any debate, let alone this one.
      The hon. Member said that 2,000 or 3,000 women marched last night to protest against changes in the abortion law. I do not think that it comes down to a numbers count, but the hon. Lady will know that probably the biggest lobby in the life of this Parliament occurred when about 10,000 people came here just a few weeks ago to lobby their Members of Parliament sensitively over two days about this matter. For them this issue is a crucial
      222
      human rights matter. For them it must be considered seriously by Parliament. On both sides of the argument many people feel deeply.
      The hon. Lady also touched on a point that needs to be addressed. She said that if we draw a time limit of 20 weeks, it would really mean 18 weeks, and that 18 weeks would mean 16 weeks. Just a couple of weeks ago at the Royal Liverpool hospital I saw a scan of a baby of nine weeks and four days. I saw the computer printout on the scan of the exact gestational time. I do not accept that it is impossible to tell the point which a pregnancy has reached and, therefore, with some precision, to be able to come to conclusions about whether an abortion should be allowed.
      I thank the Secretary of State for giving the House the chance tonight to vote on the amendments. Whatever the result, as a person who believes in democracy, I shall abide by it. In 1988, 296 Members torn from 10 political parties in the House—quite an achievement in itself—gave my Bill a Second Reading, by a majority of 45. It was the biggest post-world war two attendance on a Friday. We then had 30 hours in Committee, but it distressed me when we were not able to come to a conclusion on Report. We know why that was not possible—the Bill was talked out.
      Given that, since 1974, every pro-life Bill that has come before the House has had a Second Reading majority, it is not acceptable to conduct our affairs on this crucial matter in that way, wherever we stand on the issue. The difference with this debate, knowing that we shall come to a conclusion tonight, is that there has been rather more tolerance and respect of each others' attitudes and beliefs in this climate than there ever is when people, whichever side of the argument they are on, try to block progress on a Bill by using the procedural tricks and devices that are open to hon. Members.
      That is why, with the constitutional lacuna that clearly exists on a hybrid issue—it is neither public nor private legislation, because it was given 26 hours of Government time to make progress back in 1967—it is right that the House of Commons should be given this chance today, admittedly with a complicated series of amendments before it, to come to a conclusion on a matter about which the public and hon. Members feel deeply.
      Ms. Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman made a point about not seeking to mislead the House with arguments that do not represent the truth as we best know it. He referred to identification of the date for termination and to the scan. The hon. Gentleman knows that, for fear of prosecution under the criminal law, doctors must protect themselves in some way, particularly given the pro-life zealots. Therefore, they are bound to reduce the time limit below that which is set by Parliament to protect themselves from prosecution. It is misleading to say that it is possible to pinpoint exactly and that a doctor will take that risk.
      Mr. Alton: I was telling the House that just two weeks ago in the Royal Liverpool hospital I saw a foetal scan and the printout on the scan that said that the baby's gestational age was nine weeks and four days. That evidence would be perfectly acceptable in a court of law should it come to that, but I do not wish to see large-scale prosecution of anybody. I happen to believe that doctors and nurses will abide by the law as Parliament frames it. That is what we are here to do tonight.

      223
      The protagonists in the debate describe themselves as pro-choice or pro-life. I have met few people who would describe themselves as pro-abortion. I agree with the Minister, who said that every abortion—I extend that to whether it is legal or illegal—is a personal tragedy for all involved. Mostly, those who uphold the present abortion laws describe abortion as the lesser of two evils. That is the fundamental point of difference. For those of us who seek to reform the law, abortion will always be the greater of two evils. Once we accept, and I do, that after fertilisation the new person has entered the frame, it is not possible to remain indifferent to the position of the tiniest and most vulnerable member of our species. I shall never accept the argument of choice—that it is my right to choose to take another person's life. I believe that that is a modern heresy.
      However sincerely the opposing views are canvassed in the debate, we shall not repeal the 1967 Act, nor do I think it likely that the House will be convinced by those such as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) who seeks to extend the Act to birth. I hope that, when looking at the uncoupling of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and amendments (q) and (r), the House will give deep consideration to that point. The ILPA is a safeguard that is worth retaining, and it would be a profound mistake to uncouple the two pieces of legislation.
      The present limit was not drawn in 1967. As we have heard, it is 61 years since the rule of thumb—capable of being born alive—was drawn at 28 weeks' gestation. That rule of thumb was included in the 1967 Act. That is what Parliament is being asked to vote on tonight. Is it any longer a responsible limit to sustain? That is the issue. Twenty-three years ago, let alone 61 years ago, there was no ultrasound scanning of the type that I have described, no electro-cardiograms for a foetus, and no appreciation of the complete sensory development of the unborn child or knowledge that the unborn baby feels pain—a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
      Given those quantum leaps in our knowledge, it is absurd to leave our laws in the dark ages. We have revolutionised our knowledge about the unborn child. Yesterday evening, hon. Members solemnly voted on another clause of the Bill that outlawed experimentation on the human embryo beyond two weeks' gestation. In that debate the Secretary of State said:
      "At various stages, fresh rights are acquired."
      He went on to say that two weeks' gestation
      "is a logical point beyond which it would be unwise to engage in research."—[Official Report, 23 April 1990; Vol. 171, c. 34.]
      Does it not strike the House as odd that, as matters stand at present, for the following 26 weeks it will remain legal to procure the abortion of that same embryo, foetus or unborn child, whom we properly say that it would be unwise to use for purposes of research or experimentation?
      Not only has our knowledge of the unborn moved on apace, but we have moved hopelessly out of step with the rest of the world. As I said earlier, last year women from over 100 countries, from places as far away as Mongolia and South Africa, chose to come to this country for abortions and one third of late abortions, those after 18 weeks—in fact, 3,248 such abortions—were conducted on women from overseas. That makes the point far better
      224
      than any amount of argument. Those statistics make the point that our abortion laws allow things to happen in the United Kingdom that are not allowed elsewhere.
      If one looks at the rest of the European Community——
      Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman is talking about women coming here from overseas. If he gets his way and the time limit for abortions is reduced to 18 weeks—or to whatever level the hon. Gentleman wants—does he recognise that British women will become somebody else's "foreign" women?
      Mr. Alton: No, I do not believe that. The hon. Lady is mistaken. All over the world people are beginning to assess again their attitude towards abortion. People in this country are recognising that abortion is a destructive act; that it destroys a child and that it destroys women psychologically and physically. If the best that we can offer British women or overseas women is abortion, something is fundamentally wrong with our country.
      In the rest of the European Community, social abortions are not allowed beyond an average of 12 to 14 weeks' gestation. As we talk about harmonisation of every other aspect of the law under the sun, let us be clear that the average European Community time limit for social abortion is 12 to 14 weeks' gestation. I hope that a modest change will be made tonight to reduce the time limit here to 18 weeks' gestation—I personally shall support that provision—which is a time limit that applies outside the European Community in another European country—in Sweden, hardly a country that has laws that are reactionary or damaging to women's rights.
      I believe that we should make these changes because I believe that we need a system in which rights are balanced with responsibilities. Yes, exemptions will be voted upon tonight, and hon. Members will have the chance to vote on the hard cases of rape and incest; of disability and of damage to a woman's physical or mental health. In 1988, on the Second Reading of my Bill, I gave assurances that hon. Members would have the chance to vote on those questions both in Committee and on Report. I was as good as my word. We provided for that. That shows that, although I disagree on some of these issues, especially on the taking of life because of disability, I tried to move in the direction of those who hold diametrically opposed views so that we could try to reach a sensible arrangement about the upper time limits.
      I refer to disability. At the outset of the passage of my Bill, a young Anglican woman, Ellen Wilkie, who had muscular dystrophy, wrote to me, giving me a great deal of encouragement. Her mother had been told that the child would have that incurable disease and Ellen wrote to say that no one was capable of saying what a disabled person would be capable of. I met Ellen and worked with her during the passage of my Bill. Sadly, she died last year at the age of 29, but in the course of her short life she had achieved a classics degree, had written poetry, presented radio and television programmes and written a biography entitled, "A Pocketful of Dynamite", which is to be published shortly.
      In that book and in the many things that she said during those weeks, she kept pointing out that one cannot confuse words such as "kill" and "cure". She said that it is not our right to take life merely because that life will be disabled. She said that we should not impose quality

      225
      controls on life and that eugenics is the refuge of a society that has grown uneasy with disability. Disability is a challenge to each of us. We should seek to meet it with unconditional love, care and respect, not by choosing to take the disabled person's life.
      7.45 pm
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is not the point that the hon. Gentleman is making negated by the fact that that person lived and achieved so much because her mother had a choice and made her own decision? The legislation that is favoured by the hon. Gentleman and those who think like him would prevent a mother from having the right to choose.
      Mr. Alton: The unborn child has no choice in these matters. Ellen had no choice in these matters. The part of the equation that troubles me the most is that unborn children have no say; if we do not speak for them here, who will?
      Putting the disability issue to one side, because I know that the House is not convinced by it—I hope that it will be so convinced one day—the fact is that 98 per cent. of all abortions have nothing whatever to do with disability. Indeed, 92 per cent. of late abortions have nothing to do with disability. They involve perfectly healthy children.
      Ms. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of conceptions are destroyed by nature? Does he not accept that that demonstrates that he has got this matter wrong and out of all proportion? The majority of conceptions are wasted and never come to term to produce a child. The hon. Gentleman should take that into account and balance his argument.
      Mr. Alton: What the hon. Lady says is true, but I believe that there is a plan for each of us in our lives. We are unique human beings. We are not expendable raw material; we are all important and irreplaceable. I agree with the hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who said yesterday that each of us is sculpted in the image of our maker. I believe that that is a truth. It may well be true that some fertilised embryos are not to come to term and that that is not part of the plan of either God or nature—depending on which one believes in—for them, but the problem for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for me is that we can never know which would or might have come to full term. The difficulty is that, when one decides to take life in an abortion, one knows that that child would have come to term if we had not intervened.
      Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman address another problem that was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who has tended to deal with the argument in terms of numbers and who has said that, because an awful lot of unborn children, and an awful lot of embryos and an awful lot of conceptions, are wasted by nature, they do not have protection? If one were to take that argument logically, one would have to say that where nature wasted the majority of born individuals, such as in the distressing circumstances of Calcutta or the Third world. those individuals do not have natural rights. Numbers have nothing whatever to do with it; all that has anything to do with this issue is the definition of life.
      Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady will not be surprised that I entirely agree with that view. The issue that is dividing the
      226
      House is the point at which one believes that life begins. If one believes in the sacredness and sanctity of human life, it is unlikely that one could sanction the taking of life.
      Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has a serious problem. If he believes that life begins at conception and that God creates life, he must believe that God has created a system in which most of the lives that are created are destroyed. As I do not think that there could be such a silly God, the hon. Gentleman's argument is flawed.
      Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady may well be putting in for the job, but I would rather trust in God than in the hon. Lady. I hope that she will not take offence at my saying that.
      The natural process in which some embryos are lost shows that God works in important ways——
      Ms. Short: In mysterious ways.
      Mr. Alton: Yes, in mysterious and in important ways. Many of the embryos that are naturally discarded might well have carried a genetic disorder. This is one of the things that deals naturally with that problem, but handicap and disability are also put in our midst as a way of challenging us. Each of us in our own way is handicapped and disabled. We might conceal some of our disabilities better than others, but there is not a single hon. Member who does not have a disability. If there were to be a perfection test on life, many of us would have to watch out. Surely the House can never sanction quality tests and perfection tests on life.
      I now refer to the way in which late abortions are procured. Two principal methods are involved. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) referred to the method of using prostaglandins when she described the case of the Carlisle baby. That is a graphic case which illustrates the way in which our law works at present. It involved not an embryo that was discarded but a baby of 21 weeks' gestation with all its organs in place. It was thought that the baby might have a disability, so, under the disability section of the 1967 Act of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, it could be aborted. What was the disability? It was a non-inherited, in no way life-threatening skin disease. At 21 weeks' gestation, the baby was aborted. It was left to struggle for life for three hours before it was placed in a black sack and incinerated. The doctors and nurses on duty could not fight to save the life of the child because it was part of an abortion.
      Here we have a dilemma—that doctors cannot fight to save the life of a child at 21 weeks' gestation. The county coroner said in reply to a letter on the matter that it was in the public interest that there should be an inquest. He was overruled by the Law Officers. That was a tragedy, because it is in the public interest that such cases should be examined.
      Ms. Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Alton: If the hon. Lady will let me make some progress, I shall give way in a little while.
      About 300 other babies are probably in an identical position to that of the Carlisle baby every year. In private clinics, the prostglandin method is avoided because it involves inducing labour and poisoning the baby, and it is a long drawn-out process. As we have already heard, the preferred method in private clinics is dilation and evacuation. That method involves inserting a pliers-like

      227
      instrument into the uterus and crushing the baby's skull. That baby is then dismembered and removed piece by piece.
      No anaesthetic is used on the child, even though, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point said, from seven weeks' gestation a baby can feel pain. In other words, the baby is writhing in agony during those procedures. Nothing short of that is true. The House must address those facts of life and death. That is what happens in late abortions by the prostaglandin and dilation and evacuation methods. That is what we sanction with the full authority of British law.
      Another example of the way in which we go about abortion is selective reduction. That is one of the latest pieces of terminology to be coined. The Lancet had a letter recently from a doctor suggesting that it would be better to call it pregnancy enhancement. A few weeks ago, a baby of 27½ weeks' gestation was aborted. It was to be one of twins and the mother was told that it would suffer from a gene disorder that would leave it sterile for life. At 27½ weeks' gestation, the twin was aborted. It was done by injecting the child with potassium chloride—by stabbing it to death through the wall of the womb.
      I wrote to the Law Officers about that case. I am glad that the Solicitor-General has said that there is to be an investigation into the incident. The fact that that could happen in this country is indicative of our sad state of affairs. It is also indicative that within two weeks, the other twin came early because of the trauma that it had experienced. That baby's life was put at risk and, ironically, exposed to the danger of handicap caused by premature birth, about which we heard earlier. That is an illustration of the nonsensical way in which the abortion laws are working.
      Ms. Primarolo: I wish to make two points. First, returning to the Carlisle case, which is quoted continually as a horror story, the hon. Gentleman may or may not have been in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke. He said that the doctor who undertook the termination was a supporter of SPUC. Presumably he was not a supporter of abortion, so there must have been a good reason for carrying it out. Secondly, we have heard many times this afternoon about the case that the hon. Gentleman has just reported. It is a horror story. The fact that the case is being investigated after an allegation has been made does not mean that the allegation is true. The hon. Gentleman should not present accusations as truth in the Committee, because it is misleading to do so.
      Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have received a letter from one of the medical staff involved that evening.
      Mr. Flannery: A member of SPUC.
      Mr. Alton: That member of staff is not a member of any organisation. The letter describes the details of the case of the King's college baby. I have the letter here and I have submitted it to the relevant authorities. No one doubts the authenticity of the events that are described. Although the hon. Lady says that such cases are horror stories, the truth is that what we allow in this country is horrific and barbaric. The reason why the House came to the
      228
      conclusions that it did in 1967 was that it was told about some of the tragedies caused by back-street abortions. Without minimising what happens in back-street abortions, can anyone say that what we have replaced that with—the massive taking of life in the way that I have described—is an advance or progress?
      The King's college baby, the Carlisle baby and the baby that I described in the dilation and evacuation at 18 weeks' gestation were 1 ft in length, pumping 50 pints of blood a day, with every one of their organs in place. They were as much a member of the human race as any person in the Chamber this evening.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman a second time. A point arose that I did not want to lose and I did not know whether the hon. Gentleman would answer it. I do not want the doctor in the Carlisle baby case to be introduced into the debate. He did not start the abortion. The hon. Gentleman will confirm that the abortion was started by a consultant who went home leaving a pro-life doctor and two Catholic nurses to pick up the pieces.
      Mr. Alton: I was coming to that point next. Although, to the best of my knowledge, the doctor is not a member of any organisation, I have met him and I know that he has pro-life views. That is still not a crime in this country. Life is made difficult for members of the medical profession who are pro-life. I have talked to gynaecologists, doctors and nurses who have told me of their difficulties when they try to obtain promotion in their profession. It is difficult for them unless they are prepared to participate in abortion.
      I refer the House to letters that I have received from members of the medical profession who have been placed in a dilemma. One is from midwives about a live birth during an abortion at 22 weeks:
      "As midwives we are required to register any infant that lives and breathes independently of its mother for one minute as a livebirth, irrespective of its gestation. We received into our Unit one night twins of 22 weeks gestation accompanied by their grieving father…The second one survived for 10 hours or so. However, the obstetrician in charge said, 'What fool had those babies baptised?' From his point of view they were probably abortions, especially if at the other end of the corridor he had been conducting 7-month hysterectomies that day."
      Another letter says:
      "I myself nursed a baby who was judged to be between 20 and 22 weeks gestation who ten years ago made medical history by surviving. Surely we have come further in medical technology and in civilisation since then to say that these children have rights as well?"
      Another letter from a nurse says:
      "As an SRN I have nursed many young girls who have undergone 'termination of pregnancy'…Many of these girls I am sure will be scarred for life. Many seem to be almost innocent victims of a corrupt, greedy system. The Abortion Act is grossly misused…Our society seems to think so high-tech these days that they have lost the reality of what happens in an abortion. They are the sordid facts which people should know."
      Another letter says:
      "I am a junior doctor working in the Special Care Baby Unit. In the Unit we often spend all day and night battling to save the life of just one of these babies, and last week while we were successfully allowing a baby to go home, I realised that this same child could have still been killed under the 1967 Act, if unborn. I find it incredible that in the same hospital babies can be saved in one ward and killed in the next by the same profession."

      229
      That is the dilemma in which we place medical practitioners.
      Recently a case came before the courts in Liverpool, which illustrates how far we have been conditioned by the thinking of the 1967 Act. A young mother eight months into pregnancy was run over on a pedestrian crossing by a drunken driver. The driver was sentenced to three months and given a £1 fine. In the court it was said that the baby did not count, yet it was eight months into gestation. That is where our attitudes and thinking have taken us.
      Since 1967, some 3 million babies have been aborted, of which 184,000 were aborted last year. That is some 600 every working day. One in five pregnancies now ends in abortion. The legislators of the day—this evening we have again heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale—said that if we passed the Bill, there would be no more child abuse, every child would be wanted and it would give women new rights. Sadly, despite the sincerity of those who made the claims, many of them ring hollow today.
      Tonight's votes will not stop abortions or enshrine the right to life, but they will give the Committee the chance to address an assessment of human viability made 61 years ago. I urge the House not to vote for cosmetic change. As the 24-week clause is drawn, it would not stop a single one of the 184,000 abortions last year. I hope that the House will recognise that a time limit of 18 weeks is far more compatible with what we now know about viability and humanity.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It will be evident to the Committee that many hon. Members wish to speak. Unless speeches are much shorter, many will be disappointed.
      8 pm
      Mrs. Gorman: Since I have been a Member of the House I have sat through most of our debates on this subject and have listened, as we all do, to the elaborations in great clinical detail about abortions. I have heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) rehearse his emotive arguments so often and others refute all those arguments that I do not intend to spend my time going over them again.
      One thing always strikes me about these debates. Although superficially we are talking about medicine, science and when, where and whether we should stop abortion, emotions and deep passions bubble up from underneath. What motivates those who persist in trying to amend a woman's right in these affairs is theology. They make no bones about it. They persistently refer to their Christianity, their Christian values and their Christian views. That is the motive which subsumes what the so-called pro-life group is up to.
      Those motives form one of the deepest, most misogynous strands in human society. For centuries, theologians have equated sex with sin and celibacy with grace. They have regarded women as little more than flower pots in which future generations of children, preferably boy children, are reared. Time and again we hear people pay lip-service to a woman's rights in this, yet when it comes down to it they legislate to give priority to the rights of the foetus that she carries. Whatever time
      230
      limit they come up with, whether 18 weeks or some other, their motivation is to prevent a woman from controlling her fertility.
      Christianity has always speculated in clinical and almost obsessive detail about sex, from Adam and Eve to the gynaecology of the virgin birth, which could be tolerated only by an elaborate mythology which eliminated the sexual act from procreation. The doctrine of original sin cultivates in pathological detail the central facts of life of human sexuality.
      It is the advance of science in providing safe, sound contraception and now termination for women, together with the early legislation that decriminalised abortion, which have produced the furious reaction from the opponents of women's sexuality. We see the screaming, spitting harridans of both sexes outside the clinics where women go for termination, trying to prevent them from going in to exercise their legal right.
      Many people who have contributed to these debates continue that deeply misogynous tendency which existed in the early Church. They love to deal in sordid detail with the concept of abortion and how it happens. Yesterday they tried to shock us by sending plastic models through the post. The concept of a woman having a right to control her sexuality, let alone enjoy it, is anathema to them.
      If I were to take a hand count in the House of people who believe that a woman has a right equal to a man's to enjoy her sexuality, I should probably have all hands up, but if I asked whether a woman had the right to deal with the unforeseen consequences of the overwhelming passion which consumes her, as it does a man, it would be a different story and there would be talk of social abortions—when women conceive without being properly prepared, as it is usually described. We are told by the so-called humanist preachers of the pro-life movement that in those circumstances a woman has, to all intents and purposes, sinned and must bear the consequences. They may not use that old-fashioned biblical language, but that is what they mean.
      If the Pied Piper of Mossley Hill had his way, he would lead the House and the country back to the time when women were the victims of their sexuality—perpetually pregnant, physically worn down, old before their time, unable to find time to develop the other talents with which they were born and always subservient to a man and to the demands of the family. The path that the hon. Gentleman would have us go down would lead us back to those dark days when the only contraception allowed to a woman was the right to say no to her sexuality when confronted with a natural situation to which she would be inclined to respond naturally.
      The products of those unfortunate conceptions are the result of a man's sexuality as much as a woman's, but the man, of course, bears no responsibility for carrying through that product. Men laugh about it. They chuckle and sneer and talking about putting a woman in the club or whatever other expression they choose to use. They like the idea that a woman has to bear the unwanted progeny of a desirable or undesirable union. The number of men in these debates who repeat remarks which are fundamentally anti-feminist, dictating to a woman what she will do with herself as a result of those circumstances, sticks in my throat.
      If hon. Members think that the scenario that I am painting is melodramatic, they have only to witness the situation in Romania, where another form of dogma has

      231
      denied women both contraception and abortion. There we see the tragedy of orphanages brimming over with unwanted children, women dying in large numbers because of the equivalent of back-street abortions, and rampant AIDS—the product of a perverted intercourse—from which many of the children in those orphanages are dying. That is the reality which would result from the doctrine embraced by the pro-life group.
      The so-called pro-life group are not what they seem. In my view, they are pro-death—the death of women from illegal abortions or unwanted childbirth. They are also pro-death for the deformed and unviable little children who are born only to suffer and die soon after. They are pro-death for human love in families because of the stress caused by the unfortunate and sometimes tragic circumstances forced upon people as a result of the dogma embraced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The pro-life group would seek to deny a woman, but not a man, the right to her biological nature, her sensuality, her sensitivity and the end result of it. That is what it is all about.
      Speaking as a woman, I believe that the great majority of women in this country—and throughout history—would agree that they should have the right, as a man has, to enjoy their sexual nature, and they are grateful for the opportunity that progress and science has given them to control that nature. If the men in this House, and some of the women, are mindful to deprive women of part of their sexual nature, they should think carefully about their motivation. The scholars of the church, such as Albertus Magnus, one of the early fathers of the Catholic Church, declared that women existed simply for the sexual enjoyment of men. That attitude prevails today in judges who tell juries that women who say no do not necessarily mean it. That is the end product of such thinking.
      We know that the Catholic Church wants to deny contraception and termination. We see the appalling consequences of that in the south of Ireland, where babies are dumped on beaches to drown, or left in dustbins. We even see the strength of the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland, where British women in part of the British Isles have to come to this country for a termination, so strong is the Church's influence in that part of our country. It is important to remember that things are not what they seem to be when considering this Bill.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: When the hon. Lady talks about Ireland, north and south, she should be reminded that there is one thing at least that unites all the Churches—their stand on this topic. Rightly or wrongly, let us be consistent and accurate rather than, in the hon. Lady's terms attributing blame to one specific Church. They all agree on this issue.
      Mrs. Gorman: I am grateful for that intervention, but two wrongs do not make a right.
      Ms. Short: What my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has said is true, but in Ireland women want advice on abortion but clinics which seek to give it are illegal. People who merely seek to assist women who want information so as to make a decision can be prosecuted in the courts. The Churches may agree with one another, but not all the people who live in those countries agree with the Churches.
      Mrs. Gorman: I am grateful for that intervention.
      Since the enactment of the Abortion Act 1967, which granted a woman, with the advice of her medical practitioner, the right to end a pregnancy for whatever reason she deemed essential to her happiness, that of her family or the interest of the child that she is carrying, we have been bombarded by attempts to remove that right. In so doing, the House is declaring that an individual woman should not be allowed to make that most fundamental decision for herself. Often men are trying to deprive her of the right to make that decision—time and again, we have to remind ourselves of the predominance of male opinion in this Chamber—on a matter that no man ever has to face.
      8.15 pm
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady has said a great deal about women's rights and sexuality, but the specific issue under discussion is a woman's right over the life of her unborn child. The hon. Lady's speech is not along those lines, but where does she believe that that right begins and ends? At what point does she give the right to the child?
      Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Lady questions me in clinical detail. I have already said that I do not intend to spend time on such detail, but I would not limit the right of a woman—I would leave it to the woman, her medical adviser and her family to make the decision. It should not be a political decision. I would far rather trust the woman and her medical adviser than any Members of this House who think that they should have the right to make that decision for her.
      Ms. Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady may have noticed the snorts and derision which followed her statement that there should be no limit to the right of the woman and that the decision should be left to the woman and the medical adviser. Is the hon. Lady aware that in the Netherlands, which has much less restrictive time limits than our own and where the decision is more or less left to the woman and her medical adviser, the abortion rate is far lower than here? There are also fewer late abortions because there are good early referral systems and the family planning service has been sorted out.
      Mrs. Gorman: I am gratified to know that there are countries—democracies—which have adopted a more civilised and reasonable attitude than ours.
      The pro-life lobby has a perfect right to try to persuade people to its point of view, but it does not have the right to come to this Chamber time and again to try to deprive women of what has become part of their rights in this country. Persuasion is one thing, but inflicting one's views on others in such circumstances is reprehensible. I hope that those views will be rejected.
      I hope that the majority of my colleagues, perforce mainly male, who do not have to bear the responsibility of an unwanted birth and pregnancy and who do not have to make such decisions, will not have the temerity, arrogance, inhumanity and insensitivity to make those decisions for women. As sure as eggs are eggs, women will continue to make such decisions for themselves—if not here, then somewhere else.
      The grand illusion of the House is that one can legislate to force people into different patterns of behaviour. One can indeed suppress and repress, but that should not be our business. This is supposedly a liberal society and we

      233
      should accord to the women of that society the maturity and ability to make decisions about such matters for themselves. I hope that the House will leave the legislation as it stands.
      Mrs. Mahon: I entirely agree with the description of the House given by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) when she said that it had a strongly misogynist streak running through it. It is overwhelmingly male, and it is important to remember that fact when discussing abortion. The fact that we are debating the subject of abortion at all today is a serious abuse of parliamentary procedure. Those who tabled the amendments have ignored the majority view, which supports the 1967 Act and believes it should stay as it is, and have caved in to religious and extremist organisations such as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and LIFE. If they were honest, they would admit that they are against all abortions.
      The anti-abortionists are dishonest. They pretend to support a lowering of the time limit and to be satisfied with that when we know that they will not be satisfied. The hon. Member for Billericay was absolutely right—they represent a firmly fixed idea which involves controlling women's fertility, keeping them in their places and forcing them to have unwanted pregnancies. Conservative Members who support SPUC but also favour cuts which take away services for women, as they have recently done, are behaving in a highly hypocritical manner and clearly have double standards.
      Mr. Flannery: If we had a democratic set-up, I could not imagine this debate taking place in this way. If there were a large number of women in the House, the problem would not arise in this form. I also find it alarming and vulgarly opportunist for people who are totally against abortion but will not admit it to pronounce, by their own definition, that they are willing to commit murder at 18 or 22 weeks. If that is not opportunism, I do not know what is. Those who think like that should go to confession.
      Mrs. Mahon: I agree with my hon. Friend.
      A report in today's press mentions reductions in family planning services. In some areas, such services have been cut by 50 per cent. We are debating restricting abortions still further when such a statistic exists and such cuts are taking place across the country. It is a disgrace to be suggesting today that abortion should be restricted still further.
      Conservative Members who have spoken against all forms of abortion are the enemies of women. The same people who stand up today and talk about the sanctity of life will go through the Lobby to vote for hanging and for defence estimates involving large amounts of money to procure the weapons of mass destruction. Apparently the sanctity of life is precious when it relates to a group of undifferentiated cells, but not when it comes to frying men, women and children with nuclear weapons. I find that totally unbelievable.
      Ms. Short: Moreover, 25 per cent. of the world's population go to bed hungry every night. Many are children who die because they do not get enough food. Yet Conservative Members have consistently voted for cuts in overseas aid and for changes in the international economy
      234
      which have increased the number of children dying in a world which produces twice as much food as its population consumes.
      Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend makes a telling and moving point, which is true.
      Miss Widdecombe: I have made it clear throughout that my guiding principle is that of balancing a life against a life. Where there is no other life to be balanced, as in an ordinary social abortion, I want to retain the life of the unborn child. Where two lives are at issue, as in cases where the mother will otherwise die, I agree that one cannot insist on one life or the other. Without going into a great philosophical treatise, I support the death penalty because I believe that it saves lives and I support defence expenditure because I believe that the only way not to have brutal war is to be prepared against it.
      Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Lady's explanation is staggering. Does she not accept that people have sometimes been hanged by mistake? Let her answer that.
      Conservative Members convey the idea that abortion never happened before the 1967 Act. I said before, when I had been a Member for only a few months—I must be careful how I repeat it today because the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children made great play of it—that as a young student nurse before 1967 I had experience of back-street abortionists and what happened to women who used them. To pretend that abortion did not happen and that the 1967 Act somehow made it possible is a lie, and flies in the face of the truth. Many abortions took place before that time—mainly at weekends because women with two or three children needed their partners to look after those children while they went to the back-street abortionists. We therefore knew that we would be busy on Friday, Saturday or Sunday.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is not present. He goes on and on about the Carlisle baby. I wish that he had seen the results of women forced to use the syringe and slippery elm bark method. In some cases, the bark penetrated the uterus and caused all kinds of horrendous complications. I wish that he had seen the consequences of women who took poison and those who were bowed down by childbirth and had no access to decent contraception. If people are concerned about nurses now, they should have seen some of the nurses who had to pick up the pieces then.
      Another fact that I find unforgiveable is that we have evidence of what happened in Romania when a mad dictator, an insane man, decided to abolish not only abortion, but contraception. The Minister of Health in Romania estimated—records are kept there, and there is a health service—that in 1987 there were 300,000 live births and 1·2 million abortions, nearly all illegal. The rich could buy abortions, but the poor women, like those everywhere else in the world, could not. In Bucharest alone, 20,000 women were admitted to hospital in 1987 with complications following abortions because birth control was also banned. The average woman of 40 had between five and nine abortions. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) does not even want to listen to what I am saying.
      Ms. Short: It is her dream society.
      Mrs. Mahon: That is true.

      235
      Another shocking statistic from the Minister for Health in Bucharest is that it is estimated that one quarter of fertile women in Bucharest have been damaged by visits to back-street abortionists. I wish to make the point strongly that those women were kept in poverty, harassed continuously and denied contraception and abortion. If even the Securitate's methods could not stop women who had decided that they could not have another child, Conservative Members must be living in cloud cuckoo land to think that interfering with the 1967 Act will stop abortion here, because it will not.
      Have those who seek to criminalise women here ever asked themselves why women take the decision? It is not made lightly. It is a decision that women agonise about. They do not want abortions. If we had a better Health Service in this country and, as the hon. Member for Billericay said, if there was less hypocrisy about sex, there might be no need for them. If a woman decides that she cannot go through with a pregnancy, a decision that is never reached lightly, she will have an abortion. What Conservative Members and most male Members do not understand is that the instinct telling a woman not to go through with a pregnancy is, like abortion, as old as life itself and they will not stop that instinct.
      I believe firmly that women should have the right to choose. I am pro-choice—I am not particularly pro-abortion. We should be debating how to fund our National Health Service and plan our health care so that late abortions will always be unnecessary, how to organise early referrals, how to make family planning freely available and accessible to all.
      I for one would be much more convinced of the genuineness of some of the arguments that we have heard today if those who advanced them spent a fraction of the time that they spend trying to criminalise women on some of the real social ills of society, and if they spent some of their energies on increasing child benefit rather than voting to freeze it. They should spend their time providing nursery places and paying for clinics and for workers to help to abolish the real crime in society—that of neglected, sexually abused children who are not wanted. I hope that the House will not interfere with the 1967 Act and that some of the men with their heavy consciences will start weighting them in favour of women and children.
      8.30 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: This debate is about the preciousness and sanctity of life, by which I mean the life of the mother as well as that of the child. I doubt whether I will be accused in this debate of being Roman Catholic. Although many hon. Members may not agree with what I say, I take the traditional Protestant line on this issue. Where I might disagree with the Roman Catholics in the House would be about the priority that I would give to the mother, whose life, I believe, must come first in all circumstances. That has always been the traditional Protestant view.
      Nothing could be more important to the House than discussing this preciousness and sanctity of human life. I am well aware that all such debates raise hackles. I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who made a forceful and robust speech that would go down exceedingly well in parts of Northern Ireland. Perhaps when she is supporting some of
      236
      her Tory friends in the coming elections she may help them stir up some fervour for their candidate, who will nevertheless lose his deposit. However, I am sure that we will welcome her to Portadown in the near future: she campaigned there in the previous European election against my Unionist colleague and myself. She did not do too well, but that is a story for another day.
      We need to dwell on one question for a while tonight: should the life of the babe in the womb, at whatever stage, be protected, safeguarded and preserved? Or should it be destroyed—at times wantonly and ruthlessly? It is not enough for people to say that they do not like descriptions of what happens during an abortion; such descriptions are based on well-established facts. The most telling point that I have heard in this debate was made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who pioneers this issue with great zeal. She said that if the baby was outside the mother's womb—say, in an incubator—and a member of the general public or of the medical profession came along and deliberately slaughtered it, such a person would be in breach of the law and would be tried for murder. Yet because the child is inside the mother's womb, we are asked to legislate tonight so that it can be slaughtered. All of us, no matter what our views, should think seriously about that.
      A mother can make a decision. A woman can speak. She makes a choice about the sexual act that may bring about conception. She makes a further choice of whether to conceive a child, and so on, but the child itself has no choice. We are speaking about a child who feels, who can recognise its mother's voice, who can know pain and who is a member of the human family and has been given the unique gift of human life. We cannot get away from that. We might like to, but we should consider it seriously.
      Who will plead the case of the child? That relates to the reason why some people misjudge the passion of those who feel strongly about the life of the child. They feel so because it cannot speak or make its own ideas known. Today, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) spoke of 3,000 women who wanted to put forward their views but were unable to come to Parliament and vote on the issue, but they could lobby their Members of Parliament and put forward their views in that way. Who will lobby for the child? Tonight we should listen to the plea of those who cannot make a plea and hear the voice of those who cannot speak. No matter how we vote at the end of the debate we should all realise that we are on solemn ground.
      Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the only significant piece of medical research, done over a 21-year period in Aberdeen by the Medical Research Council, to have looked at the experience of women who had unwanted pregnancies? It discovered that a considerable proportion of the children born to mothers who did not want the pregnancies subsequently became battered children. Is not the hon. Gentleman concerned about those children, as he protests about the rights of the child?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Of course I am. Having been a minister of religion for 40 years in a very large parish with hundreds of families, I certainly know about all such tragedies. One cannot be a pastor in a large city and not know what human nature is. I certainly feel as much for such children as I do for the unborn child. It has been

      237
      forcefully argued that the children who are being aborted are largely those of married women who cannot face the prospect of another member in the family, but I notice different statistics in a document from the Library, dated 19 January 1988, which deals with research into abortion. It says:
      "74 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks are on single women, disproving the argument that many are on women who cannot face the prospect of another birth."
      We must take that into account. I assure the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) that I am concerned.
      The former leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said that many people did not care about back-street abortions. In my early days, all the Churches campaigned vigorously against such abortions. No one who is against legal abortion in the sense of trying to limit the number of abortions and deal with the matter of weeks and so on, could be accused of being in favour of back-street abortions. Such abortions were horrible, a curse on society. It is wrong to say that the Churches and other organisations closed their eyes to them. It may have been so in Scotland, where the right hon. Gentleman comes from, but it was not true in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is putting his view forcefully and honourably. Does he agree that if legal abortion is made more difficult, back-street abortions will flourish? That is the harsh reality that we have to face. Some hon. Members who are in the Chamber will not admit that they are totally against abortion, and they are the merchants who would create back-street abortions and bring them up to the level that we had in the Victorian era. That is what they are after.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not accept that everybody in the Chamber who will vote for a reduction in the number of weeks wants to see a return to back-street abortions. That is a blanket condemnation of decent people.
      Mr. Flannery: That is what happened.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Why did it happen? I agree with Opposition Members who said that the men responsible should not have been dealt with in the way that they were. In Victorian society a man could have been a leech or a rascal, but he could move in the highest society and nobody pointed the finger at him. It was the poor woman who had to bear the brunt of his sexual appetite. I utterly condemn that, as did all the Churches. It should not be thought that the Churches closed their eyes to that.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has wide experience as a minister in Northern Ireland and must know about many of these cases. He must also know that simply preventing things, making them illegal, is likely to make the situation worse, not better, because people will find some way around the law. That will mean looking for back-street abortionists. The present proposition simply seeks to deal with something that it is impossible to prevent, and seeks to do that in a decent, legal and reasonable fashion.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: That depends on how the House votes, and the hon. Gentleman'a vote is a matter for him. I was answering a point made by his former leader and colleague, and if he reads Hansard he will understand that. I resent the picture being painted of some hon. Members closing their eyes to back-street abortions.
      238
      8.45 pm
      I have experience of people who have had abortions and it has not been the answer to their problems. I know of a young man and woman in a common-law marriage. The woman became pregnant and they came to me. She said that she wanted to have an abortion. I said, "I would not advise it, but you have to make your own decision. I am totally opposed to it. You know my view." She went ahead and had the abortion and the physical impact shattered her completely. Her common-law husband had a complete breakdown and committed suicide, and that young woman has been under constant pastoral and medical care ever since. It was not the answer in her case, and we should never pretend to anybody that abortion is an answer.
      I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that the present law on abortion removed from people's minds the seriousness of what they were doing when they were going for abortions. I assure hon. Ladies in the Opposition that I did not vote for cuts in the Health Service. We need better health facilities, and more money needs to be spent in that area. There is a voice that should be loud in our ears and it utters a cry for protection. It says, "Let me live." I should like to take the part of those who say that.
      The Bible is the most ancient of all books and I am old fashioned enough to believe that it is the Word of God. That will come as no surprise to any hon. Member. The book of Psalms is part of the Hebrew scriptures and therefore covers Judaism and Christianity. The Psalmist said:
      "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
      My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."
      That is the most beautiful description of life and the sacredness of human life. That is why I plead with hon. Members not to take upon themselves the destruction of God's handiwork. We should not take it upon ourselves to terminate that God-breathed vitality, nor should we lift our hand against the continuance of that special sanctity.
      Clearly, there are circumstances when physical and health problems must be considered. That has always been the traditional view of the Protestant Church. I emphasise the priority of the mother whose life must come first in all circumstances. In ordinary physical circumstances, when a proper and normal birth can take place, it should take place.
      Scores of families in my parish would love to have children. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) knows, many families in Northern Ireland cannot adopt children because of the proscriptions and the scarcity of children. I have been to Romania and tried to get some children there to Northern Ireland. Scores of families would love to take unwanted children.
      Ms. Gordon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more than half the children born with handicaps have to live out their lives in institutions and that there are no happy homes waiting for them? I wish that there were. It is not always the people who call themselves pro-life who are the first to come forward to help handicapped people and handicapped children.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I have some handicapped children in my parish and they are happy because they have love, comfort and dedication. I have often said that the best can be brought of a father and mother who have a handicapped child. However, I should not like anyone to think that those who take my view would close their eyes to other important matters. It is essential that consideration is given to all matters when it is known that a child will be very seriously handicapped. Of course there is some division on that, but I take the same view on incest and rape. I may differ from some of my colleagues on those issues, but I feel strongly about them.
      The number of weeks is important. How will we decide where to set the limit? The Father of the House made an important point when he said that the Government new clause suggesting 24 weeks does nothing. Those who are somewhat worked up about the new clause need not be so because it does nothing. It will not reduce the number of children who will be slaughtered in their mothers' wombs. There is a case for setting the limit at 18 or 20 weeks.
      The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said that the only reason why a mother was offered a funeral service for her 20-week child was to soothe her feelings. It is a terrible indictment upon any Christian minister who would soothe a mother with a lie. The law recognises that child as a human being. It should not be simply dismissed as though the Church was prepared to join in some falsehood to cover up what had happened. The solace given to a mother in those circumstances must be genuine. It is not speech that calms a person—it is the pressure of a hand, the silent tear, the communication of deep feelings when one weeps with that person in his or her hardship.
      I should not want anyone to think that the majority of ministers, of whatever Church, would carry on some farce over a body that was 20 weeks old just to give some false comfort to the parent. That view should not be put forward as a genuine point in any debate on this important subject.
      We need seriously to consider the amendments suggesting 18 weeks and 20 weeks. I should prefer 18 weeks. The Committee will decide. We have been told tonight that some of the pro-life supporters will come back to the House time and again. That is their democratic right. The hon. Member for Billericay said that women would not abide whatever limit we set. Although we must bow to what the House decides, after the Divisions everyone is still entitled to continue to campaign for his point of view. If people can get some other House of Parliament to agree with them, that is their right. That is democracy. Surely I have the support of both sides of the House in that.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: As a mere man, I am happy to be called, because I also represent women. People may say that men are making their opinions heard in the House, but they should recognise that many of those who lobby us either for or against any issue, and especially this issue, are women.
      We have been lobbied at various levels. One interesting suggestion was that I should not vote tonight unless the Abortion Act 1967 is extended to Northern Ireland. I wonder whether that would be applicable to English and Welsh Members who deal with Northern Ireland issues although they do not live there. Does it, perhaps, reflect the fact that this House should not be making laws for
      240
      Northern Ireland unless we are given the same rights of citizenship and representation as the remainder of the country? There are those who would even seek to limit further our representative capacity in this House. Tonight, we are representing part of this nation. We have been lobbied by people from throughout the country, both for and against the issue. I shall seek to make my comments accordingly.
      I was amused by the revelation of historical perspective of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Perhaps she appeared as a libertarian or an Amazon in her presentation tonight, but the harsh reality was her quotation from a father of the early Church. He was a medievalist, and certainly could not have been a father of the Church. I regret the fact that she extended her background into the debate without giving due consideration to the arguments——
      Mr. Mallon: I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) disturbing and confusing, especially as she referred to the north of Ireland and to one specific religious denomination. The hon. Gentleman has a vast knowledge of the people of the north of Ireland. Does he agree that neither he nor the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) could in any way be described as misogynistic, medievalist, Jesuitical Catholics?
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I said that I regretted the fact that the hon. Member for Billericay transferred some of her background into the debate and completely misrepresented the issues. Perhaps we are misogynists—it depends on how we are viewed. Hon. Members tonight have referred to extremists. I was always taught that there were various extremes, so we must decide where we stand when calling someone else an extremist.
      Ms. Short: There is no doubt when one looks at writings from the days of the early fathers of the Church that some of them are horrendous in its hatred of women, and rejection of their sexuality and any rights. That is all pre-reformation and forms part of the origins of the hon. Member's Church, as of the Catholic Church. It is part of the ancestry of the hon. Gentleman's religion and it does inform part of its Christian tradition.
      9 pm
      Rev. Martin Smyth: We are being asked to have a theological discussion, as the hon. Member for Billericay desired. The harsh reality is that some politicians in the House put forward their own position, and I pray to God that their position, whatever the subject matter may be, may never be immediately extended and attributed to the rest of us.
      There are those in the early Church who, for their own reasons, took a particular line, but the line described tonight was certainly not one taken by the early fathers. I have no hesitation in welcoming a tradition that goes right back, particularly to those who turned to the scriptures and sought to order their lives. Calvin was one of the best quoters of the early fathers, and he did not allow himself to be misled.
      One issue that has not been considered carefully enough is that, for whatever reason, pregnant women may be in a traumatic state, so that, when a medical adviser suggests that an abortion might be wise, the woman's thoughts immediately turn down that road.

      241
      Yesterday, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) said that she had had to decide whether to go through with a pregnancy, having been advised that the child might be deformed. In the end, thank God, there was little deformity. In my pastoral experience, I have had similar experiences.
      I am not, as some may be, an absolutist on abortion, but I have always found it difficult to counsel the taking of life. Therefore, I have had to consider the issues with those whom I have counselled, and stand by them. I can think of several who have decided to have an abortion and others who have decided to allow their pregnancies to go full term and, thankfully, they have never looked back, although I do not say that life has been easy for them.
      I think of one young nurse who returned to Belfast from England for her confinement about a year ago, having been told that her unborn child might be deformed. She was advised to have an abortion, but she chose not to and she now has a delightful little girl, who was named Joy because of the joy that she brought to the family. Thank God again that, despite the prognosis of medical science, the handicap was not as severe as had been suggested.
      That is why we must ask questions. Even with the advance of medical science, doctors, like the rest of us, make mistakes. It is not right to say that if, for example, there is a severe handicap, an abortion must automatically be considered. Therefore, I support the lowering of the time limit within which an abortion must be carried out.
      It is 23 years since the 1967 Act., and 61 years since the 1929 Act. Despite the fears that some hon. Members have expressed tonight, that the matter will be brought up again next year and the year after, I suspect that it will be another 20 years before we have a debate of this nature in the House again. The way of politics is such that it is unlikely that we shall have another opportunity to come to a decision on such an issue in an open debate with a free vote.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that medical techniques are advancing so rapidly that, long before 20 years is up, we shall regard a termination within 20 weeks as ludicrous? By that time, medical techniques will he so good that a foetus will be viable much earlier than that.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the hon. Lady's argument. It is the very one that I was about to come to. But no matter how fast medical science advances, I cannot imagine, with my limited knowledge of the House after eight years, that it will move with any speed to deal with the issue.
      There have been advances in medical science over the past 20 years, and the House has been presented with opportunity after opportunity in the form of private Members' Bills to take them into account—but abuse of our procedures has made it impossible to do so. That is why I doubt that we shall have another opportunity to debate the matter for 20 years. I take the hon. Lady's point.
      It would be wrong to let the limit remain at 24 weeks. We should look ahead and adopt the limit defined by the judge—who interprets the laws that we make—who said that life is viable after 18 weeks. The Committee now has an opportunity to go down that road.
      Ms. Primarolo: If a judge pronounced that medical science is capable of developing a fertilised egg through all
      242
      the stages of the embryo, separate from man or woman, does the hon. Gentleman think that that would be acceptable?
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I was not making any such proposition. The hon. Lady has been long enough in politics to know that one should never answer a hypothetical question. I was speaking of a recent decision and of the prospects for medical science, and asking the Committee to consider carefully before making a decision to leave the limit at 24 weeks. I believe that it should be reduced to 20 weeks, and preferably to 18 weeks.
      Part of the difficulty stems from the climate in society. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick. and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) compared the attitude in Scotland with that in England and Wales. There is in Scottish common law a prohibition on killing. I wonder to what degree that has influenced the opinions held in Scotland. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) that there have been fewer abortions in Scotland than in England and Wales since the 1967 Act. Perhaps that is a consequence of the attitudes that have grown from the 1967 Act rather than because of the Act itself. I refer to the attitude that human life is cheap, with the consequence that decisions are taken to dispose of a baby before thinking through all the consequences.
      One is talking not just of the woman's choice—and one must remember that the foetus might be female. At times, the debate has resembled a contest between male and female. The tragedy is that the selective abortion techniques that are now available could be used not only to breed heirs for the Upper House but to reduce the number of women in a society that did not value them as much as our society does today.
      Reference has been made to back-street abortions. Were they more horrendous in the way that they disposed of babes in the womb than the methods used by modern medical science?
      Ms. Short: Yes, they were. They were much worse.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Well, I recognise the brutality of back-street abortions, but do not modern techniques also involve the battering of a babe—as described tonight by several right hon. and hon. Members? We should not allow ourselves to be conditioned in that way.
      Sir Russell Johnston: What about the mother in that context?
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the point about the mother. However, someone talked about sticking pins into a foetus. The methods of abortion may be more refined today, but the attack on the baby is similar. I am puzzled because we do not have any hard evidence one way or the other to substantiate some of the conclusions that have been reached tonight, including the conclusion that there may be a return to back-street abortions in areas where abortion is not available. Even where abortions are available, women still take the lives of their babies or induce others to do so.
      As we make laws in this House, one of our fundamental concerns must be to re-establish standards and values. I do not believe that anyone would suggest that, because people do not keep laws, we should not make them. That idea appeared in the arguments tonight. Our laws are guidelines for society.

      243
      When we consider older women who are seeking abortions, we must also consider the figures provided by the Library, which were quoted by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Those figures show that a high percentage of abortions occur among single women. I wonder how far the attitude of men and of families affects younger women particularly and encourages them to take the easy way out to avoid the social scandal and stigma which still exist in our society whether we like to admit it or not. I wonder how far that attitude encourages the taking of human life when those children should be nurtured and their families and society enriched.
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) even though on this occasion he knows that I fundamentally disagree with him on this important issue. The House will be aware of my close involvement with the Province of Northern Ireland. I believe that the hon. Member for Belfast, South and all other Northern Ireland Members have every right to take part in and vote in this debate even though, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South pointed out, the present legislation in my view mistakenly does not cover the Province.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, South and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will not take it amiss if I say that when I find that all the politicians agree in the Province, I am always a little worried. This is one of those occasions when they will clearly all be in the same Lobby.
      Our very serious debate has been badly let down by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which committed a gross act of bad taste yesterday when it sent a plastic model of a 20-week foetus to virtually every Member of the House. It is already a matter of record that at least one of our secretaries who had recently had a miscarriage found the prospect of that foetus highly offensive and deeply upsetting when she opened the parcel.
      I hope that all those involved in sending the foetuses are thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and I hope that Mr. Godfrey Bradman will find a better use for his money in future. The only small silver lining to the incident is that it has clearly alienated a large number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who were perhaps not entirely committed to voting in this important debate. It has illustrated to many the paucity of the arguments of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and of some of the people who organise it.
      9.15 pm
      I wish to reiterate to the House my position on this issue. I am neither in favour nor against abortion—I am in favour of women having the chance to decide, in most circumstances, whether they should have an abortion. It is a traumatic decision for the mother and father of the potential child to conclude that there should be an abortion, but that decision is not made easier by meddling and interference by politicians. The politicising of the abortion issue is deeply regrettable. I hope that after today, if there is some sensible voting in the early hours, the issue can be put to bed once and for all.
      If we follow the anti-abortion lobby and make it difficult for women to have an abortion in this country, or if we make it illegal for them to have an abortion, which
      244
      is what the SPUC supporters want, it will be the worst piece of class legislation that Parliament has ever allowed. My mainly affluent, middle-class electors would still be able to obtain an abortion, whether legal or not, and would not have to go to the back streets. They have the money and the wherewithal to know where to go.
      The people most affected are the most vulnerable members of society, such as the young girl who does not realise that she is pregnant until late in the day. Such a young girl may have an IQ which is not so high as it might be. She may have unhelpful parents and an unhelpful doctor, and she may find herself driven to the back streets. I do not need to emphasise, because other hon. Members have done so, the traumas and horrors of back-street abortions. Do we really want to go back to that?
      The problem was well illustrated by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) when they rightly pointed out to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that if we make it difficult for people to obtain abortions, abortions will still take place, but there will be increasingly large numbers of back-street abortions causing grave damage, mentally and physically, to the women on whom they are performed.
      Mr. Thurnham: There is not only a problem of back-street abortion—there is the problem that the Bill threatens doctors with gaol sentences. Those who are opposed to abortion want to send doctors to prison rather than let them help women. The real problem is the million women in this country who are at risk of an unplanned pregnancy. In any year, one in three of those women becomes pregnant. Half then go through with an unplanned pregnancy and the other half go through the trauma of abortion.
      Is it not better to look to the example of countries such as Holland, where there are more liberal laws, a far better awareness and understanding, and a culture which does not encourage unplanned pregnancies?
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Briefly, please.
      Mr. Thurnham: That is the way to seek a solution to the problem.
      The Chairman: Order. Interventions should be brief.
      Mr. MacKay: I realise, Mr. Walker, that you will not want me to take up every point raised by my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I thank him for his intervention. One of the more regrettable aspects of the debate has been the anti-abortion lobby's attack on many members of the medical profession. We all acknowledge that there must be some bad doctors, as there are bad members of any profession, but the slanderous attacks in this debate on various doctors and the even stronger attacks by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children have been disgraceful and do not add to its case.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is right to say that we should prefer to have fewer and earlier abortions. He is also right to say that doctors are concerned about breaking the law, and that seems to be the key to the voting today.
      Many of my hon. Friends, and some Opposition Members, want a reduction in the time limit because of the advance of medical science. I share that view, and I am a

      245
      sponsor of the Houghton Bill which would put a 24-week limit on abortions, with medical exceptions. I would have moved an amendment—it was not selected—on the Alton measure two years ago to reduce the time limit to 24 weeks, taking into account the advances in medical science.
      Many hon. Members ask whether it matters whether the limit is 24 or 22 weeks. In the way in which the amendments have fallen on the Order Paper, we shall be voting on 22 weeks before a decision is taken on 24. It might be helpful, therefore, if I explain why 22 weeks would be unsatisfactory.
      Most surgeons allow a four-week or, at the least, a two-week margin on their diagnosis of gestational age so as to avoid inadvertently breaking the law. Therefore, if we vote for 22 weeks tonight, in practice there will be no more abortions after 18 weeks. If we were foolish enough to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and vote for 18 weeks, in practice we should be voting for 14 weeks, as the hon. Gentleman knows—that is what he wants, and he is on record as saying that he would rather there were no abortions at all.
      If we vote for 24 weeks, as I encourage hon. Members to do, in practice that will be 20 or at the most 22 weeks, and we shall then have to vote for medical exceptions. Let it be clearly remembered that hon. Members who think that 22 weeks is all right should vote for 24 weeks.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the argument deplore late abortions and believe that they should occur only in the most dire circumstances. With better family planning, a better educated population, and doctors who more readily refer pregnant women to abortion clinics for advice, we should have earlier abortions.
      From all the talk about late abortions, one would imagine that a large number occur in Britain, but the figures for 1988, the last recorded for a full year, show that 84 per cent. of all abortions were performed at under 13 weeks and 14 per cent. between 13 and 20 weeks, leaving only 1·7 per cent. at over 20 weeks.
      No woman wants or welcomes the need to terminate a pregnancy, still less to have a late abortion. Very late abortions are the most traumatic and usually the most needed. Broadly, they involve two categories who are the most vulnerable people in society. The first are those who find that they would have a severely or potentially severely or grossly handicapped child.
      I have said before that I have every admiration for parents who feel that they can cope with a grossly disabled child. My wife and I took the decision twice when she was pregnant that we could not do that—that we were not sufficient people to cope with that—and if she and I had known that either of our children would be grossly handicapped or disabled, we would have sought an abortion at the first possible opportunity. I therefore believe that it is the right of parents to decide whether to have an abortion if the child would be grossly disabled. In most circumstances, that decision can only be taken quite late in pregnancy.
      The second category of late pregnancies are, by and large, the young girls to whom I referred who, unfortunately, due to a lack of education are not aware that they are pregnant until late in the day. They are often scared and have no idea where to turn. They probably cannot turn to parents or family or to their local doctor. By the time they arrive at a consultant or an abortion clinic, they are very heavily pregnant and therefore need a late abortion.
      246
      Reducing the time limit for abortion below 24 weeks would penalise the two most vulnerable groups who require abortion—those who would have severely handicapped children and those, by and large young girls, who are not aware that they are pregnant. I remind the Committee that, in 1988, such late abortions represented no more than 1·7 per cent. of the total.
      I take issue with hon. Members who are anti-abortion. They have perhaps been gently and inadvertently misleading in the Committee and in their press comments. They have given the impression or have trailed their coat to the effect that if we settle a 22-week limit they will go away, pack their bags and be quite happy—"We will not trouble you again. You will not have any more nasty mail from the awful SPUC people. All will be well. There will be no more ten-minute Bills and no more private Members' Bills. We will not demand more time from the Government." If we believe that, we will believe anything. It is absolutely clear that the SPUC anti-abortion lobby is against abortion in principle, and I do not begrudge that—it is a deeply held view which I respect but with which I totally disagree—but they should be honest enough to say so. They have referred to the ratchet effect—in other words, 22 weeks will be the first turn of the ratchet, moving downwards towards the aim of complete abolition.
      For perfectly genuine reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) cannot be present at the moment. She told us that very story in the Sunday newspapers—"Don't worry. Vote for 22 weeks and we will all go away." Unfortunately, our hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) let the cat out of the bag when she said, "She has no right to say that—no right at all. We shall be back." I suspect that, on this occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is being slightly more honest with the House.
      I now refer to another lady, the national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children—one Phyllis Bowman, who, on teletext today, after the embryo research result last night, was quoted as saying, "The campaign to reverse it starts today." Does anyone honestly believe that if the vote on abortion does not go their way tonight, Mrs. Bowman and her supporters will not be saying exactly the same thing? I think not.
      I strongly urge hon Members to vote for 24 weeks with medical exceptions and to look carefully at what some of my colleagues have said about whether the issue will go away. Frankly, I do not believe them.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: I see seven hon. Members trying to catch my eye. We have roughly 60 minutes of debating time left. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the obvious arithmetic and play fair by their colleagues.
      Ms. Primarolo: I shall try to be reasonably brief. To hear many hon. Members speak, one would think that only they possess a conscience and that the thousands of women who take the difficult and traumatic decision to have an abortion do not. That is a travesty of the truth and a massive insult to the women of this country, who are perfectly capable of exercising their consciences over what they do with their bodies.
      If we are so concerned about abortions and about reducing the number of abortions, there is another solution that does not interfere with women's rights over

      247
      their sexuality; it interferes with men's rights over theirs. That way of reducing abortions is to have men sterilised. However, that is not the proposal that we are considering—perhaps that is because most hon. Members are men. I would not support such a proposal because I do not think that we have any more right to interfere in men's sexuality than we have a right to interfere in women's sexuality.
      9.30 pm
      It is interesting that it has been alleged, by implication, that women do not have consciences because we have abortions and we therefore have little regard for life. It is suggested that the lowering of the standard of the sanctity of life has been brought about by women exercising our rights to have abortions. It has also been implied that women are baby machines and that we have no rights over our bodies because of our sexuality and our biology. That view has to be refuted in the House. Women must say—hon. Members who are women must say—that we have consciences and that we exercise them daily as women and that women exercise their consciences when making choices about abortion. We do not need the men in the Chamber to borrow our consciences for us and to take that decision.
      As a Parliament, we need to say whether we agree with the legal right to abortion. The debate would be a lot clearer and a lot more honest if it was about whether we agreed with that right to legal abortion. The time limit question is not relevant to the debate. The medical decision and the woman's decision are what is relevant. What is relevant is that it is against the law to terminate a pregnancy where the foetus is viable.
      There is no upper time limit in Scotland, yet women in Scotland do not have less sense of responsibility or better consciences than the women in England and Wales when they exercise difficult choices about access to abortion. Whether or not a time limit exists is irrelevant.
      Much play has been made about late abortions. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) pointed out that only a tiny proportion of abortions are late abortions. We need to remind ourselves of some of the circumstances in which very late abortions—post-24 week abortions—occur. I shall give just two brief examples. The first relates to a young woman who went to see her doctor when she was two weeks pregnant. She did not know that her doctor was an anti-abortionist. The doctor was a man and he did not declare his conscience. By the time that young woman finally managed to get through the bureaucracy and to have the abortion that she had sought at two weeks, she was 22 weeks pregnant. That happened through no fault of her own. Hon. Members who claim the sanctity of their consciences are seeking to impose constraints on the life of such young women because of delays that are no fault of their own.
      My second example is that of a woman who took part in a television programme on abortion in which I, too, participated. She was a woman in her mid to late thirties. She and her husband desperately wanted a child. She had suffered 10 years of infertility. At 27 weeks into the pregnancy of a much-wanted child, it was discovered, even though all the tests had been done, that the baby was suffering from spina bifida of the upper spine. She was paralysed from the neck down, had only one kidney, a deformed chest cavity and no urinary system. That child
      248
      was not capable of sustaining life separately from the mother. The time limit meant that that woman was forced to make a decision quickly about what was best for her child and for her. Without an upper time limit, the condition of that unborn foetus would give grounds for termination. But if we move the time limit it may not.
      Not only Christians have a conscience and value life and the quality of life. Those of us who do not quote the Bible and are not Christians do not value life any the less. Many of us value the lives of the women who live now and struggle with inadequate and ever-decreasing family planning centres and related advice, and the fact that for many of us contraception is unsafe and threatens our health.
      We need the right to access to abortion within the law as it is currently stated. We do not say that lightly or without using our consciences, but on the basis of what is best for our lives and those of others. it is appalling that hon. Members should insinuate or say directly that women do not live by those principles and do not have those basic understandings. We have heard slurs against doctors and accusations about their practices. The courts have been quoted in favour of deciding what the upper time limit should be and quoted the other way in the case of the woman run over on a zebra crossing when she was seven months pregnant.
      Parliament must decide whether it agrees to legal abortion. If we do, who are the best people to decide on those abortions? It is the women and the doctors whom they consult. To terminate a viable foetus is against the law. That will not be changed. I support new clause 3 in my name, which proposes that the law in Scotland be adopted to create the same law in England and Wales so that there will be no upper time limit. Abortion is a medical decision and a woman's choice. We should examine the abortion law and recognise that, of course, abortion is not a legitimate form of contraception. It is a desperate measure for desperate situations. We must make sure that women have speedy, quick, efficient and safe access to legal abortion.
      With, perhaps, a few exceptions, hon. Members are not medically qualified. They are not consultants and they are not the best people to make medical decisions. We should recognise that. We should not attempt to play God and impose our consciences on others. We should create an environment where women can excercise their consciences safely and legally.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: Has my hon. Friend also considered the difficult legal cases and controversies which may well result if time limits become restrictive, because it is not possible to prove beyond doubt when a pregnancy commences? It cannot be done by scans. Doctors do not always agree with their patients or believe them. Who will decide beyond all doubt when the pregnancy started? That is not necessary now because of the flexibility in the time limits. Has my hon. Friend considered that problem?
      Ms. Primarolo: It makes my blood run cold to think that the courts may make that decision with such ill-qualified judges as the one who recently said in a rape trial that women did not know their mind when refusing sexual intercourse and that sometimes no meant yes. Presumably the courts would tell women that the women did not know when pregnancy started.

      249
      Women in Bristol feel strongly, as do all women, about the right which Parliament seeks to take from us. A large petition was collected in Bristol where the women have a clear view on this issue. The 1967 Act is working as well as it can within the definitions for controlling legal abortion. Abortions beyond 24 weeks are not conducted without grave reason. It is a travesty of the truth for hon. Members to read out horror stories and describe most horrific events to frighten Members of Parliament into an ill-judged, incorrect decision.
      I hope that hon. Members will vote not to amend the 1967 Act, but to leave it as it is. If they want to improve it, they should vote for new clause 3 which removes all time limits and leaves the decision to the women and the doctors.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I shall have another stab at my simple arithmetic. Seven hon. Members wish to speak and there are 49 minutes left, which is seven apiece.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: It may seem to the House that we have already discussed every facet of abortion law tonight, but there is a new form of thinking to which we should address ourselves, which is more rigorous thinking about the whole Abortion Act 1967.
      Tonight we have been placating our consciences by concentrating our attention, as always, on the upper time limit. That argument is close to the medieval debate on how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. In the same way, there is no real-life answer. On the other hand, if we look carefully at the worries that are troubling people outside the House, we might reach a rational and wholly different solution.
      Although this is the tenth debate on this subject in 16 years, I do not think that there will not be another debate in a short time, because we shall not reach a practical solution tonight. I draw the attention of the Committee to new clause 5. Although we shall not vote on it, I feel strongly that hon. Members should consider it carefully to see whether it strikes a more realistic chord.
      New clause 5 starts from the premise that we should separate social abortions from other abortions. After all, social abortions and other abortions are sought for two wholly different reasons. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) talked of identical babies whose only difference at 20 weeks was that one was visible and the other invisible to the naked eye. That is not true because the baby invisible to the naked eye may be hideously deformed and if born and brought to life, may face a future of unimaginable suffering. It may be visible to the naked eye through modern machinery and perhaps it can be kept alive, despite its wretched existence, for many years.
      Earlier I mentioned the case of a child born with no brain who has now reached the age of nine. In nobody's terms can that child be considered to have a life since the essence of human life is the brain. Abortions for medical reasons represent a different style of need to those abortions on what are broadly termed social grounds.
      9.45 pm
      The Committee should step away immediately from the fiction that the 1967 Act does not provide abortions on request—of course it does. The woman requests that abortion. Abortion on demand is just a more fearful way
      250
      of describing abortion on request. General practitioners in my constituency and elsewhere tell me that it is virtually impossible for a doctor to refuse an abortion under the workings of the 1967 Act. However, the Act places a succession of minor hurdles in the way of the pregnant mother trying to obtain an abortion. I know of a good example of that. I hope that I will not fall into the same trap as many other hon. Members tonight who have taken extreme examples and used them to support a generality. My example is a straight, middle-of-the-road one.
      A girl in the village next door to mine became pregnant. She was single and 18 and the boy who had made her pregnant did not marry her, nor did he want to. She started to seek an abortion at five weeks after she had missed her period. The general practitioner in that particular village is not sympathetic to abortions. She had no car and the rural bus service is appalling. In addition, the two general practices in the nearby market town are full. By the time she obtained two signatures, her pregnancy was visible to everyone in the village. Her credibility was wrecked, and more to the point for the purposes of this debate, it was 18 weeks before she got that abortion. That is the price paid by that woman for us salving our consciences here by pretending that we do not have abortion on demand. We do, but we draw it out in a cruel and lengthy way.
      It is my view—I recognise the problem that it will cause to members of the Catholic Church whose views I recognise and honour, though I do not share—that up to 12 weeks the mother's wish, in conjunction with her general practitioner's decision, should be sufficient to allow her an abortion. Why should she have her GP's agreement? Solely so that society can satisfy itself that she is not using the medical profession as a source of late contraception. We should remember that this should not be a debate on the funding of the National Health Service since more than half of abortions are not carried out by the NHS. I am talking about the use of medical resources.
      It is worth reminding hon. Members that the population of reproductive age in the United Kingdom are rapidly diminishing; they have become a significant minority. I believe that their quality of life and rights must be protected. Similarly, the mother's family, her life and her future must come first.
      It is interesting to compare my proposal with the practice in the remainder of Europe, Scandinavia and north America. In this regard my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was in some confusion. He told us quite correctly that in terms of late abortions after 12 or 13 weeks we scored badly with the rest of Europe, Scandinavia and north America. He omitted to tell the House, however, that since 1975 in France abortions up to 12 weeks have been available on demand and the same is true in Sweden.
      Incidentally, once abortion was made available on demand in Sweden, up to 18 weeks, 95 per cent. of abortions since then have been carried out pre-13 weeks. If one eases up the bureaucracy at the beginning women have abortions earlier and that must be to the benefit of the NHS, the private health service and the mother. That is the time limit—about 12 weeks—around which most debates take place in other civilised countries. Beyond that time limit there must be specific criteria and a consultant's judgment should be required.
      Therefore, I propose that, for up to 12 weeks, the judgment of the woman's own GP should be sufficient. That would hasten abortions and provide a large economy

      251
      of private emotion, and private and public money, and take out of the debate about the upper limit the simple social ground of abortion.
      It becomes harder and harder for hon. Members to justify later abortions on purely social grounds. It will never become harder to say, unless one is a Catholic, when it is wholly understandable, that between 12 and 24 weeks, when grotesque deformities occur, abortion should not take place. I believe that it should. I have therefore listed a range of exceptions, including significant handicaps, the mother's severe disability, whether mental or physical, and the classic exceptions of rape, incest and under-age pregnancy. Between 12 and 24 weeks, such exceptions should suffice.
      The pro-life group's calling card rests on its validation of the over-arching importance of life, but is that really so? Would some of those babies wish to be born alive had they the ability to tell us? In sone of those circumstances, I do not believe that life is such a gift if abominable handicaps and pain are to be the new child's predestined future. On those grounds I justify abortion up to 24 weeks, and until the birth, only if the mother would either die or have significant, permanent, acute disability if the birth were to go ahead.
      I commend those points to the Committee. They are in line with the legislation of Europe, Scandinavia, North America and, oddly enough, with the House of Lords' report of the year before last.
      Mr. Duffy: The debate amply demonstrates that no issue raises more agonies of doubt and conscience than abortion. On the one side there is the natural revulsion at the destruction of life, and on the other side, the certain tragedies of desperate women. For nearly 2,000 years of Christian civilisation, taking the life of an unborn child was regarded as a vile and heinous moral offence that degraded humanity. The Hippocratic oath that preceded that view forbade abortion. There is no more reactionary deed, because abortion turns life into death.
      Every unborn child that is aborted is witness to our failure to have created a society in which every child can be received into our world with love and affection. Worst of all, abortion is a defeat for women. Far from offering an extension of women's freedom, it is often an enslavement, given the pressures that come from family and other quarters.
      At bottom, every abortion is a grave issue of fundamental morality, not simply a matter of amoral social convenience. However, hon. Members do not like grappling with truly moral issues, whether they involve destructive embryonic experimentation, divorce, homosexuality or even hanging. It is the arguments of social utility, rather than essential morality, on which hon. Members ultimately prefer to rest their case. Even hon. Members who wish to reform the 1967 Act, too often shrink from making the assertion that lies beneath their unease, that abortion is a morally wrong act that can be justified, if ever, only by a greater moral imperative.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
      Mr. Duffy: I shall give way, but I must watch the clock.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that research carried out in the United States
      252
      shows that 82 per cent. of women who have had their pregnancy terminated suffer from post-abortion syndrome?
      Mr. Duffy: Yes, I am aware of that, and I am glad that the hon. Lady has reminded the Committee of it.
      Is it not illogical of Parliament to provide legal protection for human embryos from two weeks onwards yet not to be concerned for the future of that protected embryo at 18, 20, 24, 26 or 28 weeks? As in yesterday's debate on embryonic research, the issue today turns first on the question of when life really begins. Clearly the onus of proof lay yesterday with the embryonic researchers: they evaded it. Similarly, the onus of proof lies overwhelmingly tonight with those who want to terminate pregnancies. When do they say life begins? If at 28 weeks, why not at 27 or 20? If not at 20, why not at 40?
      If, moreover, it is proper to defend the life of the unborn child when it is damaged in the womb by a drug such as thalidomide, why is it so illiberal to defend it against being aborted? Yet it would be an ignoble sort of Member who possessed no moral code about life or death or who failed to give that code precedence over social convenience.
      The conscience of the nation is plainly uneasy. The once extremist goal of abortion on demand has long since been realised, at least for those with enough persistence or private funding. Deeming the decision to be one of medicine only stands revealed as the legal fiction it always was. The de facto ground for abortion in the great mass of cases is now that of serious inconvenience to the mother—nothing more or less.
      Mrs. Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Duffy: I will, but I remind the hon. Lady that I must watch the clock, so I shall not give way again.
      Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend has said that abortion takes place on grounds of serious inconvenience. He is therefore suggesting that women have an extremely frivolous attitude to the whole matter. Does he think that a woman who would undertake an abortion on such grounds would suitably be compelled to be a mother? If that is his opinion of women, I tremble for the children of this nation.
      Mr. Duffy: My hon. Friend is responsible for the construction that she puts on my arguments, which I shall develop a little later in the light of experience in my own city of Sheffield.
      As I have mentioned Sheffield, perhaps I could add that Dr. R. E. J. Ryder, now at the Hallamshire hospital in that city and a former senior registrar in medicine at the Northern general hospital, informs me that 18 weeks is the time when the mother commonly starts to feel her baby moving. Bonding begins, and abortion takes on a more traumatic character. Even if we still have doubts, Dr. Ryder insists that the case that the entity is not a living human being will always be shrouded with uncertainty. Thus, in our society, in which one is innocent until proved guilty, it must be wrong to kill a baby in utero if there is any possibility that it is a live human being.
      Those who oppose any amendment do so because they fear that women will return to the back streets or because they fear that it will penalise married women who already have enough children. But back-street abortion deaths were dropping before the Abortion Act came into

      253
      operation. Surveys of class profiles show that the section of the population most opposed to abortion are working-class women; the section most in favour of it are upper-class men. Free and easy abortion is in the interests of men because it removes the problem of pregnancy, and women are well aware of that. As for penalising married women, the majority of abortions after 18 weeks are on single women and the largest number of abortions at this stage are upon women who have no children.
      10 pm
      Given the exemptions, the Bill deals with social abortions after 18 weeks, for the most part of perfectly healthy babies. Are they necessary? That is the issue before the House. The issue is not late referrals. In 1986, young girls and menopausal women accounted for only about 5 per cent. of late abortions. The report entitled "Late Abortions in England and Wales" which was published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1984 says on page 39 that it absolves NHS facilities and referring doctors from responsibility for a delayed abortion. It blames
      "late presentation to a doctor by the women."
      All that is borne out in my city of Sheffield, where, over the five years from 1984 to 1988, the number of abortions increased by 7 per cent. Over the period from 1980 to 1986, the increase was of the order of 14 per cent. Some 71 per cent. of Sheffield women having abortions are single, and that is well above the average in the Trent region and in England and Wales. The percentage of Sheffield women having abortions who are married is lower than in the rest of the region and in England and Wales. Within the National Health Service in Sheffield, abortion has increased from 54 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent. over the past five years.
      My inference from the information that is available to me about present practices in Sheffield is that there have been no cases during the period that I have mentioned of abortions to save the life of the mother. In 1986, there were 10 handicap exemptions, which is less than 1 per cent. More than 80 per cent. involved women in the three age groups 16 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 34 and, as I have said, almost 70 per cent. of them were single girls. That leaves approximately 10 per cent., which is accounted for by women over 35, and 4 per cent. by girls under 16.
      It is not possible to ascertain how compelling or trivial are the social reasons that constitute ground 2 on which most of those abortions are now taking place in Sheffield and how many involved the same women. if the Minister had given way to me earlier in the debate, I would have asked her to help the House, because, although the medical statistics division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is more helpful now than it was in recent years, it will still not entertain such questions.
      Without more information, none of us, with the possible exception of the Secretary of State, can know what is happening to ground 2. It is certain that ground 2 covers the great majority of abortions in Sheffield and, presumably, involves healthy children. Abortions are making growing and unjustified claims on the National Health Service in Sheffield at a time of scarce medical resources.
      Yesterday, the House discussed the problem of infertility and I mentioned the child work in the fertility clinic in Sheffield and in the corresponding department of the Jessop hospital for women, linked with the university.
      254
      I described the pains that those responsible for that work in Sheffield are taking and the direction in which they are moving to get around some of the ethical objections voiced by hon. Members in yesterday's debate. It is plain that scarce resources are being used for ground 2 claims for abortion in Sheffield. Those resources might go to relieve the anxiety of infertile and childless couples.
      In trying to assess the impact of the Bill on Sheffield, I can arrive only at approximate figures. It appears that some 80 babies will be affected by the 18-week limit: 40 by the 20-week limit, 20 by the 22-week limit; and hardly any by the 24-week limit. Not all those babies will be linked with Sheffield. Apart from exemptions, they will all be perfectly healthy children. What will be their future? That is the central question facing hon. Members when they vote. Has not the time arrived for the House to reconsider the time limits for abortion, and preferably to agree upon lower limits? I shall vote for the lowest limit.
      Mr. David Amess: This is the most important debate in which I have taken part since I became a Member of Parliament. It is about the sanctity of life and all that that means. I want to draw on my personal experiences. My wife has not suffered a miscarriage, nor has she suffered an abortion. We are very fortunate in having four healthy children. Indeed, our last baby was delivered only two weeks ago. I was present at the birth and also throughout the labour. I witnessed the miracle of life. Any hon. Member who has experienced that will recognise the emotion and the euphoria felt on the occasion of the safe delivery of a child.
      When I look at our baby Alexandra, I clearly recall the stage when I and my wife went to our excellent hospital in Basildon for a scan. It was at the 18th week of gestation. We clearly saw a picture of the baby. We saw our baby's head moving, her arms moving, her legs moving, and then we saw our baby, at 18 weeks, sucking her thumb. There was no doubt in our minds that she was a human being. She was real: she was our baby. When she was delivered to my wife at 40 weeks, the only real difference was that she was larger. She looked exactly the same. I have a picture of that scan to prove it.
      This is very much a debate about the sanctity of life. I am confused about how hon. Members square their views on these issues. I entered politics because I actually care about people's lives——
      Ms. Short: That is why you are a Tory.
      Mr. Amess: I shall comment on that remark in a moment.
      I care about people's lives and I was sent here to represent the people of Basildon. I am not prepared to speak on behalf of the men of Basildon and I would not dream of saying that I speak on behalf of the women of Basildon. I was sent here to represent all the people in my constituency. We spend all our time discussing laws, education, defence and the economy, all of which affect people's lives. There is no dispute that we all regard life as precious. In fact, I should be surprised if there were any hon. Members who were not extremely glad to be here. At the time of their conception, there was no question about the right to choose.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred to the fact that I am a Conservative. In an ideal world I would hope that abortion would be avoided in every case. I am not an idealist and that is probably why

      255
      I support the party that I do. I am a realist and I accept what I have to cope with in the House when we come to vote.
      Therefore, despite the remarks that were made earlier about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and other organisations, all of which I regret because they rather spoilt the debate, I shall not be returning year after year. There is no plot among those who share my views to keep returning to the House. What are people frightened of? They are wrong to be frightened. Tonight we shall have the opportunity democratically to vote. Let us not personalise the debate.
      I despair at the way in which the 1967 Act has worked in practice. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) introduced that legislation with the best intentions, but it has resulted in 170,000 abortions each year, 96 per cent. of which are undertaken for social reasons. I fully recognise that no woman would lightly undertake an abortion. There are no circumstances under which an abortion——
      Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Amess: It would be unfair to those hon. Members who are waiting to speak. I apologise.
      I understand the arguments made earlier about a woman's right to choose, disability, the time delay in medical diagnosis, back-street abortions and every child being a wanted child. But I find it impossible to reconcile my respect for life with all the matters that have been raised. Twenty-three years after the 1967 Act, 22½-weekold babies are being kept alive in our special baby care units. I have heard the remarks about the NHS, but that is certainly the case at Basildon. How on earth can we have special baby care units fighting to keep babies alive at 22½ weeks while, for whatever reason, they can still be destroyed in the same hospital?
      Sadly, we live in an aggressive and violent society. I meet aggression every day of the week. We see it on the tube. We experience it among drivers. There is no longer respect for humanity. That is highlighted by what the House has done since 1967.
      I do not regard a reduction of four weeks in the time limit for abortion as a fair reflection of 23 years of advancement in medical science. Therefore, please let us take the opportunity tonight to restore the esteem of the House by recognising the dignity of life. Let us make this a proud day for Parliament and at least legislate to protect babies who are capable of being born alive.
      Ms. Short: The problem throughout this deeply unimpressive debate—I say that in all seriousness—is that we are not discussing where the real division of opinion in the Committee lies. A substantial minority of hon. Members believe that abortion should never, ever be allowed. I disagree with that view, but I respect it.
      I come from an Irish Catholic background. I was brought up in the Catholic Church. My mother lives with me and goes to mass every morning. She does not believe in abortion and I respect that position. I do not agree with her and neither do any of her other four daughters, but we all get along with and respect each other.
      What I do not respect is a debate led by people of that view—the hon. Members for Maidstone (Miss
      256
      Widdecombe) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), the Father of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy)—who believe that abortion should never be allowed but who, instead of having the integrity, honesty and straightforwardness to put that position before the House and to argue for it, pretend to talk about time limits. Because they are absolute fundamentalists and hold the view that all abortions should be prohibited, the evidence that they present to the Committee is biased, and they distort fact and reality.
      I pay tribute to Lord Houghton and to the quality of his reports, which many right hon. and hon. Members have not even read.
      Viability is reached at 24 weeks. My local hospital has one of those wonderful baby care units in which precious and wanted babies are kept alive by tubes. The problem is that most of them do not survive, and those who do are brain-damaged for the rest of their lives. If one studies the development of a baby, it is clear that it cannot independently sustain life much before 24 weeks because its lungs are not formed. Those are the medical facts, but so-called right hon. and hon. Members, who really want all abortions to be made illegal, try to trick the Committee and the public into accepting a lower time limit than is defensible. They distort reality and put false information before the Committee. I do not respect that, and it does little credit to Parliament itself.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Mallon: In fairness to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) who spoke in yesterday's debate, and whose contribution is in Hansard, and to myself, we both made very clear the views that we hold. We were not hiding our light under any bushel, but making clear our belief that the destruction of a human being is wrong in any circumstances.
      Ms. Short: I am sorry, but I have no respect for right hon. and hon. Members who hold that view and who do not have the guts to state their position. If there was a vote, they know that they would be overwhelmingly defeated. We could then have a rational debate on the proper framework of the law.
      I do not believe that I have a right to make moral decisions for every individual in our society. What is needed is a sensible, defensible and serious legal framework within which individual women and families can make their own decisions—given all the pressures, aspects of morality and worries that confront them. Part of that defensible framework of law would be to say that once a foetus is capable of independent survival and no longer dependent on its mother, it has a right to live. That is the framework of previous law.
      In current law, the time limit is 24 weeks, other than in exceptional cases. The law says that one cannot abort a foetus that is capable of being born alive. Because of advances in medical science, the limit has fallen to 24 weeks, and the number of post-24 week abortions is now minute. They relate to hard cases such as very late detection of severe abnormalities on the very young girl who has been sexually abused and did not know that she was pregnant. They are tiny in number. We already have a good framework of law that operates sensibly.
      I also have no respect for the Government's action; they had no need to bring this clause before the House. As

      257
      a result of the lies presented in SPUC's case, which was designed to confuse public opinion and to suggest that there are many late abortions, the Government are trying to appease its supporters. The Government thought about and talked about tabling Lord Houghton's Bill in this House. I would have supported that very constructive move, but there were internal divisions in the Tory party, the SPUC supporters made their views known in the Whips' Office, and there were conflicts with the Secretary of State for Health. The result is the nonsense that is before the Committee tonight.
      There will be a whole series of Divisions tonight from which many right hon. and hon. Members will be absent, while others will not really know what they are voting for. Rational decisions will not be made—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] I am speaking for myself.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that we should seek to improve our law and prevent preventable late abortions. It is sinful and unforgiveable that many women who come forward for abortions before 12 weeks have post-18 weeks abortions because of delays in our National Health system and because of delays caused by doctors processing their cases. That is outrageous and disgraceful.
      If the rhetoric and regret about late abortions were true, the hon. Members for Maidstone and for Mossley Hill would be queuing up to demand the right of women to have an abortion up to 12 weeks with reference to one doctor. That is what they would do if they really wanted to prevent late abortions. Many preventable late abortions would then be prevented. Instead, those hon. Members are trying to trick and fib. They are trying to make all abortions illegal.
      Whatever the outcome of our Divisions tonight, this will not be the end of the issue. The hon. Members to whom I have referred will be back. If it is not those hon. Members because they have made promises, it will be others. I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Health has involved himself in this shabby game, with such an irrational method of inviting the House to reach a decision.
      The case of SPUC is encapsulated in the postcard that it used for so long. That postcard carried an attractive picture, which had been coloured, of a foetus which was supposedly sucking its thumb. Of course that picture was a complete lie. That 22-year-old picture of a natural miscarriage had been taken in a laboratory in Sweden. It had been tinted and coloured up. That is the SPUC case. It is misleading and pretending to the public that lots of late abortions are like that. That is not true.
      Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Short: I do not have time to give way. In fairness to other hon. Members who have been waiting to speak, I should not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      The present framework of practice in Britain is reasonable. Post 24-week abortions do not happen except in the most extreme and distressing cases. The only change that we need to that law is to speed up abortion at the early end so that young women who come forward early do not end up having late abortions. That change is not on offer to the Committee today and that is deeply regrettable.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not want to detain the Committee, and perhaps another hon. Member can speak before the winding-tip speeches.
      258
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that we have a very reasonable law with regard to termination. That law has stood the test of time for the vast majority of people. The Lancet reported in December last year that 75 per cent. of the people in this country are satisfied with the working of the Abortion Act 1967. However, I do not want to see restrictions on women's access to abortions. I want to see an improvement in financing and facilities to reduce the number of later abortions. I hope that all hon. Members would agree that we should be aiming for that.
      Eighty-seven per cent. of late abortions in this country take place within 12 weeks of pregnancy, and less than 2 per cent. take place when a pregnancy is over 20 weeks. According to the 1988 figures, only 23 abortions in England, Wales and Scotland were performed over the present 24-week limit.
      In a recent survey, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that only 3 per cent. of its members were in favour of an 18-week time limit, which appears in an amendment tonight. Organisations representing the medical profession have said that the limit for clinical practice—what doctors actually do—will be between two and four weeks lower than the legal limit, allowing for a margin of error in calculating the duration of pregnancy. People are saying to the House that, in effect, 14 weeks, 12 weeks or even less will be the time limit for the termination of pregnancy.
      Those who talk about their despair about the Abortion Act 1967 and how it has been implemented do not recognise the despair caused by the fact that abortion is again on the agenda. People did not believe that the law would be changed, as is proposed. Some hon. Members will support the limit of 18 weeks tonight. When they have achieved that, they will attack another aspect of the 1967 Act and then another, until they have whittled away women's rights to abortion.
      Those hon. Members doing this at a time when the deficiencies of the National Health Service are stark. We hear reports of delays of four weeks in reporting pregnancy test results. We see headlines in the newpapers, such as one in The Guardian on 2 April:
      "Birth control hit by cash squeeze".
      When the lack of contraceptive services, especially for young people, is becoming acute in some areas, we are being asked to support punitive measures.
      The right hon.Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said that a survey reported on national television this week showed that one third of health authorities were reducing their family planning services. In 1982, a study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists revealed that a significant number of abortions performed after 20 weeks were the result of avoidable delays by general practitioners and failures in the organisation of NHS services. In addition, women have no way of knowing, when they first visit their general practitioner, what that doctor's non-medical views on abortion are.
      I wish that those hon. Members who threaten people who are in dire need and have been for many years would argue for the betterment within the National Health Service of counselling and contraceptive services, so that people are not led into wanting an abortion in the first place. Since the introduction of the 1967 Act, any retreat

      259
      to the back-street abortionist to whom women had to go before we had legal termination in this country must be avoided.
      Ms. Mildred Gordon: It has been difficult to listen with equanimity to some of the speeches today, particularly a speech which cast a slur on women by saying that since the Abortion Act 1967 their concern for the sanctity of life had been lessened. It is poverty which reduces the value of life, and those who voted for the freezing of child benefit might bear that in mind. Women are pro-life. They bear the children and take the main responsibility for bringing them up. They do the unpaid work of managing the family and they should make the decision on what is best for their family.
      This has been a phoney debate. We have seen the opportunism of hon. Members who have made sanctimonious speeches but are prepared to compromise to get their foot in the door. They intend eventually not just to attack all abortion rights, but to attack contraceptive rights. They have already attacked the French contraceptive pill. If they really cared about doing away with late abortions and did their best to prevent the few late abortions that there are, they would be in favour of abortion on request. Unfortunately, we are unable to discuss or vote on that tonight. Those hon. Members would be in favour of improved sex education and of all the points outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
      Above all, those hon. Members would want to improve social conditions. Instead of sending round plastic foetuses, why do they not think of the real world, where so many miscarriages take place in the first few months of pregnancy and where still-births take place at seven months because mothers are dragging babies and prams up flights of stairs or have to live on poor diets? Why do those hon. Members not concern themselves with saving lives by improving the conditions for such people?
      Those who have been spearheading the SPUC campaign are concerned not so much with saving life as with control over women's lives. Let us remember that the women of Romania, in fighting for freedom, want above all the freedom to have legal abortions. That should be a lesson to us.
      To reduce the number of weeks within which abortion is legal would be a form of cruelty to women. My generation and that of my mother remember the shadow that was cast over women's lives by the fear of pregnancy, particularly when they were not in a position to have more children and when their health and social conditions, already extremely low, could not tolerate larger families. Every month their relations with their partners were crippled and there were severe burdens on doctors, who either had to break the law or turn away desperate patients, and then deal with the mess of septicaemia and other causes of death resulting from back-street abortions, which a whittling down of the present law would bring back.
      Women should have the right to choose. All women are pro-life. Women do not enter abortions lightly because their very nature bonds them to the life that they are carrying. They have the right to decide what is best for their families—and almost all women, given the chance, choose correctly.
      10.30 pm
      Ms. Harman: The votes that will take place tonight will be on the time limit up to which abortion can lawfully take place and the grounds on which it can be justified. But many hon. Members have spoken about the number of abortions that take place, and that is the subject with which I shall start.
      Nobody believes that a high abortion rate is good, and of course it is desirable to reduce the number of abortions, but the matter must be put in perspective. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said, the abortion rate in the United Kingdom is lower than the rate in France, Norway, Italy, Germany and numerous other countries. We are by no means high in the international league table of abortion rates.
      I agree with those who say that it is still too high, but what divides us is the way in which we might reduce the number of abortions. Some argue that the rate should be cut by forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies. I argue that we should help women to avoid unwanted pregnancies. There are 200,000 unplanned and regretted pregnancies every year in this country. Contraception is no easy matter. An unwanted pregnancy is not the result of fecklessness on the part of a woman.
      The battle for safe, effective, accessible contraceptive services is far from won. Yet across England, Scotland and Wales, family planning services are being cut. Cash-starved district health authorities, desperate to avoid closing another hospital or ward, desperate to avoid again reporting longer waiting lists to the Department of Health, are picking on family planning services as a soft option for cuts.
      The scale of those cuts, year after year, has been disastrous: Sheffield, 31 per cent.; Gravesend, 50 per cent.; Chichester, 50 per cent.; Cheltenham, 55 per cent.; Mid-Essex, 48 per cent. cut. The list is endless. Unless the Government step in now, the cash crisis in health authorities will spell the destruction of family planning clinics and lead to more unwanted pregnancies.
      Where has been the protest of those who say that they want to reduce the number of abortions? Those who, like us, want fewer women having to seek abortion, should join us in demanding that the Government call a halt to cuts in the family planning service, that they review the number of unplanned and regretted pregnancies, particularly among teenagers, and that they step up the contraceptive training of GPs and nurses, thereby developing a strategy for reducing the large number of unplanned and regretted pregnancies. Such action would reduce the number of abortions far more dramatically than would reducing the time limit to 20 or even 18 weeks.
      Some health authorities have tried to take such steps, despite the current cash crisis. South Warwickshire health authority, for example, concerned about the high level of abortions in its district, has developed a strategy which it hopes will reduce the number of abortions by a quarter before the end of the century. It includes work with local schools to improve sex education, better advertising of family planning services and increased access to services. We should look at the Netherlands, for example, where there are fewer restrictions on time limits than we have, but, because there are better planning services there, there are far fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions as

      261
      a result. That is the way to cut the number of abortions, not by restricting access to abortion to those who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy.
      Concern has been expressed about the number of late abortions. The case has been put that cutting time limits will cut the number of late abortions, but that would solve the problem of late abortions at the expense of the women who seek them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, the way to reduce the number of late abortions is not to deny abortions to the women who need a late abortion but to try to deal with the cause of late abortions, and that is to improve services so that, when abortion is necessary, it can be carried out as early as possible in the pregnancy. It is not as though the Government do not know that. Countless reports have shown up the inadequacies of the Health Service as a substantial cause of late abortion.
      In 1981 and in 1985 Isobel Allen of the Policy Studies Institute reported on delays caused by GPs and consultants. As the anecdote related by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about the girl in the next village demonstrated, in 1984 the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported that one in five women who had abortions later than 20 weeks had approached their doctor asking for an abortion more than eight weeks earlier—before 12 weeks. What is needed in practical terms—if hon. Members are interested in practical ways of reducing the toll of late abortions—is better diagnosis of pregnancy, quicker referral for women who seek abortions and better abortion services throughout the United Kingdom. That is the way to cut late abortions, not by restricting access to abortion for those women whom the Health Service has failed.
      However good our family planning services, however good our referral system, however good access throughout the country, there will still be some cases when women will seek abortion after 20 weeks, after 22 weeks, and even after 24 weeks. That is where the debate has become most heated. We are talking about only a small percentage of the total number of abortions, so I should like to put the matter in perspective. Eighty-four per cent. of all abortions were performed at under 13 weeks, 14 per cent. were performed between 13 and 20 weeks, and only 1·7 per cent were performed at over 20 weeks. In the whole of last year, only 22 abortions were carried out after 24 weeks.
      Among later abortions we see the most tragic and the most difficult cases—first, young girls who at first do not realise that they are pregnant, and although desperate to end the pregnancy, are afraid to seek help and therefore do not go to the doctor until the pregnancy is 22 weeks, say, because they are afraid that they might be kicked out of the home and they do not know where to turn; and, secondly, women who develop pregnancy-induced hypertension, who continue with a planned pregnancy for as long as possible, but it becomes clear at 24 weeks, say, that the continuation of the pregnancy could mean kidney damage for the woman or even permanent blindness.
      I should like hon, Members to consider the case of a woman called Meriel Gillman, whom I had the chance of meeting last week. She had a son and had been trying for another child for 10 years. When she finally became pregnant at 40, she and her husband were overjoyed. She told me, "No one could have wanted a baby more than we wanted that baby." Because she was 40, she was offered extensive ante-natal screening—blood tests, urine tests, corionic villus sampling, blood pressure tests, and all the
      262
      tests were clear. But her blood pressure became raised at 27 weeks. It was then discovered, after exhaustive testing, that the foetus had severe spina bifida, urino-genital problems, a deformed rib cage, small lungs and numerous other problems. Seven doctors were involved in the diagnoses in that one day, and the following day she had an abortion.
      I should not dream of casting a moral judgment on the painful choice that Meriel had to make and of saying that such an abortion was so morally wrong that it should be made a criminal offence. Nor would I dream of casting a moral judgment against a woman who is against abortion and decides that she will carry on with the pregnancy, despite knowing that the child will be born with a severe handicap. It must be for those women themselves to make that choice, and whatever choice they make, they deserve our compassion and our full support, not empty moral judgments from a distance.
      If hon. Members share my view that there must be a choice for women such as Meriel and the other two cases that I have mentioned, they should vote for limits that are no more restrictive than the combination of the new clause and amendments, which together would give us the result that the House of Lords so recently supported in Lord Houghton's Bill, which commands wide support within the medical profession and, I believe, is anchored in public opinion.
      Lord Houghton's Bill implements the unanimous recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. It lays down a time limit of 24 weeks. After that, abortion would not be legal as it is now up to 28 weeks, except that the Houghton Bill allows that, after 24 weeks a pregnancy may be lawfully terminated, if there is a risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or if two doctors believe that it is essential to prevent serious damage to the woman's health, or on the grounds of a substantial risk of such foetal abnormality as to involve serious handicap.
      I should have thought that that could command a broad consensus. That formula is most nearly achieved by amending new clause 4 with amendments (b), (f), ), (k), (m) and (q). I apologise for the publication of that list, but as hon. Members have said, it was not our choice that this procedure has been chosen.
      The time limit of 24 weeks was not arrived at arbitrarily. When deciding on an abortion, doctors err on the side of caution and, in practice, a 24-week limit would mean something like a 22-week limit or even a 20-week limit. Medical opinion—and the view of the Department of Health—is that the chances of survival at 22 weeks are negligible. The presumption is that the foetus is not viable at 22 weeks, so a 24-week time limit would effectively be a 22-week time limit, at which, I repeat, medical opinion is agreed that the foetus is not viable. For the future, doctors believe that they can increase the chances of survival for babies after 24 weeks, but because of the insufficiency of development, they do not expect to be able to keep babies born at 22 weeks alive in the foreseeable future.
      Making the time limit more restrictive than the present law or than Houghton would have another sad effect. It would increase the number of abortions on the grounds of foetal abnormality, because screening can show different things at different stages of the pregnancy. A blood test at 16 weeks can suggest the probability of an abnormality, but the doctors will advise the woman to hang on for a few further weeks because the child might be all right a nd a further conclusive test can then be carried out——
      Miss Widdecombe rose——
      Ms. Harman: Let me just finish this point about diagnostic tests.
      The woman is then able—this is a regular occurrence—to continue with the pregnancy knowing that, if her worst fears are realised and there is a serious abnormality, she can still have the pregnancy terminated. If the possibility of a later abortion is taken away—as it would be, for example, under amendment (j), which I know that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) will support—the chances are that that woman will seek an abortion earlier than she otherwise would.
      Miss Widdecombe rose——
      Ms. Harman: So those who seek—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I shall not give way.
      Those who seek to cut the time limit to below 24 weeks for foetal abnormality will, paradoxically, have brought about a situation in which many more, possibly normal, pregnancies are terminated.
      There has been vociferous lobbying on the matter, but I believe that public opinion is clear. Four out of five people are against reducing the time limit below 24 weeks. Most Members of Parliament have never found themselves, as a teenager, lonely, afraid and pregnant. Most hon. Members have never had a pregnancy which, if they carried it on, would threaten them with a brain haemorrhage, blindness or a nervous breakdown. Most hon. Members have never faced the prospect that every woman dreads, that there is something terribly wrong with their baby. But there are women in this country who face that dilemma and will face it in future. Hon. Members must not vote that women who are in a position that they hope never to be in themselves, should lose the choice of having that pregnancy terminated.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on the general point with which she started. The first thing that we should all agree on in the Committee is that we should do everything possible to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and late abortions and get to the root cause of the problem by making sure that as full and comprehensive as possible a range of family planning services, sex education and aid and support is available through the National Health Service so as to minimise the number of potential tragedies that all cases of abortion represent.
      This is not the occasion for me to debate the comments of the hon. Member for Peckham about the changes taking place in the Health Service. However, I begin by making it clear that there is no difference of principle between us. The NHS provides free family planning services. About 4 million patients per year take advantage of those services. Certainly, the services are changing, but all our guidance makes it clear that we expect the health authorities to continue to provide a full range of service and a balanced service. The service is bound to change over the years—above all, I hope, because it must reflect the preferences of women and whether they wish to obtain that service from their general practitioner or family planning clinic.
      We know that there is sometimes much local controversy when changes to the pattern of family planning clinics are proposed, but those changes should
      264
      never be made purely on financial grounds. Sometimes they can be made on the basis of changes in patients' choice and the best use of resources. It is only since the 1970s that GPs have provided free family planning services. Now the majority go to their GP rather than to their clinic. It is inevitable that that gives rise to changes in some parts of the country.
      For probably the only occasion in my speech, I must touch on the usual allegations that the hon. Member for Peckham made about a cash crisis, cuts in clinics, and so on. The cost to the NHS of family planning services was £33 million when we took over and £84 million for 1987–88, the last year for which we have figures.
      The debate is not about family planning services, particularly as there is no difference of policy between the Opposition and the Government. It is about the Abortion Act 1967, whether the time has come to revise it and, if so, how. I arrived in the House just a year or two too late to vote for the 1967 Act. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been an open and strong supporter of the Act. In my opinion, that Act was one of the more civilised and liberalising measures of the past few years and has made a profound change to our society which on balance has been beneficial.
      I am sorry that an urgent appointment stopped me from listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), but I have heard a summary of what he said. He went back to the underlying policy of the 1967 Act and no doubt repeated arguments with which, over the years, I have usually agreed whenever he has expounded the underlying philosophy of the 1967 Act.
      In the past I have taken part in debates and voted in Divisions on abortion, and I have consistently been against the repeated attempts of many members of the pro-life lobby in the Committee to make changes to that Act. I remember voting against the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and voting with many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have spoken against the spirit of that measure today.
      The reason why we are voting on abortion today, despite the history with which we are all familiar, is that a change has taken place in the past year or two. Hon. Members who have always fundamentally opposed the 1967 Act clearly wish to keep returning to it. However, in recent years many supporters of the 1967 Act have felt that the time has come to make some changes to the law. In particular, there has been growing uncertainty about whether the time limits are wholly satisfactory.
      I listened with care to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), but I am afraid that I do not always agree with her underlying philosophy, as she well knows. However, she is right about the unsatisfactory nature of the law and the relationship between the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the Abortion Act 1967. It is time to review the present time limit in the 1929 Act and the House has been trying to do that. I think that for some years all hon. Members have wanted to change it, regardless of their views on the underlying Act.
      Certainly it has been a serious matter ever since 1985, when the working party of the Royal College said that in practice 24 weeks was a much better guide which doctors should use when considering whether a baby could be born alive. I was the Minister of Health who introduced the

      265
      arrangement which made it clear to private clinics licensed for late abortions that we would probably not renew licences if they persisted with them after 24 weeks. That is why the few operations after that date have been carried out in National Health Service hospitals.
      For a long time many of us have waited for a Warnock Bill and an attempt to tackle the subject of embryo research. I must confess that in contemplating the Bill I was not instinctively attracted to the idea of debating the abortion law at the same time as discussing the introduction of law on embryo research. Even in the past month or two I have genuinely changed my mind, and today's debate has confirmed that. These subjects are so closely related that this is a suitable opportunity for the House to have a day at the end of which it can come to a conclusion, which should last a long time, on the time limits and future operation of the 1967 Act and its relationship with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and I have tried to provide the best framework for a judgment to be reached on what is inevitably an extremely complex series of interrelated aspects of time limits for abortion. It is futile, particularly for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) with whom I broadly agree on the underlying subject, to make all these attacks on the way in which we have devised the procedure.
      It would have been difficult to start with Houghton because it is an extremely liberalising measure. It does not start down the middle of the strongly held passions that we have heard. It is more difficult to devise the range of options on both sides which hon. Members can use to construct their preferred solution if we start with Houghton rather than my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House's new clause and all the amendments. If hon. Members follow the debate and the guides to voting, and contemplate their personal positions seriously, as we all will, the Government have provided a perfectly adequate and probably overdue opportunity for us to exercise our undoubted duty to make our best judgment according to our own conscience on the matter.
      We are not debating or voting on the policy of having legalised abortion under the 1967 Act—[Interruption.] it seems that some people are—not surprisingly, people do not leave their views behind. During the debate we have heard impassioned views from one side and the other—my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on one side of the argument, and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who probably made the most dramatic intervention, from the other.
      I do not agree with the position taken at either end of the argument. I am probably not the only hon. Member who on Saturday found my surgery being lobbied by two groups—the Socialist Workers party outside with a tannoy attacking Tory attempts to restrict a woman's right to choose, and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children inside, presenting me with an embryo and demanding that we reduce the limit to 18 weeks.
      My judgments are my own. I propose to make a complex series of judgments when voting for and against the various amendments. I shall not vote against my conscience and my judgments are not totally determined by what the majority of my constituents think. As it happens, I believe that the majority of my constituents
      266
      —pleasant, provincial, rural and suburban people in Nottinghamshire—share my view. I believe that the vast majority believe that the present law is about right except that the time scales are wrong and need to be revised, and that we need to take some notice of the royal colleges' opinions. In a simple way, that represents the way in which I shall vote, although people will appreciate that the issues are more complex.
      We are talking about late abortions and the time limit which should apply to the limited number of such abortions. How restrictive should we be in the generality of cases? What exceptions should we make to that restriction for what have been described as the hard cases where grave permanent injury might result to the mother should the pregnancy continue, severe foetal abnormalities are present, and so on. If we do not go too far in making change and if we keep close to the consensus of medical opinion, we shall improve the 1967 Act.
      Some argue that there is no need for change and that, despite the working group and the opinion of the royal colleges, everything is all right as it is. Those who believe that can take a simple step by voting against new clause 4 being read a Second time. If they are successful, everything will remain as it is in England and Scotland regarding the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the Abortion Act 1967.
      If new clause 4 is passed, it is important to note the change that it will make to the law as it introduces time limits into the 1967 Act for the first time. Those new time limits for various purposes will exist alongside the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which will continue with the rebuttable presumptions either way, unless amended, at the 28-week stage.
      Attendance in the Chamber is now reaching its peak and hon. Members will want to know how to vote correctly during the next couple of hours. I trust that as many as possible will remain, as the final Division will be the clause stand part vote on whatever the House has decided.
      In the three minutes remaining, I shall not add to the information given. Lest people outside argue that whatever view is decided was reached in ignorance, hon. Members should ensure that they have their copy of the explanatory note from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House setting out what all the amendments mean. [Interruption.] For those who cannot understand it and, like me, believe that as a response to a request for an idiot's guide it did not quite fit the bill, the Government Whips Office will make available for the convenience of all hon. Members, regardless of views, a one-page document which simplifies the issues. It will be made available on application to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). If used in conjunction with detailed, careful reference to the guide issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, that document will explain clearly what every vote is about.
      The opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is also available and she set all the issues extremely carefully. People outside should also know that my hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) produced their own guides for those who share their respective opinions. We can therefore begin on the process of settling the matter for some time.
      The starting point of new clause 4, which I expect to be carried if the majority believe that the present law requires

      267
      some change—there can be no change unless it is carried—is a 24-week limit for the most important grounds upon which legal abortions are permitted. I want to see a 24-week solution because I am persuaded by the opinion of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that that is the best limit to which to move now and I know that the royal college holds that view strongly. Those who believe that will vote against the succeeding five amendments from (a) to (e), but the amendments are perfectly clear as to the alternative limits that they would substitute if people do not want 24 weeks. A clear look will show that there are higher limits to cover most other eventualities.
      I hope that amendment (q) will be carried and that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act is not left standing alongside the Abortion Act. To have two sets of time limits would be confusing in practice. I therefore hope that there will be a single test, with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act applying only to non-Abortion Act cases.
      We have had an adequate debate, with expressions of passion and desire, to settle the matter so that the public know that Parliament has given an up-to-date opinion as to what the law on this sensitive matter should be. I hope that in the next hour or two we can resolve the matter and live up to the high standards of debate that have prevailed for the past eight hours.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 409, Noes 152.

      Division No. 168]

      [11 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Alexander, Richard

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Allason, Rupert

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Alton, David

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

      Amos, Alan

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Ashby, David

      Buckley, George J.

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Atkins, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Burt, Alistair

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Butcher, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Butler, Chris

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Butterfill, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beggs, Roy

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Beith, A. J.

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bell, Stuart

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Cash, William

      Benyon, W.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bevan, David Gilroy

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

      Blair, Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Blunkett, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffie)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clelland, David

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Conway, Derek

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Bowis, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Cormack, Patrick

      268

      Couchman, James

      Hayward, Robert

      Cran, James

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Crowther, Stan

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cummings, John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hill, James

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Day, Stephen

      Hind, Kenneth

      Devlin, Tim

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Dewar, Donald

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Holt, Richard

      Dicks, Terry

      Home Robertson, John

      Dixon, Don

      Hood, Jimmy

      Douglas, Dick

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Dover, Den

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

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Dunn, Bob

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Durant, Tony

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Eggar, Tim

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Hume, John

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Evennett, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Faulds, Andrew

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Favell, Tony

      Jack, Michael

      Fearn, Ronald

      Janman, Tim

      Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)

      Janner, Greville

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Jessel, Toby

      Flynn, Paul

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Forman, Nigel

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Kennedy, Charles

      Freeman, Roger

      Key, Robert

      French, Douglas

      Kilfedder, James

      Fry, Peter

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Gale, Roger

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Galloway, George

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Gardiner, George

      Knapman, Roger

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Gill, Christopher

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Lambie, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Lang, Ian

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Latham, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Gorst, John

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Gow, Ian

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Gregory, Conal

      Lightbown, David

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Lilley, Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Livsey, Richard

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Grist, Ian

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lord, Michael

      Ground, Patrick

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Grylls, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hague, William

      McCrea, Rev William

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Hanley, Jeremy

      McFall, John

      Hannam, John

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Hardy, Peter

      McGrady, Eddie

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

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      McKay, Allen (Bansley West)

      Harris, David

      Maclean, David

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Maclennan, Robert

      Hawkins, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hayes, Jerry

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      McNamara, Kevin

      269

      Madel, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Malins, Humfrey

      Ryder, Richard

      Mallon, Seamus

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Mans, Keith

      Salmond, Alex

      Marek, Dr John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Marlow, Tony

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Martlew, Eric

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mates, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Sillars, Jim

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Sims, Roger

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mellor, David

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Michael, Alun

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mills, Iain

      Speed, Keith

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Speller, Tony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Moate, Roger

      Squire, Robin

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Stern, Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Straw, Jack

      Mudd, David

      Sumberg, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Neubert, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Norris, Steve

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      O'Brien, William

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thorne, Neil

      Page, Richard

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Paice, James

      Thurnham, Peter

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Parry, Robert

      Tracey, Richard

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Trippier, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Trotter, Neville

      Pawsey, James

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Pike, Peter L.

      Vaz, Keith

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Portillo, Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Walden, George

      Price, Sir David

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Raffan, Keith

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wallace, James

      Redwood, John

      Waller, Gary

      Reid, Dr John

      Ward, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Riddick, Graham

      Warren, Kenneth

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Watts, John

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wells, Bowen

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Robertson, George

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Whitney, Ray

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wilkinson, John

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wilshire, David

      Rost, Peter

      Wilson, Brian

      270

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wood, Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. John Brazier and Mr. Edward Leigh.

      Wray, Jimmy

      Yeo, Tim

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Allen, Graham

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Knox, David

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Leighton, Ron

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Lewis, Terry

      Barron, Kevin

      Litherland, Robert

      Beckett, Margaret

      Livingstone, Ken

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

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

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      McAllion, John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      McCartney, Ian

      Boateng, Paul

      McKelvey, William

      Boyes, Roland

      McLeish, Henry

      Bradley, Keith

      McWilliam, John

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Madden, Max

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Maples, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Marland, Paul

      Caborn, Richard

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Maxton, John

      Cartwright, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Meale, Alan

      Clay, Bob

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Cohen, Harry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Coleman, Donald

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Morley, Elliot

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Cousins, Jim

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Cox, Tom

      Mullin, Chris

      Critchley, Julian

      Neale, Gerrard

      Cryer, Bob

      Nellist, Dave

      Cunningham, Dr John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Darling, Alistair

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

      Patchett, Terry

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Patnick, Irvine

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

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Dobson, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Doran, Frank

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Radice, Giles

      Eadie, Alexander

      Redmond, Martin

      Eastham, Ken

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Richardson, Jo

      Fatchett, Derek

      Rogers, Allan

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

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Flannery, Martin

      Ruddock, Joan

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Foster, Derek

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Foulkes, George

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Fraser, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Short, Clare

      George, Bruce

      Skinner, Dennis

      Gordon, Mildred

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

      Gould, Bryan

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Snape, Peter

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Soley, Clive

      Haynes, Frank

      Spearing, Nigel

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Henderson, Doug

      Stott, Roger

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Howells, Geraint

      Strang, Gavin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Hoyle, Doug

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Tredinnick, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Turner, Dennis

      Ingram, Adam

      Viggers, Peter

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Walley, Joan

      271

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Winnick, David

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      272

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Ms. Dawn Primarolo and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The first amendment is amendment (a), which seeks to make the 18th week the limit. I hope that all hon. Members are clear about that.
      Amendment proposed to the new clause: (a), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'eighteenth'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 165, Noes 375.

      Division No. 169]

      [11.17 pm

      AYES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hague, William

      Alton, David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Amess, David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Amos, Alan

      Hayes, Jerry

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Hayward, Robert

      Ashby, David

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Hill, James

      Atkins, Robert

      Hind, Kenneth

      Battle, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Beggs, Roy

      Hume, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bell, Stuart

      Irvine, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Janman, Tim

      Benyon, W.

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kilfedder, James

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Bowis, John

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Lambie, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Latham, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Bright, Graham

      Lilley, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Burt, Alistair

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Butler, Chris

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Canavan, Dennis

      McCrea, Rev William

      Cash, William

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      McFall, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

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

      McGrady, Eddie

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Conway, Derek

      Malins, Humfrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Cormack, Patrick

      Mans, Keith

      Cummings, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Day, Stephen

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Devlin, Tim

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Dicks, Terry

      Mills, Iain

      Douglas, Dick

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Dover, Den

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Dunn, Bob

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Evennett, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mudd, David

      Favell, Tony

      Murphy, Paul

      Fearn, Ronald

      Neubert, Michael

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Norris, Steve

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Page, Richard

      Freeman, Roger

      Paice, James

      French, Douglas

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Fry, Peter

      Parry, Robert

      Gale, Roger

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Gorst, John

      Pawsey, James

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Grylls, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Redwood, John

      274

      Reid, Dr John

      Thorne, Neil

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tracey, Richard

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Trippier, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Vaz, Keith

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shelton, Sir William

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Sillars, Jim

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Waller, Gary

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      Watts, John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Whitney, Ray

      Speed, Keith

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Speller, Tony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stevens, Lewis

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sumberg, David

      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy and Mr. Toby Jessel.

      Summerson, Hugo

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Alexander, Richard

      Clay, Bob

      Allason, Rupert

      Clelland, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cohen, Harry

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Coleman, Donald

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Baldry, Tony

      Corbett, Robin

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Couchman, James

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Cousins, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Cox, Tom

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cran, James

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Critchley, Julian

      Beckett, Margaret

      Crowther, Stan

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cryer, Bob

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

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dalyell, Tam

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Darling, Alistair

      Blair, Tony

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blunkett, David

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

      Boateng, Paul

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Body, Sir Richard

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

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dewar, Donald

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dixon, Don

      Boswell, Tim

      Dobson, Frank

      Bottomley, Peter

      Doran, Frank

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Durant, Tony

      Boyes, Roland

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bradley, Keith

      Eadie, Alexander

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Eastham, Ken

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Eggar, Tim

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

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Buchan, Norman

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

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

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Flannery, Martin

      Buckley, George J.

      Flynn, Paul

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Caborn, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Callaghan, Jim

      Foster, Derek

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Fraser, John

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Galloway, George

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gardiner, George

      Carrington, Matthew

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Cartwright, John

      George, Bruce

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gill, Christopher

      275

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Livsey, Richard

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Lord, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Gordon, Mildred

      McAllion, John

      Gould, Bryan

      McCartney, Ian

      Gow, Ian

      McCrindle, Robert

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Gregory, Conal

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      McKelvey, William

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Maclean, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McLeish, Henry

      Grist, Ian

      Maclennan, Robert

      Grocott, Bruce

      McWilliam, John

      Ground, Patrick

      Madden, Max

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Madel, David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hannam, John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Maples, John

      Harris, David

      Marek, Dr John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Marland, Paul

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Haynes, Frank

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Martlew, Eric

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Mates, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Maxton, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Meacher, Michael

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Meale, Alan

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mellor, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Michael, Alun

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Holt, Richard

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hood, Jimmy

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

      Mitchell, Austin (G'r Grimsby)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Howells, Geraint

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoyle, Doug

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Illsley, Eric

      Mullin, Chris

      Ingram, Adam

      Neale, Gerrard

      Jack, Michael

      Nellist, Dave

      Janner, Greville

      Nelson, Anthony

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Patchett, Terry

      Key, Robert

      Patnick, Irvine

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Pike, Peter L.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Knapman, Roger

      Prescott, John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Knox, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Radice, Giles

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Raffan, Keith

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Leighton, Ron

      Redmond, Martin

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lewis, Terry

      Richardson, Jo

      Litherland, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      276

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Robertson, George

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rogers, Allan

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Rooker, Jeff

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Ryder, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Trotter, Neville

      Salmond, Alex

      Turner, Dennis

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walden, George

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Walley, Joan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Ward, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Short, Clare

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sims, Roger

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

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

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Snape, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wilson, Brian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Winnick, David

      Squire, Robin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wood, Timothy

      Steen, Anthony

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Stern, Michael

      Wray, Jimmy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stott, Roger

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Strang, Gavin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Straw, Jack

      Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed to the new clause: (b), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-eighth'.—Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 141, Noes 382.

      Division No. 170]

      [11.31 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Keith

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Buchan, Norman

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Barron, Kevin

      Caborn, Richard

      Beckett, Margaret

      Callaghan, Jim

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cartwright, John

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

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Clay, Bob

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Boateng, Paul

      Cohen, Harry

      Boyes, Roland

      Coleman, Donald

      277

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Maxton, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Meacher, Michael

      Cox, Tom

      Meale, Alan

      Cryer, Bob

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Darling, Alistair

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Morgan, Rhodri

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

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Dobson, Frank

      Neale, Gerrard

      Doran, Frank

      Nellist, Dave

      Eadie, Alexander

      O'Neill, Martin

      Eastham, Ken

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Prescott, John

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

      Radice, Giles

      Flannery, Martin

      Redmond, Martin

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Richardson, Jo

      Foster, Derek

      Rogers, Allan

      Foulkes, George

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Fraser, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Fyfe, Maria

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      George, Bruce

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Short, Clare

      Gordon, Mildred

      Skinner, Dennis

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Gould, Bryan

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

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Snape, Peter

      Haynes, Frank

      Soley, Clive

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Spearing, Nigel

      Henderson, Doug

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Stott, Roger

      Howells, Geraint

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Strang, Gavin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Illsley, Eric

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Tredinnick, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Turner, Dennis

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Viggers, Peter

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Walley, Joan

      Leighton, Ron

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Lewis, Terry

      Wig Iey, Dafydd

      Litherland, Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Winnick, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McAllion, John

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      McCartney, Ian

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McKelvey, William

      McWilliam, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Madden, Max

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Ms. Dawn Primarolo.

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Battle, John

      Alexander, Richard

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Allason, Rupert

      Beith, A. J.

      Alton, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Amess, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Amos, Alan

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Benyon, W.

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Ashby, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Atkins, Robert

      Boswell, Tim

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Baldry, Tony

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Bowis, John

      278

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Galloway, George

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gardiner, George

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brazier, Julian

      Gill, Christopher

      Bright, Graham

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

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

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Gorst, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Gow, Ian

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Graham, Thomas

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butcher, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Butler, Chris

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Butterfill, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Grist, Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grocott, Bruce

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Ground, Patrick

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Grylls, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hague, William

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hanley, Jeremy

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

      Hardy, Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Harris, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Conway, Derek

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hayward, Robert

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Corbett, Robin

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Couchman, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Cran, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Crowther, Stan

      Hill, James

      Cummings, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hind, Kenneth

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Holt, Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Home Robertson, John

      Day, Stephen

      Hood, Jimmy

      Devlin, Tim

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Dewar, Donald

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Dicks, Terry

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Dixon, Don

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Douglas. Dick

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Dover, Den

      Hume, John

      Dunn, Bob

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Hunter, Andrew

      Durant, Tony

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Eggar, Tim

      Irvine, Michael

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Jack, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Janman, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Janner, Greville

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Favell, Tony

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Flynn, Paul

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Kennedy, Charles

      Forman, Nigel

      Key, Robert

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Kilfedder, James

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Freeman, Roger

      Knapman, Roger

      French, Douglas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Fry, Peter

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Gale, Roger

      Lambie, David

      279

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Parry, Robert

      Lang, Ian

      Patnick, Irvine

      Latham, Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pawsey, James

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Pike, Peter L.

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Lightbown, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Lilley, Peter

      Price, Sir David

      Livsey, Richard

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Redwood, John

      Lord, Michael

      Reid, Dr John

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Rhodes James, Robert

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      McCrea, Rev William

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Robertson, George

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      McFall, John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      McGrady, Eddie

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Salmond, Alex

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Madel, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Malins, Humfrey

      Shelton, Sir William

      Mallon, Seamus

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Mans, Keith

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Marek, Dr John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Marland, Paul

      Sillars, Jim

      Marlow, Tony

      Sims, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mates, Michael

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Speed, Keith

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Speller, Tony

      Mellor, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Michael, Alun

      Squire, Robin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mills, Iain

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Steen, Anthony

      Moate, Roger

      Stern, Michael

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Stevens, Lewis

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Straw, Jack

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Sumberg, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Summerson, Hugo

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

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

      Mudd, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Murphy, Paul

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Neubert, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thorne, Neil

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Norris, Steve

      Tracey, Richard

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Trippier, David

      O'Brien, William

      Trotter, Neville

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Page, Richard

      Vaz, Keith

      Paice, James

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      280

      Walden, George

      Wilshire, David

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Wallace, James

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waller, Gary

      Wood, Timothy

      Ward, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Warren, Kenneth

      Yeo, Tim

      Watts, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitney, Ray

      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy and Mr. Toby Jessel.

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Wilkinson, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      11.45 pm
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has a point of order.
      Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. My colleague the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) asked me to nod him through during the Division that has just taken place. I took the trouble of checking with the Clerk, and the Clerk who was marking off the names on the register took the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside, but there seemed to be some dispute with the Tellers as to whether my hon. Friend's vote had been recorded. I am hereby vouching for the fact that my hon. Friend, who suffered a car accident some time ago, is still suffering a disability and is incapable of continuously going through the Lobby tonight. I ask your guidance, Miss Boothroyd, on whether his vote was valid in the previous Division and whether it will be in subsequent Divisions.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Let me make the position clear to the House. Nodding through is not a rule of the House. It is usually done when an hon. Member has a medical problem, but it has nothing to do with the Chair. It is usually settled by the political parties concerned. In this case, it must be agreed by those who are organising the vote—that is, it has nothing whatever to do with the Clerks; it has to do with the Tellers. If they agree that an hon. Member can be nodded through, so be it. I hope that that makes the matter quite clear.
      Amendment proposed to the new clause: (c), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert 'twentieth'.—[Mr.Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Commitee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 358.

      Division No. 171]

      [11.48 pm

      AYES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Alton, David

      Benyon, W.

      Amess, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Amos, Alan

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Ashby, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bowis, John

      Atkins, Robert

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brazier, Julian

      Battle, John

      Bright, Graham

      Beggs, Roy

      Burns, Simon

      Beith, A. J.

      Burt, Alistair

      Bell, Stuart

      Butcher, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butler, Chris

      Bendall, Vivian

      Canavan, Dennis

      281

      Cash, William

      McNamara, Kevin

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Malins, Humfrey

      Chope, Christopher

      Mallon, Seamus

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

      Mans, Keith

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Marlow, Tony

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Conway, Derek

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Mills, Iain

      Cummings, John

      Moate, Roger

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Day, Stephen

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Devlin, Tim

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dicks, Terry

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Douglas, Dick

      Mudd, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Murphy, Paul

      Dover, Den

      Neubert, Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Evennett, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fallon, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Faulds, Andrew

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Favell, Tony

      O'Brien, William

      Fearn, Ronald

      Page, Richard

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Paice, James

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Parry, Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Freeman, Roger

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      French, Douglas

      Pawsey, James

      Fry, Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Gale, Roger

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Portillo, Michael

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Price, Sir David

      Gorst, John

      Redwood, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Reid, Dr John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Grylls, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hague, William

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hayes, Jerry

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Shelton, Sir William

      Hayward, Robert

      Sillars, Jim

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hill, James

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Home Robertson, John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Speed, Keith

      Hume, John

      Speller, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Irvine, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Jack, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Janman, Tim

      Sumberg, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Summerson, Hugo

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Kilfedder, James

      Thorne, Neil

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Knapman, Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Trippier, David

      Lambie, David

      Vaz, Keith

      Lang, Ian

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Latham, Michael

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Waller, Gary

      Lilley, Peter

      Watts, John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Whitney, Ray

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Widdecombe, Ann

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      McCrea, Rev William

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      McFall, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Mr. Edward Leigh and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.

      McGrady, Eddie

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      282

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Aitken, Jonathan

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

      Alexander, Richard

      Dewar, Donald

      Allason, Rupert

      Dixon, Don

      Allen, Graham

      Dobson, Frank

      Arbuthnot, James

      Doran, Frank

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Durant, Tony

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Eadie, Alexander

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Eastham, Ken

      Baldry, Tony

      Eggar, Tim

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fatchett, Derek

      Beckett, Margaret

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

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

      Flannery, Martin

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Flynn, Paul

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Blair, Tony

      Forman, Nigel

      Blunkett, David

      Foster, Derek

      Boateng, Paul

      Foulkes, George

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fraser, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Galloway, George

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gardiner, George

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Boyes, Roland

      George, Bruce

      Bradley, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

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

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Buchan, Norman

      Gould, Bryan

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Gow, Ian

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Buckley, George J.

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gregory, Conal

      Caborn, Richard

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Callaghan, Jim

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Grist, Ian

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Ground, Patrick

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Cartwright, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hannam, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Harris, David

      Clay, Bob

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clelland, David

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Haynes, Frank

      Cohen, Harry

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Coleman, Donald

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Colvin, Michael

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Henderson, Doug

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Corbett, Robin

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Couchman, James

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cox, Tom

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cran, James

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Critchley, Julian

      Holt, Richard

      Crowther, Stan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cryer, Bob

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cunningham, Dr John

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

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Darling, Alistair

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Howells, Geraint

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

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      283

      Hoyle, Doug

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Nellist, Dave

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Illsley, Eric

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Ingram, Adam

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jackson, Robert

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Janner, Greville

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Patchett, Terry

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Pike, Peter L.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Key, Robert

      Prescott, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Radice, Giles

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Raffan, Keith

      Knox, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rathbone, Tim

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Redmond, Martin

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Leighton, Ron

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Richardson, Jo

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Riddick, Graham

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lewis, Terry

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Litherland, Robert

      Robertson, George

      Livingstone, Ken

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Livsey, Richard

      Rogers, Allan

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lord, Michael

      Ruddock, Joan

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Ryder, Richard

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      McAllion, John

      Salmond, Alex

      McCartney, Ian

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKelvey, William

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maclean, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      McLeish, Henry

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      McWilliam, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Madden, Max

      Short, Clare

      Madel, David

      Sims, Roger

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Maples, John

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Marland, Paul

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Snape, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Mates, Michael

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maxton, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Meacher, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Meale, Alan

      Squire, Robin

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Michael, Alun

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Steen, Anthony

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Stern, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stott, Roger

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Strang, Gavin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Straw, Jack

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Morley, Elliot

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      284

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wilkinson, John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Tredinnick, David

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Trotter, Neville

      Wilshire, David

      Turner, Dennis

      Wilson, Brian

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Winnick, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walden, George

      Wood, Timothy

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Walley, Joan

      Worthington, Tony

      Ward, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Warren, Kenneth

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wells, Bowen

      Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed to the new clause: (d), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-sixth'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Commitee divided: Ayes 156, Noes 372.

      Division No. 172]

      [12.03 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Flannery, Martin

      Allen, Graham

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foster, Derek

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Foulkes, George

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fraser, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Barron, Kevin

      George, Bruce

      Beckett, Margaret

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gordon, Mildred

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

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gould, Bryan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Boateng, Paul

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Boyes, Roland

      Haynes, Frank

      Bradley, Keith

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Howells, Geraint

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hoyle, Doug

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Caborn, Richard

      Illsley, Eric

      Callaghan, Jim

      Ingram, Adam

      Cartwright, John

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clay, Bob

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cohen, Harry

      Leighton, Ron

      Coleman, Donald

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lewis, Terry

      Cousins, Jim

      Litherland, Robert

      Cox, Tom

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cran, James

      Livsey, Richard

      Cryer, Bob

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Darling, Alistair

      McAllion, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McCartney, Ian

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

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dobson, Frank

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Doran, Frank

      McKelvey, William

      Eadie, Alexander

      McWilliam, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Madden, Max

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Maples, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marland, Paul

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

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      285

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Snape, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Soley, Clive

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Strang, Gavin

      Neale, Gerrard

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Nellist, Dave

      Thurnham, Peter

      O'Neill, Martin

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Patchett, Terry

      Tredinnick, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Turner, Dennis

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Viggers, Peter

      Prescott, John

      Walley, Joan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Radice, Giles

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Redmond, Martin

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Richardson, Jo

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Rogers, Allan

      Winnick, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Ruddock, Joan

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wray, Jimmy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Short, Clare

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Ms. Dawn Primarolo.

      Skinner, Dennis

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Alexander, Richard

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Buckley, George J.

      Allason, Rupert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Alton, David

      Burns, Simon

      Amos, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Arbuthnot, James

      Butcher, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Butler, Chris

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Butterfill, John

      Ashby, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Canavan, Dennis

      Atkins, Robert

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baldry, Tony

      Cash, William

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Batiste, Spencer

      Chapman, Sydney

      Battle, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

      Beggs, Roy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Beith, A. J.

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bell, Stuart

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Colvin, Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Conway, Derek

      Benyon, W.

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Body, Sir Richard

      Corbett, Robin

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cormack, Patrick

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Couchman, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Crowther, Stan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cummings, John

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Bowis, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Devlin, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Dewar, Donald

      Bright, Graham

      Dickens, Geoffrey

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

      Dicks, Terry

      286

      Dixon, Don

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Douglas, Dick

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Dover, Den

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Dunn, Bob

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Hume, John

      Durant, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Dykes, Hugh

      Irvine, Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Janman, Tim

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Janner, Greville

      Evennett, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Fallon, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Favell, Tony

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Flynn, Paul

      Kennedy, Charles

      Forman, Nigel

      Key, Robert

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Kilfedder, James

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Freeman, Roger

      Knapman, Roger

      French, Douglas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Fry, Peter

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Gale, Roger

      Lambie, David

      Galloway, George

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Gardiner, George

      Latham, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Gill, Christopher

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Gorst, John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Gow, Ian

      Lightbown, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Lilley, Peter

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Gregory, Conal

      Lord, Michael

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Grist, Ian

      McCrea, Rev William

      Grocott, Bruce

      McCrindle, Robert

      Ground, Patrick

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      McFall, John

      Hague, William

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Maclennan, Robert

      Hannam, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hardy, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Madel, David

      Harris, David

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Mallon, Seamus

      Hayes, Jerry

      Mans, Keith

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Marek, Dr John

      Hayward, Robert

      Marlow, Tony

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Henderson, Doug

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Martlew, Eric

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mates, Michael

      Hill, James

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hind, Kenneth

      Mellor, David

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Michael, Alun

      Holt, Richard

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Home Robertson, John

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mills, Iain

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Moate, Roger

      287

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S,)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Speed, Keith

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Speller, Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Squire, Robin

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Murphy, Paul

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Steen, Anthony

      Neubert, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      O'Brien, William

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

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Page, Richard

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Paice, James

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Parry, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Thorne, Neil

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Pawsey, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Trippier, David

      Pike, Peter L.

      Trotter, Neville

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Portillo, Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Price, Sir David

      Vaz, Keith

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Redwood, John

      Walden, George

      Reid, Dr John

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wallace, James

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Waller, Gary

      Robertson, George

      Ward, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Watts, John

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wells, Bowen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Salmond, Alex

      Whitney, Ray

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shelton, Sir William

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Worthington, Tony

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Yeo, Tim

      Sillars, Jim

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sims, Roger

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. David Amess.

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

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed to the new clause: (e), in line 3, leave out 'twenty-fourth' and insert `twenty-second'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Commitee divided: Ayes 255, Noes 301.

      Division No.173]

      [12.17 am

      AYES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Alton, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Amos, Alan

      Atkins, Robert

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Baldry, Tony

      Ashby, David

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      288

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Battle, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hannam, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Hardy, Peter

      Beith, A. J.

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

      Bell, Stuart

      Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Harris, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Benyon, W.

      Hayward, Robert

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hill, James

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hind, Kenneth

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Holt, Richard

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Home Robertson, John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Bowis, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hume, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Bright, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Burns, Simon

      Irvine, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Jack, Michael

      Butcher, John

      Janman, Tim

      Butler, Chris

      Jessel, Toby

      Butterfill, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Cash, William

      Kennedy, Charles

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Chope, Christopher

      Knapman, Roger

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

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lambie, David

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Latham, Michael

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Conway, Derek

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Lightbown, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lilley, Peter

      Cummings, John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lord, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Day, Stephen

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Devlin, Tim

      McCrea, Rev William

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Dicks, Terry

      McFall, John

      Douglas, Dick

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      McGrady, Eddie

      Dover, Den

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Dunn, Bob

      Maclean, David

      Durant, Tony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Eggar, Tim

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Evennett, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fallon, Michael

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Faulds, Andrew

      Malins, Humfrey

      Favell, Tony

      Mallon, Seamus

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mans, Keith

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Marlow, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Freeman, Roger

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      French, Douglas

      Mates, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gale, Roger

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mellor, David

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Iain

      Gow, Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gregory, Conal

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hague, William

      Moss, Malcolm

      289

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Murphy, Paul

      Speed, Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Norris, Steve

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      O'Brien, William

      Sumberg, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Summerson, Hugo

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Paice, James

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Parry, Robert

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Thorne, Neil

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Pawsey, James

      Tracey, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Trippier, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Portillo, Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Price, Sir David

      Vaz, Keith

      Redwood, John

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Reid, Dr John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wallace, James

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Waller, Gary

      Rowlands, Ted

      Ward, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Watts, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Whitney, Ray

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shelton, Sir William

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Worthington, Tony

      Sillars, Jim

      Yeo, Tim

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Mr. A.E. P. Duffy and Mr. David Amess

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

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Buchan, Norman

      Alexander, Richard

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Allason, Rupert

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Allen, Graham

      Buckley, George J.

      Arbuthnot, James

      Caborn, Richard

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Callaghan, Jim

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Barron, Kevin

      Cartwright, John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

      Clay, Bob

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Clelland, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Blair, Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Blunkett, David

      Coleman, Donald

      Boateng, Paul

      Colvin, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Boswell, Tim

      Corbett, Robin

      Bottomley, Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Couchman, James

      Boyes, Roland

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradley, Keith

      Cox, Tom

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Cran, James

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

      Critchley, Julian

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Crowther, Stan

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Cryer, Bob

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Dalyell, Tam

      290

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

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

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dewar, Donald

      Key, Robert

      Dixon, Don

      Kilfedder, James

      Dobson, Frank

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Doran, Frank

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Eadie, Alexander

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Eastham, Ken

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Leighton, Ron

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Lewis, Terry

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Livingstone, Ken

      Flannery, Martin

      Livsey, Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Foster, Derek

      McAllion, John

      Foulkes, George

      McCartney, Ian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fraser, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Fyfe, Maria

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gardiner, George

      McKelvey, William

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      McLeish, Henry

      George, Bruce

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gill, Christopher

      McWilliam, John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Madden, Max

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Madel, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Maples, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marek, Dr John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marland, Paul

      Gordon, Mildred

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Gould, Bryan

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meacher, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Meale, Alan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ground, Patrick

      Michael, Alun

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Haynes, Frank

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Henderson, Doug

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nellist, Dave

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hood, Jimmy

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      O'Neill, Martin

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

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Patchett, Terry

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howells, Geraint

      Pike, Peter L.

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Radice, Giles

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Raffan, Keith

      Illsley, Eric

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Ingram, Adam

      Rathbone, Tim

      Janner, Greville

      Redmond, Martin

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      291

      Reid, Dr John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rhodes James, Robert

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

      Richardson, Jo

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Riddick, Graham

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Robertson, George

      Thurnham, Peter

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rogers, Allan

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Tredinnick, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Trotter, Neville

      Ruddock, Joan

      Turner, Dennis

      Ryder, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Walden, George

      Salmond, Alex

      Walley, Joan

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sheerman, Barry

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Short, Clare

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sims, Roger

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilkinson, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Wilshire, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wilson, Brian

      Snape, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Soley, Clive

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Squire, Robin

      Wray, Jimmy

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stern, Michael

      Stott, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Strang, Gavin

      Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Ms. Dawn Primarolo.

      Straw, Jack

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed to the new clause:(f), in line 6, at end insert—
      '(aa) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;or'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put,That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 337, Noes 146.

      Division No. 174]

      [12.30 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Alexander, Richard

      Boswell, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Allason, Rupert

      Boyes, Roland

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Keith

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Ashby, David

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Buchan, Norman

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Buckley, George J.

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Butler, Chris

      Barron, Kevin

      Caborn, Richard

      Battle, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Beckett, Margaret

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Beggs, Roy

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

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

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cartwright, John

      Blair, Tony

      Chapman, Sydney

      Blunkett, David

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Boateng, Paul

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      292

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clay, Bob

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Haynes, Frank

      Cohen, Harry

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Coleman, Donald

      Henderson, Doug

      Colvin, Michael

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Couchman, James

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

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Cox, Tom

      Howells, Geraint

      Cran, James

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Crowther, Stan

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Illsley, Eric

      Darling, Alistair

      Ingram, Adam

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Irvine, Michael

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

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Dewar, Donald

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Dixon, Don

      Key, Robert

      Dobson, Frank

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Doran, Frank

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Eadie, Alexander

      Lambie, David

      Eastham, Ken

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Leighton, Ron

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Lewis, Terry

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Litherland, Robert

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Livingstone, Ken

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

      Livsey, Richard

      Flannery, Martin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Flynn, Paul

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Foster, Derek

      McAllion, John

      Foulkes, George

      McCartney, Ian

      Fraser, John

      McCrindle, Robert

      French, Douglas

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Fry, Peter

      McFall, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Galloway, George

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gardiner, George

      McKelvey, William

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Maclean, David

      George, Bruce

      McLeish, Henry

      Gill, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McWilliam, John

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Madden, Max

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Madel, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maples, John

      Gordon, Mildred

      Marek, Dr John

      Gould, Bryan

      Marland, Paul

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Martlew, Eric

      Grist, Ian

      Maxton, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hague, William

      Meacher, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Meale, Alan

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Michael, Alun

      Hannam, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hardy, Peter

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Miscampbell, Norman

      293

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Snape, Peter

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Soley, Clive

      Morley, Elliot

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Squire, Robin

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Stern, Michael

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stott, Roger

      Nellist, Dave

      Strang, Gavin

      Nelson, Anthony

      Straw, Jack

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

      O'Brien, William

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Patchett, Terry

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tracey, Richard

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Tredinnick, David

      Prescott, John

      Turner, Dennis

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Radice, Giles

      Viggers, Peter

      Raffan, Keith

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Redmond, Martin

      Wallace, James

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Walley, Joan

      Reid, Dr John

      Ward, John

      Richardson, Jo

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Riddick, Graham

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Warren, Kenneth

      Robertson, George

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wells, Bowen

      Rogers, Allan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ryder, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Salmond, Alex

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wilson, Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wood, Timothy

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Worthington, Tony

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wray, Jimmy

      Short, Clare

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sims, Roger

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

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

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      NOES>

      Alton, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Amess, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Atkins, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Burt, Alistair

      Beith, A. J.

      Butcher, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Canavan, Dennis

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cash, William

      Bendall, Vivian

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Chope, Christopher

      Benyon, W.

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

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Conway, Derek

      294

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Cormack, Patrick

      Maclennan, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Day, Stephen

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dicks, Terry

      Mallon, Seamus

      Douglas, Dick

      Mans, Keith

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Dover, Den

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Dunn, Bob

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Evennett, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fallon, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Fearn, Ronald

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Murphy, Paul

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Neubert, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gale, Roger

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Paice, James

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gow, Ian

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Gregory, Conal

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Pawsey, James

      Ground, Patrick

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Redwood, John

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

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Harris, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hill, James

      Shelton, Sir William

      Home Robertson, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Speed, Keith

      Hume, John

      Speller, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Stevens, Lewis

      Jack, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Janman, Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jessel, Toby

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Thorne, Neil

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Trippier, David

      Kennedy, Charles

      Trotter, Neville

      Kilfedder, James

      Walden, George

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Watts, John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Knapman, Roger

      Whitney, Ray

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Latham, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McCrea, Rev William

      Mr. Julian Brazier and Mr. Alan Amos.

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Consequently amendment (g) falls.
      Amendment proposed to the new clause: (x), in line 8, leave out from 'woman,' to 'or'.—[ Ms. Richardson.]
      Question put and negatived.
      Amendment proposed to the new clause: (i), in line 9, leave out:—
      `that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-eighth week and'.—[ Ms. Richardson.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 201.

      Division No. 175]

      [12.48 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fatchett, Derek

      Alexander, Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Allason, Rupert

      Flannery, Martin

      Allen, Graham

      Flynn, Paul

      Arbuthnot, James

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Foster
      , Derek

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Foulkes, George

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fraser, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gardiner, George

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Beckett, Margaret

      George, Bruce

      Bell, Stuart

      Gill, Christopher

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

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

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Blair, Tony

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Boateng, Paul

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gould, Bryan

      Boyes, Roland

      Graham, Thomas

      Bradley, Keith

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Gregory, Conal

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Grist, Ian

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Buchan, Norman

      Hague, William

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Butler, Chris

      Hannam, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Hardy, Peter

      Callaghan, Jim

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

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Cartwright, John

      Haynes, Frank

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Clay, Bob

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Coleman, Donald

      Hood, Jimmy

      Colvin, Michael

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

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howells, Geraint

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Couchman, James

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cox, Tom

      Illsley, Eric

      Cran, James

      Ingram, Adam

      Cryer, Bob

      Irvine, Michael

      Cummings, John

      Jack, Michael

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Key, Robert

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

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Knox, David

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

      Lambie, David

      Dixon, Don

      Leighton, Ron

      Dobson, Frank

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Doran, Frank

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Durant, Tony

      Lewis, Terry

      Eadie, Alexander

      Lightbown, David

      Eastham, Ken

      Litherland, Robert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Livingstone, Ken

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      McAllion, John

      296

      McCartney, Ian

      Rogers, Allan

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rooker, Jeff

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Ryder, Richard

      McKelvey, William

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Maclean, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      McLeish, Henry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWilliam, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Madden, Max

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Madel, David

      Shelton, Sir William

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Maples, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marek, Dr John

      Short, Clare

      Marland, Paul

      Sims, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

      Maxton, John

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Meacher, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Meale, Alan

      Snape, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Soley, Clive

      Michael, Alun

      Squire, Robin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mills, Iain

      Steen, Anthony

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Stern, Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Stott, Roger

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Gavin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Straw, Jack

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Thurnham, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mullin, Chris

      Tredinnick, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Turner, Dennis

      Nellist, Dave

      Viggers, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walden, George

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Walley, Joan

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Ward, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Page, Richard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Patchett, Terry

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wells, Bowen

      Pike, Peter L.

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Prescott, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wilkinson, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Radice, Giles

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Raffan, Keith

      Winnick, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Redmond, Martin

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Worthington, Tony

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Richardson, Jo

      Riddick, Graham

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

      Robertson, George

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Beith, A. J.

      Amess, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amos, Alan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Benyon, W.

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashby, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Blunkett, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bottomley, Peter

      Atkins, Robert

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bowis, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Battle, John

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Beggs, Roy

      Brazier, Julian

      297

      Bright, Graham

      Knapman, Roger

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

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Buckley, George J.

      Latham, Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Burns, Simon

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Burt, Alistair

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Butcher, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Canavan, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Cash, William

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      McFall, John

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

      McGrady, Eddie

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Clelland, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Conway, Derek

      Malins, Humfrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Mans, Keith

      Cormack, Patrick

      Marlow, Tony

      Crowther, Stan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Day, Stephen

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Devlin, Tim

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Dicks, Terry

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Douglas, Dick

      Mellor, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Dover, Den

      Moate, Roger

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Dunn, Bob

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Evennett, David

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fallon, Michael

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Favell, Tony

      Murphy, Paul

      Fearn, Ronald

      Neubert, Michael

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      O'Brien, William

      Freeman, Roger

      Paice, James

      French, Douglas

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Fry, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Gale, Roger

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Pawsey, James

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Ground, Patrick

      Redwood, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Reid, Dr John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Harris, David

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hayward, Robert

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Salmond, Alex

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hill, James

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Holt, Richard

      Sillars, Jim

      Home Robertson, John

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Speed, Keith

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Speller, Tony

      Hume, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Janman, Tim

      Stevens, Lewis

      Jessel, Toby

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Thorne, Neil

      Kennedy, Charles

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Kilfedder, James

      Tracey, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Trippier, David

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Trotter, Neville

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      298

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Wallace, James

      Wood, Timothy

      Waller, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Watts, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Whitney, Ray

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Edward Leigh.

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      1 am
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: Amendment (j) therefore falls. We now come to amendment (s). Not moved.
      We therefore turn to amendment (h), which I must tell the House is a minor consequential amendment to an earlier amendment.
      Amendments made to the proposed new clause: (h), in line 11, at end insert—
      `( ) In section 1(2) of that Act, after "(a)" there is inserted "or (aa)"'.
      (k), in line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.—[ Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: The next amendments consequently fall, up to amendment (q).
      Amendment proposed to the new clause: (q), in line 16, at end insert—
      `(3) For section 5(1) of that Act (effect on Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929) there is substituted—
      "(1) No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 308, Noes 149.

      Division No. 176]

      [1.02 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Alexander, Richard

      Buchan, Norman

      Allason, Rupert

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Allen, Graham

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Butler, Chris

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Caborn, Richard

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Callaghan, Jim

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley}

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Barron, Kevin

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Carrington, Matthew

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cartwright, John

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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Blair, Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Blunkett, David

      Clay, Bob

      Boateng, Paul

      Clelland, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cohen, Harry

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Coleman, Donald

      Boswell, Tim

      Colvin, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Boyes, Roland

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradley, Keith

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Couchman, James

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Cox, Tom

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Cran, James

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Crowther, Stan

      299

      Cryer, Bob

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Davies, Q. (Stamfd & Spald'g)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Key, Robert

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

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Dewar, Donald

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dixon, Don

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dobson, Frank

      Knox, David

      Doran, Frank

      Lambie, David

      Durant, Tony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Eadie, Alexander

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Eastham, Ken

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Leighton, Ron

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Lewis, Terry

      Fatchett, Derek

      Lightbown, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Livingstone, Ken

      Flannery, Martin

      Livsey, Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Foster, Derek

      McAllion, John

      Foulkes, George

      McCartney, Ian

      Fraser, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Gale, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gardiner, George

      McKelvey, William

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Maclean, David

      George, Bruce

      McLeish, Henry

      Gill, Christopher

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      McWilliam, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Madden, Max

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Madel, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maples, John

      Gordon, Mildred

      Marek, Dr John

      Gould, Bryan

      Marland, Paul

      Graham, Thomas

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Grist, Ian

      Meacher, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      Meale, Alan

      Ground, Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Michael, Alun

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hannam, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Hardy, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

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

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Haynes, Frank

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Morley, Elliot

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Henderson, Doug

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Nellist, Dave

      Hood, Jimmy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howells, Geraint

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Page, Richard

      Hoyle, Doug

      Paice, James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Illsley, Eric

      Pike, Peter L.

      Ingram, Adam

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jack, Michael

      Prescott, John

      300

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Stern, Michael

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Stott, Roger

      Radice, Giles

      Strang, Gavin

      Rattan, Keith

      Straw, Jack

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Sumberg, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Redmond, Martin

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Richardson, Jo

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Riddick, Graham

      Thurnham, Peter

      Robertson, George

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Rogers, Allan

      Tredinnick, David

      Rooker, Jeff

      Trotter, Neville

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dennis

      Ruddock, Joan

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ryder, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Walley, Joan

      Salmond, Alex

      Ward, John

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wells, Bowen

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Short, Clare

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sims, Roger

      Wilkinson, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

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

      Winnick, David

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Snape, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Soley, Clive

      Worthington, Tony

      Spearing, Nigel

      Yeo, Tim

      Squire, Robin

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steen, Anthony

      Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Alton, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Amos, Alan

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Day, Stephen

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Devlin, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dover, Den

      Atkins, Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dunn, Bob

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evennett, David

      Battle, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Favell, Tony

      Beith, A. J.

      Fearn, Ronald

      Bell, Stuart

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Benyon, W.

      Freeman, Roger

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Fry, Peter

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brazier, Julian

      Gow, Ian

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

      Gregory, Conal

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Burns, Simon

      Hague, William

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butcher, John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Harris, David

      Cash, William

      Hayes, Jerry

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

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

      Hill, James

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Holt, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Home Robertson, John

      301

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hume, John

      Pawsey, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Irvine, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Janman, Tim

      Reid, Dr John

      Jessel, Toby

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Kennedy, Charles

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Kilfedder, James

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Latham, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Speed, Keith

      McFall, John

      Speller, Tony

      McGrady, Eddie

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stevens, Lewis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Summerson, Hugo

      Malins, Humfrey

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

      Mallon, Seamus

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mans, Keith

      Thorne, Neil

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Trippier, David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wallace, James

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Watts, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Whitney, Ray

      Murphy, Paul

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Neubert, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Norris, Steve

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Edward Leigh.

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: Amendment (r)? Not moved.
      Question put, That the clause, as amended, be added to the Bill—:
      The Committee divided: Ayes 335, Noes 129.

      Division No. 177]

      [1.17 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bottomley, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Allason, Rupert

      Boyes, Roland

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Keith

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bright, Graham

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

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

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Buchan, Norman

      Barron, Kevin

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Batiste, Spencer

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Beckett, Margaret

      Buckley, George J.

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butler, Chris

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Caborn, Richard

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

      Callaghan, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Blair, Tony

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Blunkett, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Boateng, Paul

      Carrington, Matthew

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cartwright, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Boswell, Tim

      Clark. Dr David (S Shields)

      302

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Harris, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clay, Bob

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clelland, David

      Haynes, Frank

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hayward, Robert

      Cohen, Harry

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Coleman, Donald

      Henderson, Doug

      Colvin, Michael

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th m)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Couchman, James

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

      Cox, Tom

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Cran, James

      Howells, Geraint

      Crowther, Stan

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Darling, Alistair

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Illsley, Eric

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

      Ingram, Adam

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Irvine, Michael

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

      Jack, Michael

      Dewar, Donald

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dixon, Don

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dobson, Frank

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Eadie, Alexander

      Key, Robert

      Eastham, Ken

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Knox, David

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Lambie, David

      Fatchett, Derek

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

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

      Leighton, Ron

      Flannery, Martin

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Flynn, Paul

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lewis, Terry

      Forman, Nigel

      Lilley, Peter

      Foster, Derek

      Litherland, Robert

      Foulkes, George

      Livingstone, Ken

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Livsey, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lord, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Gardiner, George

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      McAllion, John

      George, Bruce

      McCartney, Ian

      Gill, Christopher

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      McKelvey, William

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Maclean, David

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McLeish, Henry

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maclennan, Robert

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      McWilliam, John

      Gordon, Mildred

      Madden, Max

      Gould, Bryan

      Madel, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Marek, Dr John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marland, Paul

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Grist, Ian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Martlew, Eric

      Ground, Patrick

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Maxton, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Meacher, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Meale, Alan

      Hardy, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Michael, Alun

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      303

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

      Mills, Iain

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

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Snape, Peter

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Squire, Robin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Steen, Anthony

      Moss, Malcolm

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Stern, Michael

      Mullin, Chris

      Stott, Roger

      Neale, Gerrard

      Strang, Gavin

      Nellist, Dave

      Straw, Jack

      Nelson, Anthony

      Summerson, Hugo

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      O'Neill, Martin

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

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Paice, James

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Patchett, Terry

      Thurnham, Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Tracey, Richard

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Tredinnick, David

      Prescott, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dennis

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Radice, Giles

      Viggers, Peter

      Raffan, Keith

      Walden, George

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Walley, Joan

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Ward, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Richardson, Jo

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Riddick, Graham

      Warren, Kenneth

      Robertson, George

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wells, Bowen

      Rogers, Allan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ryder, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Salmond, Alex

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wilshire, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wilson, Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wood, Timothy

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Worthington, Tony

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Short, Clare

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sims, Roger

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Amess, David

      Burns, Simon

      Amos, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravosham)

      Butterfill, John

      Ashby, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cash, William

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Atkins, Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Beith, A. J.

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

      Bell, Stuart

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Benyon, W.

      Conway, Derek

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Cummings, John

      Bowis, John

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Devlin, Tim

      304

      Dicks, Terry

      Mallon, Seamus

      Dover, Den

      Mans, Keith

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Dunn, Bob

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Evennett, David

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Fallon, Michael

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Fearn, Ronald

      Moate, Roger

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      French, Douglas

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Fry, Peter

      Murphy, Paul

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Neubert, Michael

      Gow, Ian

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Gregory, Conal

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hague, William

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Pawsey, James

      Hargreaves. Ken (Hyndburn)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hill, James

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rowlands, Ted

      Holt, Richard

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Home Robertson, John

      Shelton, Sir William

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Hume, John

      Speed, Keith

      Hunter, Andrew

      Speller, Tony

      Janman, Tim

      Stevens, Lewis

      Jessel, Toby

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Kennedy, Charles

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Kilfedder, James

      Thorne, Neil

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Trippier, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Wallace, James

      Latham, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Watts, John

      Lightbown, David

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Whitney, Ray

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      McFall, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      McGrady, Eddie

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McNamara, Kevin

      Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Edward Leigh.

      Malins, Humfrey

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
      Clause 11, schedule 2 and new clause 4, as amended, reported.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker]
      To lie upon the Table.

  PETITIONS

    Human Embryo
    1.30 am
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the staff, pupils and friends of St. Patrick's high school, Ballymena. It contains 511 signatures. The prayer is as follows:
    The humble petition of the staff, pupils and friends of St. Patrick's school, Ballymena showeth that we affirm that the newly-fertilised human embryo is a real living human being.
    Therefore, we welcome the statement in 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 by law.
    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

    305
    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 solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned; and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
    Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.
    1.32 am
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is a petition in similar terms to that presented by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). It is from the members and friends of the Grimsby and Cleethorpes Life Group. It reads:
    The humble petition of the members and friends of the Grimsby and Cleethorpes Life Group affirm that the newly-fertilised human embryo is a real, living human being. Therefore, we welcome 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.
    Therefore, we oppose all such practices as are recommended in the report which discriminate against the embryo or violate his or her 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 solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned; and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
    That is signed by Michael R. D. Reeves of 6 Lyndhurst avenue, Grimsby, and by 493 other signatories from Grimsby.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Fire Service (Gosport)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Nicholas Baker.)
  1.34 am
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Earlier this evening I think that we all felt that it might be 4 am before I started this brief Adjournment debate, which I am delighted to have been allocated, so we are all pleased that it is only 1.34 am, which is comparatively early.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Viggers: I note that this early start is appreciated by my right hon. Friend.
  It is an entirely appropriate time because the main thrust of my speech concerns the manning of Gosport fire station on a 24-hour basis. Most of the good citizens of Gosport are safely asleep, knowing that the fire station has staff on 24-hour duty who will turn out to protect them from fire in the town.
  My debate is about the guidelines for fire service cover. I am especially concerned about Gosport fire station, where 24-hour cover is under threat. The background is that local authorities—the fire authorities—have to provide cover under Home Office guidelines, and it is on that basis that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is good enough to reply to the debate. The guidelines are revised from time to time, and in 1981 the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales set up a joint committee on standards of fire cover, which reported in May 1986.
  Under those principles there are rules on standards of training and there are grading definitions of fire risk with time limits applicable in each case related to each type of fire risk. It may be helpful if I refer briefly to them. The categories are A, B, C and D. Category A, the highest risk, covers
  "the largest cities and towns and include main shopping and business centres and concentrated areas of theatres, cinemas, clubs or high-risk industrial and commercial property."
  For areas in that category, the Home Office expects three pumps to attend a fire. The first pump must attend in five minutes, the second in a further five and the third in eight.
  Category B, which is slightly lower, comprises
  "built-up areas of large cities and towns not deemed to be in Category A … Other areas likely to be classified at Category B are large holiday resorts, industrial or training estates and concentrations of older multi-storey property."
  The Home Office guideline is that two pumps should attend in five and eight minutes respectively.
  Category C applies
  "to the suburbs of larger towns and built-up areas of smaller towns. The types of property usually included are residential areas and industrial or commercial areas where there are few higher-risk properties."
  The Home Office specifies one pump in 10 minutes.
  Category D is principally rural, and the Home Office specifies one pump in 20 minutes. Those are the general gradings of fire risk categories.
  Applying those definitions, Hampshire fire brigade carried out a manning review, which was published in 1988. The review recommended that Gosport fire station, currently manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week on a shift basis, could safely be downgraded to a day-manned station. That means that it would be manned from 9 am to 6 pm five days a week and on Saturday morning. Outside

  307
  those hours, fire cover would be provided by fire fighters on call from their homes, adding four or five minutes to every call out of the fire brigade.
  The proposal was controversial and strongly opposed. In 1989 the matter went for adjudication before Sir Kenneth Holland, who agreed to the changes subject to certain conditions that have not yet been met. The county fire officer has always made it clear that he would require the upgrading of Fareham fire station before downgrading Gosport, so that the status quo with 24-hour cover at Gosport would continue for the time being.
  My purpose this evening is to express my constituents' continuing concern because there are some features special to Gosport. Like many other parts of the country Gosport has its share of high-rise buildings. It has seven high-rise buildings, 24 nursing homes and 24 warden-assisted accommodation units. That is not especially unusual. I have already referred to the risk categories A, B. C and D, but there are some establishments within the constituency of Gosport which do not easily fit into those categories.
  We have industrial premises, an airfield at HMS Daedalus, a submarine base at HMS Dolphin, a Royal Naval aircraft yard at Fleetlands, an oil fuel depot at Mumby road in Gosport with a substantial reservoir of oil for the Navy and an oil fuel jetty and Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers at the Royal Clarence yard in Weevil lane, Gosport. Most significant of all, we have the Royal Naval armaments depots at Bedenham, Frater and Elson with substantial armaments of all kinds used by the Royal Navy.
  The Home Office takes account of such special risks and provides a special category entitled "Special risks". According to the guidelines,
  "There are certain small areas, whether comprising single buildings or complexes, which need a first attendance over and above that appropriate to the risk which predominates in the surrounding area."
  But can one really refer to RNAD Bedenham as being a small area? It is some 555 acres, with a perimeter fence some nine miles long. Its safety record is outstandingly good, but the fire cover must be of the best.
  What are the problems with which I am concerned? At present, the fire service can reach every part of Gosport in six minutes. The proposals of the county fire officer, however, add four to five minutes to every call out of duty hours. Those comprise some 66 per cent. or two thirds of all calls, making the maximum not six minutes but something like 10 minutes. I am taking here the figures from the fire cover review, section 3.9.3, which gives average speeds for fire appliances. It seems that a fire appliance would not be able to reach more than some two miles from the fire station in the limit of 10 or so minutes, so we should be very close to the limit in Gosport.
  The roads in Gosport do not allow rapid movement. We have a highly congested area with some 30,000-plus domestic establishments and more than 5,000 business establishments, all in a small area. In many cases the roads in the area are so narrow that fire engines find it difficult to manoeuvre when cars are heavily parked. If appliances are coming from Fareham, as they would have to if the proposals were carried through and extra appliances were needed from Fareham, they would need to come down the
  308
  heavily congested and seriously undergraded A32 main road, which is a cause of a great deal of local controversy and discontent.
  During a recent eight-pump fire in Gosport, it took Fareham appliances 15 and 18 minutes respectively to reach the fire in Gosport from Fareham. Fortunately, on that occasion the men were on duty. If the call to take them out had come some 10 minutes later they would have been off duty, and the time taken to reach the fire would have been 20 and 23 minutes respectively.
  There has been considerable concern in Gosport and there have been petitions. Gosport borough council has considered the situation and, on 19 October 1988, it resolved:
  "That the Borough Council advises the Home Secretary that it is strenuously opposed to the current proposals by Hampshire County Council"
  for the change in fire service cover in the Gosport constituency. That concern is shared by the firefighters themselves.
  I wish to emphasise—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister agrees that I should—that I am not uttering one word in criticism of Hampshire county council, the chief fire officer or any of his officers. It is the level of cover and the standard that they provide which gives rise to the concern that that cover might be reduced. On the fire service and fire cover generally, the Audit Commission's occasional paper No. 1 of September 1986, dealing particularly with the financial implications and the financial considerations affecting the fire service rather than its efficiency, reported:
  "One reason for the relatively modest value improvement potential identified by auditors is straightforward. In many respects, the fire service appears to be notably well managed.
  For example:
  Auditors and the Commission's senior officers have repeatedly been impressed at senior fire officers' combination of technical qualifications, leadership skills and general management ability. None of these are unusual in themselves, but the rather consistent combination of the three is perhaps not so common.
  Another unusual feature is the generally high level of morale and self-confidence that appears to pervade many of the brigades examined. Firemen seem proud of their work and confident that they do it well; and opinion research suggests that the public generally shares this opinion."
  Judging from all the conversations on the subject that I have had in my constituency, that is certainly Gosport's opinion. It is my constituents' high regard for those fire services that causes them to worry that they will be downgraded.
  The county fire officer began his review not in Gosport but in Fareham. He was anxious to improve the service in Fareham and to provide new services there which he thought could also cover Gosport. In providing new services in Fareham, he thought that it would be safe to downgrade Gosport. Whereas from Hampshire's point of view the proposals are an adjustment, from Gosport's point of view they undoubtedly represent a downgrading, and would create many problems. There would be delays in reaching the location of a fire. I note, for instance, that the home for the blind in Lee-on-Solent is at the extremity of Gosport fire station cover. I note, too, that the main multi-storey blocks of flats in Gosport are at the extreme end of the Gosport peninsula—as far away as they could be from Fareham—as is Haslar hospital.
  The preferred proposal to locate a new fire station in Fareham would involve a site at Oldbury way in Peak lane, Fareham, on a complex of four schools. They would all be

  309
  affected—especially St. Francis special school for the mentally and physically disabled. The proposal would create major inconvenience and would certainly cause distress to those pupils. The community association would lose its football pitch, and the proposal to take over part of the land for the new fire station would lower the quality of life for those using the schools' campus.
  If Gosport fire station is to be downgraded to daytime cover only, night cover will need to be provided by firemen resident in the fire station's immediate locality. That would mean the fire service having to acquire houses for those firemen. The county fire officer's proposal is that five houses should be acquired at a cost of £50,000 each, but I believe that that is pitching the need rather low. There would be a need for more than five houses, and they would certainly cost more than £50,000 each.
  I refer finally to what is the weakest argument in my case in firefighting terms but a powerful argument in Gosport. We take great pride in local services of all kinds—the ambulance service, the fire service, the magistrates court, the police, and so on. Gosport has a strong sense of community and we resent anything which downgrades Gosport and has the town served from outside. I submit that that is not necessary and I ask all concerned to recognise the value of Gosport's fire station and of continuing its 24-hour operation.
  1.48 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): We recognise that Gosport has a strong sense of community, place and identity—and the whole House acknowledges the lucid way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has made the case for Gosport's special needs for fire cover. I shall lay before my noble Friend Lord Ferrers, who has ministerial responsibility in another place for Home Office issues, a copy of the report of this Adjournment debate, and I am sure that he will study it carefully. I am merely his representative on earth tonight in dealing with the important issue in question.
  I know a little about Gosport, but a great deal about my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and his vigorous proselytising on behalf of his constituency. In trying to respond to my hon. Friend's points, it might be helpful if I review the statutory responsibilities in the matter. Indeed, I am sure that the comments made by my hon. Friend and the comments that I am about to make will provide a good description of the statutory responsibilities of the fire service.
  Under the relevant legislation, the Fire Services Acts 1947 and 1959, it is the duty of the fire authority in an area and in this case Hampshire county council—my hon. Friend was generous in his even-handed treatment of that council—to secure the services of such a fire brigade and such equipment as may be necessary efficiently to meet all normal requirements. The fire authority determines the appropriate number of fire stations, fire appliances and fire fighters in the area. As my hon. Friend said, that is known as fire cover and he referred to the four categories of fire cover—A, B, C and D. It would be otiose to repeat that accurate description.
  In determining the fire cover for the area, the county council will always have to have regard to the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover that have existed since 1936. They contain recommendations about
  310
  the number of fire appliances that should be sent to fires in particular areas and how quickly those appliances should arrive. Hence the quadripartite categorisation A to D to which my hon. Friend referred. Those are the four main categories of risk.
  Those four categories were reviewed quite recently by a joint committee on standards of fire cover established under the auspices of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales and the council for Scotland. That committee included representatives from the Home Office, the local authority associations, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, the National Association of Fire Officers and the Fire Brigades Union as well as other interested parties.
  The committee recommended that fire authorities should review the fire risk categorisation in their areas, having regard to nationally recommended standards of fire cover. The general drift was that fire risk categorisation should not be regarded as set in stone for all time. As my hon. Friend said in the description of his area, an urban area changes and sometimes greater risks occur because of a concentration of new buildings, including high-rise buildings, or more homes for the elderly appearing in areas which did not have such homes 20 years ago. All those points must be considered by the thoroughly modern fire service to ensure that the categorisation is right.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary accepted the committee's recommendations and its proposals on appropriate standards of fire cover. In a circular to fire authorities issued in May 1985, the Home Office asked fire authorities to put in hand reviews of fire risk categorisations in their areas.
  The chief fire officer of Hampshire subsequently carried out a comprehensive review in his area and in July 1988 the fire authority sought the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 for certain reductions in the brigade's establishment. Among those was the proposal to which my hon. Friend, on behalf of his constituents, has taken considerable exception.
  That proposal was that the fire station at Gosport should reduce its establishment of fire fighters and move from a shift-manning system to what is known in the trade as a day-manning system. Under the former system, fire fighters operate from a station on a 24-hour basis. Under the latter, they operate from the station during the daytime and respond to calls from their homes nearby in the evenings and at night in the way in which my hon. Friend described accurately to the House.
  In giving his approval to the application in July 1989, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had regard to the considerable local consultation to which the fire authority's proposals had been subject. He also had particular regard to the professional advice that he had received, especially the professional advice from Her Majesty's inspector of fire services, which confirmed that, if the changes were to be put into effect, the fire authority would continue to meet the appropriate national standards.
  In approving the change, it was made clear that it was subject to the uprating of cover from day-manning to shift-manning at Fareham fire station in exactly the same way that my hon. Friend has described. The fire authority has proposed the construction of a new fire station there. The proposed changes to fire cover in Hampshire are interrelated in the way that my hon. Friend has described.

  311
  Although I can readily understand my hon. Friend's concern about proposals to change fire cover in Gosport in his constituency, I must reassure him—and through him, his constituents—that the proposals were subject to a rigourous examination before approval. Indeed, they underwent an additional examination by an outside adjudicator appointed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades, which is responsible for conditions of service in our fire brigades. That adjudicator, who was able to second-guess what had gone on before in deciding the right form of fire cover, found that it would be appropriate to introduce the day-manning system at Gosport.
  312
  I want to assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to maintaining the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover in Gosport, as elsewhere in the country, and to the maintenance of an effective fire service in Gosport, as elsewhere in the country. I will draw my hon. Friend's strongly and clearly expressed views to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl Ferrers, who has ministerial responsibility in this respect, so that he can take into account what my hon. Friend had said in this Adjournment debate, on which I congratulate him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set out the arrangements governing repayment schemes relating to prescription charge repayments for policemen, firemen and their families.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Police regulations and the National Joint Council for Local Authorities Fire Brigades (NJC) scheme of conditions of service provide for the reimbursement of certain National Health Service charges incurred by police officers and local authority fire fighters. These are charges for drugs, medicines and appliances or for dental treatment incurred under sections 77 to 79 of the National Health Service Act 1977 as amended.

  The NJC scheme, but not police regulations, also provides discretion for fire authorities to reimburse certain other medical costs in the interests of efficiency. Arrangements for reimbursing charges do not extend to the families of police officers unless they are also members of the service or to the families of firefighters.

  Prisoners' Earnings
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the range of weekly earnings for prisoners on standard piece rate.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the standard piece rate scheme, individual inmates are paid according to their own output or that of a group and may earn up to a maximum of £3·95 per week.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the maximum earnings of a remand prisoner.

  Mr. Mellor
  In certain very limited circumstances a remand prisoner may earn up to £5·87 per week (the maximum for a sentenced prisoner), but generally the maximum weekly pay is £2·25.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the range of weekly earnings for prisoners on the modified piece scheme.

  Mr. Mellor
  The modified piece work scheme is an incentive earnings scheme applied to certain workshops and parties with a designated working week of 23 hours or more. The pay range for production workers is from £3·18 to £5·87 per week and for support workers from £2·23 to £5·27 per week.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for each of the last five years the number of successful prosecutions for not possessing a valid television receiver licence, separately distinguishing Wales and England.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information supplied by the national television licence records office is given in the table. The data are based on the areas covered by each television licence inquiry office. The Llandudno office covers part of England and the Shrewsbury office covers part of Wales.

  Offenders found guilty of television licence fee evasion

  Financial year

  England

  Wales

  1984–85

  95,335

  6,521

  1985–86

  106,482

  8,737

  1986–87

  153,593

  11,115

  1987–88

  140,536

  9,845

  1988–89

  152,194

  10,516

  1989–901

  149,008

  11,047

  1 Provisional.

  Penal Establishments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles are currently being held in prison department establishments; in which establishments and in which wings of those establishments they are situated; whether juveniles are at all times separated from young adult or adult offenders; and whether unconvicted juveniles are separated from convicted prisoners.

  Mr. Mellor
  For the number of juveniles and the establishments in which they were held I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 23 April at column 24. Details of the location of each juvenile within the establishment are not recorded centrally. The table, however, gives the readily available information about accommodation for juveniles in the establishments concerned.

  In local prisons and remand centres male juveniles are at all times separated from adult prisoners and, so far as is practicable, are accommodated separately from young adults. Unconvicted prisoners are separated from convicted prisoners so far as this can reasonably be done, but mixing under close supervision may occur for certain regime activities such as education. Wherever possible, convicted juveniles are accommodated in separate wings or discrete units.

  In the female prison system sentenced female juveniles are held in establishments which also house young adult and adult female offenders, but their sleeping accommodation is in areas specifically designated for young offenders. Unconvicted female juveniles are not held in prison custody.

  Prison service establishments in England and Wales which held juveniles on 31 December 1989; by establishment and locations in which juveniles are held.

  Establishment and type

  Location

  Remand centres:

  Brockhill

  A, B, C or D wing

  Cardiff

  3 or 4 landing

  Dorchester

  D wing

  107

  Establishment and type

  Location

  Feltham

  Nightingale, Heron or Jay

  Glen Parva

  Unit 8, 9 or 12

  Hindley

  A, B or C wing

  Hull

  B wing

  Latchmere House

  A wing

  Low Newton

  A, B, C or D wing

  Manchester

  Remand centre

  Norwich

  Remand centre

  Pucklechurch

  A, B or C wing

  Risley

  Remand centre

  Swansea

  Young Offender Unit

  LOCAL PRISONS:

  Bristol

  No specific information

  Brixton

  B or C wing

  Holloway

  Level 4 or 5

  Manchester

  E or G wing

  Oxford

  Hospital

  YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTIONS:

  Aylesbury

  B or G wing

  Bullwood Hall

  No specific information

  Campsfield House

  Juveniles only

  Deerbolt

  On units 1–7

  East Sutton Park

  No specific information

  Everthorpe

  Ss. Andrew, Patrick, David and George wing/unit

  Feltham

  Nightingale, H or J unit

  Finnamore Wood

  (1 wing)

  Glen Parva

  No specific information

  Hollesley Bay

  Deben unit

  Kirklevington

  Juveniles only

  The Mount

  Ellis or Brister House

  New Hall

  No specific information

  Northallerton

  B wing

  Portland

  Hardy or Nelson House

  Stoke Heath

  No specific information

  Styal

  No specific information

  Swinfen Hall

  No specific information

  Wellingborough

  No specific information

  Werrington

  North, North West, West or South West dormitory

  Whatton

  The junior wing

  Welsh Courts
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of males under the age of 17 years remanded in custody in remand centres from Welsh courts during 1988;

  (2) what was the total number of males under the age of 17 years who were made subject to unruly certificates from Welsh courts during 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on 8 March 1990 at column 821.

  1 February 1990

  1 March 1990

  1 April 1990

  15 April 1990

  Total population

  441

  451

  433

  347

  (a) awaiting a court hearing1

  192

  206

  187

  111

  (b) awaiting sentence2

  55

  60

  56

  21

  (c) young offenders3

  80

  92

  88

  0

  1 Includes adult and young offenders, convicted unsentenced and inmates on remand. The number of sentenced inmates subject to a further court appearance is not recorded centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  2 Includes young and adult convicted unsentenced.

  3 Includes remand, convicted unsentenced and sentenced.

  Puppy Farms
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning puppy farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following the Adjournment debate on 21 December initiated by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I have received a number of representations on this subject from a variety of sources, including hon. Members, local authorities and members of the public. I am conscious of the need to ensure that all dog breeding establishments comply with the requirements of the law.

  Katyn
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the light of the events of Friday 12 April, whether the circumstances surrounding the massacre of Katyn are no longer within the ambit of the War Crimes Bill provisions.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government welcome the recent acknowledgement by the Soviet authorities concerning responsibility for the Katyn massacre. We are unaware of any allegations that any of the perpetrators of the massacre may now be living in the United Kingdom, and there is therefore no reason to broaden the terms of the Bill.

  Cardiff Prison
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners Cardiff prison is designed to accommodate.

  Mr. Mellor
  Prior to the recent disturbances at Cardiff, the certified normal accommodation was 252 in the local prison and 85 in the remand centre. Some 95 places have since been lost in the local prison, but should be repaired and available for use within the next four weeks.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many prisoners were accommodated at Cardiff prison on 1 February, 1 March, 1 April and 15 April, respectively, and how many on each occasion were(a) awaiting a court hearing, (b) awaiting sentence and (c) young prisoners.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is set out in the table below:

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Home Improvements
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what steps his Department and/or the Northern Ireland Executive have taken to encourage and assist elderly home owners to take up repair/improvement grants to bring their homes up to acceptable standards;

  (2) which voluntary organisations have been providing services on an agency basis to the Housing Executive, in encouraging and assisting elderly home owners to take up repair/improvement grants to bring their homes up to acceptable standards; how long such arrangements have been in operation; and in which areas of Northern Ireland they have operated.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These matters fall within the day-to-day administration of the renovation grants scheme by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I understand that it is estimated that 40 per cent. of applicants for repair grants are elderly and in 1989 the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's priority groups for receipt of such grants was extended to include the elderly. There is a disproportionately lower number of improvement grant applications from the elderly and this reflects not only the financial difficulties facing them but the disruption caused by improvement work.

  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive provides advice and guidance via its network of local grants offices throughout the Province to elderly home-owners wishing to take up repair and improvement grants to bring their homes up to acceptable standards. In response to the level of demand the executive also provides a dedicated home improvements for the elderly service in three of its six regions (Belfast, south-east and north-east) through which assistance is provided at each stage in the grants process from preliminary inspection through to completion. A similar type of service is also available to rural dwellers in the executive's west region.

  Voluntary organisations continue to play a vital role in providing assistance to elderly and disabled home owners. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is currently finalising an agreement with Fold Housing Trust for a "Care and Repair" agency service which is intended to provide a comprehensive service of advice and assistance to the elderly, disabled and those in financial hardship. Within the next 18 months this service is expected to be made available throughout the Province and initial estimates are for an annual turnover of around 400 cases of which approximately 200 would be grant-aided.

  Until now voluntary organisations have provided a home improvements for the elderly service on an agency basis in various parts of the Province as follows:

  (i) from 1982 Fold Housing Trust has provided a service in the south-east and north-east regions;

  (ii) from 1982 to 1987 the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations provided a service in the Belfast area; and

  (iii) from January 1988 Shelter (NI) has provided a service in the Strabane and Londonderry areas.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many miles of hedgerows have been removed, and how many miles planted(a) since 1 January 1960 and (b) since 1979.
  110
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is not available because grants for the removal of hedgerows stopped a number of years ago.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what conclusions he has reached on the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the bus services in Northern Ireland provided by Ulsterbus Ltd. and Citybus Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the initial response produced by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and the bus companies, to the report submitted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in June 1989.

  I am grateful to the commission for the comprehensive review it carried out and the series of 58 recommendations it made. The commission found an effective, low-cost and lean organisation with short chains of command supported by loyal, hard-working and often courageous staff. The report noted the high level of civil disorder with which the companies have had to cope, reflected in the destruction of over 1,100 buses since 1969. It especially commented on the dedication of staff at all levels in maintaining services in the face of severe harassment.

  The commission confirmed that the companies do not operate against the public interest. The report contained 58 recommendations most of which have been accepted and, where appropriate, are being implemented. This should result in a marked improvement of services to the public and the management of the companies. The companies are still considering the feasibility of a few recommendations.

  The Department continues in dialogue with the companies about the implementation of the recommendations and I will report on progress to the House in due course.

  Lough Foyle
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the area of land lost to the sea between the estuary of the River Roe and Magilligan Point during the last(a) five years, (b) 10 years, (c) 15 years and (d) 20 years; what evidence he has on changes in the rate of erosion; what evidence he has on the long term change in the level of the land above sea level in that area; and whether he has any approaches to the EEC for funding for coastal protection works to protect the environment of the Lough Foyle foreshore.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: The information is not available.

  The expenditure necessary to stop erosion on this portion of the Lough Foyle coast could not be justified as the cost of coastal protection works would be greatly in excess of the value of the land at risk, consequently EC funding has not been sought.

  Police Rent Allowances
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an estimate of the cost to public funds of(a) uprating rent allowance for the Royal Ulster

  111
  Constabulary by the index agreed by the police negotiating board and (b) by the movement in the retail price index since the force maximum was last reviewed.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: The actual indices for the period 1 April 1988 to 1 April 1990 are not yet available, but it is estimated that uprating by the index recommended by the PNB would cost approximately £5·8 million and uprating by the retail prices index would cost approximately £5 million.

  Farm Woodlands Scheme
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to improve uptake under the farm woodlands scheme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The farm woodlands scheme has, since its inception, had extensive advisory and media coverage and will be widely publicised again in August-September prior to the new planting year.

  The scheme as it is administered in Northern Ireland is, for all practical purposes, identical with the scheme in the rest of the United Kingdom with the same terms and

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  New (excl Imports)

  Imported new from ROI (not previously registered)

  B as per cent, of A and B

  Registered in ROI prior to importation to NI

  D as per cent, of A and B and D

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Private cars

  1984

  57,107

  5,285

  8·47

  1

  —

  1985

  55,599

  4,328

  7·22

  1

  —

  1986

  53,019

  872

  1·61

  1

  —

  1987

  53,769

  221

  0·40

  595

  1·09

  1988

  55,051

  380

  0·68

  2,085

  3·62

  1989

  53,520

  133

  0·24

  3,203

  5·63

  Light goods (not over 1,525 kg used for commercial purposes)

  1984

  3,533

  869

  19·74

  1

  —

  1985

  3,818

  662

  14·77

  1

  —

  1986

  3,312

  237

  6·67

  1

  —

  1987

  3,334

  278

  7·69

  1

  —

  1988

  3,129

  267

  7·86

  1

  —

  1989

  2,994

  300

  9·10

  1

  —

  Heavy goods vehicles (over 1,525 kg)

  1984

  1,953

  5

  0·25

  1

  —

  1985

  2,503

  6

  0·23

  1

  —

  1986

  2,238

  1

  0·04

  1

  —

  1987

  2,173

  4

  0·18

  1

  —

  1988

  2,183

  712

  24·59

  1

  —

  1989

  2,201

  794

  26·51

  1

  —

  1 Figures not available.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show how many cases of pollution of rivers and lakes were known to him in each of the last three years; how many in each year resulted in fish kill; and how many of these cases were the result of pollution by(a) the Department of the Environment and (b) the Department of Agriculture.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 April 1990]: The number of pollution incidents investigated on behalf of the Department of the Environment by the Fisheries
  112
  conditions. The scheme is being kept under review throughout the United Kingdom and any measures adopted to improve uptake will apply in Northern Ireland.

  Vehicle Imports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table of how many motor vehicles, what types and class, were imported as(a) new vehicles and (b) secondhand vehicles into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic in each of the last five years; and what percentage of the total sales of (i) new vehicles and (ii) secondhand vehicles this represents in each class and type in each year, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 April 1990]: The Department of Environment for Northern Ireland does not hold information about actual sales of new or second-hand vehicles.

  The information set out in the tables relates to vehicles registered for the first time in Northern Ireland and vehicles imported as new or having previously been registered and used in the Republic of Ireland.

  Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland and the Foyle Fisheries Commission over the last three years and the number of associated fish kills are as follows:

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Pollution incidents

  995

  1,001

  903

  Fish kills

  33

  27

  57

  Pollution investigations were also undertaken by environmental health (rivers) officers who act in conjunction with the fisheries bodes as required. We are unable to identify incidents directly attributable to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. For the

  113
  three years in question there were 39, 32 and 36 incidents respectively reported which involved sewage or water treatment works.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research has been carried out into the stocks of brown trout in Lough Neagh over the past decade; and where the results of such research have been published.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 April 1990]: None that I am aware of.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the stocks of brown trout in Lough Neagh are now higher or lower than was the case five years, 10 years and 15 years ago; and whether the size and weight of the fish has increased or decreased.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 April 1990]: In the absence of any research into the stocks of brown trout in Lough Neagh and detailed catch statistics from fishermen, it is not possible to state whether the stocks of brown trout are now higher or lower than was the case five years, 10 years and 15 years ago or whether the size and weight of fish has increased or decreased.

  The spawning record shows that there are fluctuations from year to year in the number of redds counted in the various tributaries of the Lough Neagh catchment, but as a general guide they do not indicate any long-term trend in the overall state of the stock.

  A copy of the spawning record is provided at table V in the 1988 annual report of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Belfast Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of the police and Army security operation mounted for the visit to Belfast of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Eire; and whether any part of the cost will be met from(a) European Community funds, (b) the Eire Government and (c) the Institute of Directors.

  Mr. Cope
  The extra cost of the police operation could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. None of the cost will be met from European Community Funds, the Government of the Republic of Ireland or the Institute of Directors. The cost of the Army operation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Woburn House, Millisle
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of carpeting, furnishing and general refurbishment of Woburn house, Millisle, when it was decided to use it as a prison officers' school; how many staff are employed; and what is the number of recruits in training.

  Mr. Cope
  Woburn house became the Northern Ireland prison service college on 12 January 1981. As payment records are not retained beyond the minimum of seven years in accord with Her Majesty's Treasury regulations the information required is not available.

  As at 19 April 1990, there was a total of 54 staff employed at the prison service college, Woburn house,
  114
  Millisle. There are presently 24 recruits in full-time training at the college—21 males and three females. Other part-time and short courses are run at the college as well.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any valuation was made of the woodworking and other equipment formerly housed at the young offenders centre, Millisle, before it was disposed of when the centre was transferred to Hyde park, Purdysburn.

  Mr. Cope
  The available records relating to the equipment and machinery used for vocational training at the borstal at Millisle indicate that the bulk of these items were transferred to the new young offenders' centre at Hydebank Wood and to Lisnevin training school. A few items which were not required, were disposed of under the Government regulations covering the disposal of surplus equipment. As detailed financial records for this period some 10 years ago no longer exist, it is not possible to say what the value of these items were.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Firms
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government are taking to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on small firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government recognise that the burden of complying with regulation is greater for small firms. The deregulation initiative, co-ordinated by my Department, therefore takes particular account of their problems. Additional departmental deregulation reviews under the rolling programme and wider cross-departmental work on, for example, simplification of small company accounts, which I announced on 21 December last, promise useful improvements in the regulatory environment. Recent studies by my Department of the problems of getting established in particular sectors will help us target future deregulatory activity more effectively.

  Examples of recent action which should help small firms include the Department of Employment's easing of restrictions on the employment of women and young people and publication of their "self-employment starter pack". Also, important changes were announced in the Budget, including a new scheme of comprehensive bad debt relief and an increase in the VAT registration threshold. My own Department has simplified the provisions for shareholder information and streamlined radiocommunications licensing.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies in Scotland applied for assistance under the Department of Trade and Industry's enterprise initiative between April 1988 and April 1989, and from April 1989 to date; and how many companies in Scotland were actually given assistance under the scheme during each of these periods.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The enterprise initiative is a comprehensive package of DTI services, including the consultancy initiatives, regional selective assistance (RSA), regional enterprise grants (REG), collaborative
  115
  research programmes, the small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART), the enterprise and education initiative, the managing into the '90s programme and the export initiative.

  Applications for assistance are only made under project—based programmes. The information requested for Scotland under these programmes is as follows:

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Consultancy initiatives:1

  Applications

  1,529

  1,405

  Projects approved

  1,299

  1,162

  Regional selective assistance:

  Applications

  255

  313

  Projects approved

  221

  242

  Regional enterprise grants:

  Applications

  482

  673

  Projects approved

  226

  432

  Smart:2

  Applications

  74

  196

  Projects approved

  9

  20

  1 The consultancy initiatives also provides assistance in the form of a business review which is provided to 98 per cent, of applicants.

  2 SMART is a competition-based programme. Due to a change in the closing date for the 1990 competition, the 1989–90 statistics include the applications for the two years competitions, but only one year's winners, as the 1990 winners have yet to be announced.

  Accounting Practices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policies regarding off-balance sheet financing schemes.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 4 April at column 621.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in view of his Department's criticisms of the standard of audit work done by major auditing firms, he will issue statements to warn investors of the quality of work done by such firms.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. It is for investors to form their own view about those criticised in reports of inspectors which my Department has published.

  CCAB Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether following the letter dated 16 November 1989 from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, he has examined the annual report and accounts filed by CCAB Ltd.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is planning to cease using the auditing firms criticised by his inspectors as auditors for the public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  When making or approving such appointments my Department takes all relevant factors into account.

  Institute of Chartered Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish any comments made by his Department on the draft syllabus published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. It would not be appropriate to do so.

  Company Directors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received any representations from the Bank of England concerning the encouragement or otherwise of the appointment of non-executive directors by major companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Bank of England has over a long period encouraged the appointment of non-executive directors and this is also the Department's policy.

  Libya
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his current estimate for the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Libya.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on the value of United Kingdom visible trade with Libya is published in the "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, Business Monitor MM20", table lb.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to bring in regulations to define private persons in the sections of the Companies Act 1989 which restrict actions for damages under section 62 of the Financial Services Act 1986; and what consultations he has carried out on such regulations.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department will undertake public consultation on its proposals for defining private investor before making the relevant regulations under section 193 of the Companies Act 1989. The intention is to commence such consultations shortly.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many actions for damages under section 62 of the Financial Services Act 1986 have been brought; by whom; and with what result.

  Mr. Redwood
  Actions under section 62 of the Financial Services Act 1986 are private actions for damages, and as such my Department would not necessarily expect to hear of such cases. In the only instance of which I am aware, the case was decided against the plaintiff.

  Education-Business Partnerships
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have for local education-business partnerships and for the teacher placement service.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am pleased to announce on behalf of myself and my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment, that the Government intend to support local education business
  117
  partnerships across the country. The new partnerships will build on the work already done under the enterprise and education initiative, TVEI and compacts, and foster the development of the work-related aspects of the national curriculum.

  Partnerships involve local education and business interests in work that brings schools and other educational institutions, industry and commerce closer together for the benefit of young people and the economy.

  The Government also intend to build wherever possible on existing partnership work. Where they are in a position to make effective proposals, the new training and enterprise councils will be offered the first opportunity to lead and co-ordinate the development of this activity; otherwise, other local bodies and organisations will be invited to bid for this role.

  There will be a development phase over the next 12 months in which my colleagues and I will collaborate closely. The Foundation for Education Business Partnerships, which has been established by industrial and education interests to foster partnership activity will be kept closely in touch.

  Financial support will come initially from my Department. With the formation of partnerships from April 1991, the Department's Training Agency will take the lead.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland will make separate announcements about their arrangements for partnerships.

  The teacher placement service will continue. Arrangements for its future administration will be developed together with those for local partnerships.

  Mergers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement concerning his policy on referring completed mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Ridley
  Section 64(4) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 provides that I may refer a qualifying merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) within six months of the date of the completion of the merger or the date on which material facts about the merger are made public or made available to me or to the Director General of Fair Trading. In addition, I am required, under section 64(5) of the Act, to make my decision on whether or not to refer the merger as soon as is reasonably practicable.

  Many mergers are either made public or discussed with the Director General of Fair Trading before they take effect. But when a merger is completed before any such announcement or discussion, I am anxious to be in a position as soon as possible to decide whether it should be referred to the MMC. In such cases therefore I shall be looking to the director general for early advice, and to the companies concerned for their cooperation with his Office to enable him to give it. If, in such a case, I had reason to believe that the merger could raise competition or other public interest issues, and that the director general's inquiries were not being answered fully and promptly, I would not allow the lack of full information to deter me from requiring an investigation by the MMC.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the number of companies which his Department have prosecuted for the failure to meet the disabled employee quota since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been no prosecutions since 1979 against companies that failed to fulfil their obligation under the quota scheme established by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much Government assistance has been given to Liverpool through housing investment programmes(a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  Details of the allocations made to Liverpool city council since 1978–79, the first year in which housing investment programme allocations were made, are listed below. Since 1981–82 authorities have been able to augment the borrowing power of their HIP allocations by using the prescribed proportion of their capital receipts. For 1990–91, under the new capital finance system, the HIP allocation does not convey borrowing approval directly.

  Housing investment programme allocations for Liverpool city council

  £ thousand

  1978–79

  35,460

  1979–80

  42,430

  1980–81

  47,230

  1981–82

  39,788

  1982–83

  49,337

  1983–84

  41,850

  1984–85

  38,499

  1985–86

  31,000

  1986–87

  27,500

  1987–88

  25,300

  1988–89

  20,588

  1989–90

  123,207

  1990–91

  233,687

  Notes

  1 Provisional.

  2 Initial allocations only.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 5 April given by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, if he will list the public meetings held by or attended by the Leeds Development Corporation to which he refers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The development corporation has held and attended public meetings with the local business community about the planning framework for the Calls and Riverside area and with residents of Armley, Kirkstall and Beza road, Hunslet.

  The planning meetings of the development corporation are also open to the public.

  Earthquake
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by location the damage that was recorded in the counties of Yorkshire and Humberside after the earthquake that was felt in these areas on 2 April and the seismographic scale.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No comprehensive list of damage caused by the Bishops Castle earthquake of 2 April 1990, exists at present. Information on damage and other felt effects is being collected by the British Geological Survey under the United Kingdom seismic monitoring and information service which is funded by a number of organisations including the Natural Environment Research Council and my Department. The survey has yielded about 6,000 replies so far and further information is being received daily.

  It will be several months before all of the information has been studied in detail, but preliminary analysis indicates that little or no damage occurred in Yorkshire and Humberside. The earthquake measured about 5·4 on the Richter seismographic scale.

  Kilbury Sewage Treatment Works
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to reply to a letter written on 27 February by the Staverton parish council about discharge consent standards at Kilbury sewage treatment works, Buckfastleigh, Devon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I wrote to Staverton parish council and to my hon. Friend on 23 April.

  Waste
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what examination he is making of alternatives to the source separation of the waste stream prior to recycling; if he has any information concerning the effect mechanical separation would have on the percentage of refused derived products from waste; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of source separation of the domestic waste stream on the ability to recycle domestic waste output; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list those local authorities in England and Wales that his Department is aware of that currently recycle all or part of the domestic waste stream, using the mechanical sorting of waste as opposed to source separation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not available at present but is currently being sought from local authorities through a comprehensive survey of their recycling activity. Issues relating to the collection and sorting of waste are being considered by the advisory group on recycling jointly run by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Refuse-derived Fuel Pellets
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much public money has been spent on plants sponsored by his Department investigating the 120
  manufacture and use of refuse-derived fuel pellets; if he will list the performance figures from those plants; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list such private sector research of which he is currently aware into the manufacture and use of refuse derived fuel pellets; and if he will undertake a comparative study between their findings and data from plants sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  About £12 million has been spent by my Department between 1974 and 1986 on pilot schemes for the manufacture and use of refuse-derived fuel pellets. The results have been published by the Warren Spring laboratory, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible. Technical problems have now largely been solved, but further work is needed on marketing. Any comparison of these results and private sector research results would be a matter for prospective purchasers of equipment.

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of the outcome of the arrangements to transfer the housing stock of Rochesterupon-Medway city council, he will revise his guidelines regarding voluntary transfers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Our criteria remain those set out in the guidelines, "Large Scale Voluntary Transfers of Local Authority Housing to Private Bodies", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy not to approve any future proposal by Rochester-upon-Medway city council to transfer its housing stock to another landlord which is not accompanied by financial assistance to the tenants' association to emply independent financial and legal advice.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Any local authority wishing to dispose of tenanted housing must comply with the requirements of schedule 3A to the Housing Act 1985. The Secretary of State will consider whether the authority has, in his view, met these requirements before deciding whether to give consent to the disposal. It is for the authority to decide whether it will provide tenants with financial assistance for obtaining external advice.

  Hillingdon Vehicle Maintenance Department
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what grounds he used his powers under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 to compel the London borough of Hillingdon to close its vehicle maintenance department.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton on 13 March at column 189.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the National Rivers Authority for additional staffing and resources; and if he will make a statement.
  121
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority is currently preparing its first corporate plan. My officials are in discussion with the authority about this and about resources generally. The Government are committed to ensuring the NRA has the necessary resources to carry out its functions effectively. Grant in aid to the NRA for 1990–91 is £93 million.

  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Mr.. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many councils have agreed to grant discretionary rate relief to sports clubs for the year 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  The information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available. Authorities will not necessarily yet have dealt with all applications for relief. We intend, however, to collect later in the year information about the use that authorities have made of their discretion.

  Ozone Levels
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why, in the light of his Department's news release of 3 August 1989, no public announcement was made in respect of ozone levels on 17 March and 18 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  In accordance with the Department's news release of 3 August 1989, information on ozone levels occurring on 17 and 18 March, and also 31 March and 1 April was available from the Department's press office the morning of the day after the episode commenced. No journalist asked for this summary.

  Petrol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assess(a) the level of carcinogens and (b) the health risks associated with the carcinogens produced by (i) leaded and (ii) unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department funds a substantial programme of research investigating pollution emissions from vehicles using leaded and unleaded petrol. Special emphasis is placed upon organic micro-pollutants, including benzene.

  The evidence on human exposure to these pollutants provided by this research will be evaluated by the Department of Health for possible health effects.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his meeting at Sandringham in Norfolk with European Commissioners; and whether he discussed rain forest issues.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales invited Sr. Ripa di Meana, European Commissioner for the Environment, and Mr. Ray McSharry, European Commissioner for Agriculture, to visit Sandringham on 19–20 April. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I were also invited. Discussions were wide ranging.

  Victoria Tower
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to undertake the restoration of the stonework to the Victoria tower at the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I am pleased to announce that a contract for the repair and restoration of the stonework on the Victoria tower and the south elevation of the Palace of Westminster overlooking Victoria tower garden was let to John Laing Construction Ltd. shortly before Easter. Work will start later this month. It will take four years to complete at a cost of some £7 million.

  The placing of this contract marks the start of the final stage of the restoration of the exterior of the Palace of Westminster which began in 1981. It is intended to follow on with the restoration of the stonework of the internal courtyards.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his statement of 3 April on charge capping, what were his decisions in relation to capping Lambeth borough council for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  On the basis of the principles that I adopted for inner-London boroughs, Lambeth's revised budget of £293·9 million is, in my opinion, excessive. On 10 April, I therefore designated the authority for charge capping in accordance with those principles, and proposed a cap of £285·1 million, a reduction of £8·8 million or £51 per adult. I am satisfied that, on the basis of the information available to me, the proposed cap is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of Lambeth. The authority has 28 days, beginning on 10 April 1990, in which to let me know whether it accepts the proposed cap or, if not, what alternative cap it is proposing together with the reasons for it.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of people who will be required to pay standard community charge in respect of second homes in each local authority in England.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: This information is not available.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there are any circumstances under which those residing on islands would qualify for a reduction in their community charge bills; and whether such residents qualified for a reduction under the old domestic rating system.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The qualifying conditions for a reduction in community charges, either through community charge benefit, student status or transitional relief apply equally to residents on islands as to residents on the mainland. Under the old domestic rating system, the same principles in respect of rebates and reliefs applied.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent estimate of the total expenditure on the collection of the poll tax(a) in Scotland in the year 1989–90 and (b) in (i) Scotland, (ii) England and (iii) Wales in the year 1990–91.
  123
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The Government's latest estimate for collecting the community charge in England in 1990–91 is £400 million. The cost of community charge collection in Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales respectively.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to fix the maximum standard community charge at nil for empty dwellings in England and Wales on agricultural or forestry land.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: We have prescribed nine classes of property in respect of which no standard charge is payable. We have also given wide discretion to local authorities to specify additional classes of property for special treatment. Local authorities could, if they saw fit, specify a class of property relating to empty agricultural dwellings for which a lower multiplier would be applied. However, such a discretion may be exercised only before the start of the financial year in which it is intended to operate.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to change the arrangements whereby local authorities may fix a standard community charge on self-catering holiday cottages, chalets and the like, with an impact above the level of current rates on farm income from this source.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: A standard charge will be payable in respect of self-catering accommodation only if the property is to be treated as domestic property, does not give rise to business rates and if no person has his or her sole or main residence there. In such circumstances, unless the local authority had chosen to specify such a class of property for special treatment, the property would be subject to the standard charge in the same way as other qualifying properties. A property will be subject to business rates if it is available for letting commercially for short periods of 140 days or more per year to individuals whose sole or main residence is elsewhere.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take either to secure the retention of the South Yorkshire hazardous waste unit or to provide for the environmental protection of south Yorkshire as far as the tipping, storage and management of harmful or toxic waste is concerned.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were concerned to receive notice of the intention of Sheffield and Doncaster to withdraw from the voluntary agreement on waste regulation in South Yorkshire with effect from 1 April 1991. We believe that satisfactory arrangements for the management of hazardous waste within the metropolitan areas require effective co-operation between all the districts in these areas and that is why, in cases where voluntary agreements were not forthcoming in 1985, statutory arrangements were introduced under the Local Government Act 1985. Consequently, I would hope that Sheffield and Doncaster will reconsider their position
  124
  in relation to the voluntary agreement. In the meantime, I have asked Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to let me have a full assessment of the position.

  Acid Deposition
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent assessment he has made of the effect of acid deposition on trees; what percentage of trees he estimates are(a) dying from (b) otherwise affected by acid deposition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]: The Forestry Commission has carried out a national monitoring programme of annual tree health surveys since 1984. In 1989, tree health showed an overall improvement for the second year running.

  A study of the effects of air pollution, including acid deposition, on trees was carried out for the Department by the United Kingdom terrestrial effects review group (TERG). The report was published in July 1988 and copies placed in the Library of the House. It concludes that there is as yet no direct proof that air pollution is damaging trees in the United Kingdom, but that some forests are subjected to pollution climates which may be expected to cause stress.

  Further laboratory and field study data, including information from the Forestry Commission's programme, have become available since the publication of the TERG report which may enable more precise conclusions to be drawn. The Department has therefore set up a sub-group of TERG specifically to evaluate this new information. The group will report in January 1991.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) of 20 February,Official Report, column 656, if he will now make a further statement on the feasibility of compiling a register of contaminated land.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: I am sympathetic to the idea of compiling registers in appropriate form and expect to receive later this week, the report of the internal working party which has been looking at this. I will announce my proposals at the earliest opportunity.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much, for each year from 1980 to 1989, inclusive, was spent by his Department on environmental research to meet(a) United Kingdom needs, (b) European needs, and (c) global needs.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The expenditure of the Department of the Environment on environmental research to meet United Kingdom needs between 1980 and 1989 is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1980–81

  24·1

  1981–82

  23·7

  1982–83

  21·3

  1983–84

  20·4

  125

  Year

  £ million

  1984–85

  20·8

  1985–86

  24·9

  1986–87

  25·7

  1987–88

  27·3

  1988–89

  29·9

  1989–90

  35·5

  None of the above expenditure has met European needs directly. The above expenditure does, however, cover research on global issues amounting to £190,000 in 1988–89 and £950,000 in 1989–90.

  Oil Spillage (Antarctic)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the pollution from oil spillage in the Antarctic.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  There are no comprehensive data on the quantities of oil spilled in the Antarctic. Overall the impact of oil pollution is believed to be insignificant. The British Antarctic Survey reports only three spills of any size from its operations within the last 10 years. None of these spills, of marine gas oil, amounted to more than six barrels and none had any recorded environmental impact.

  Following a number of reported incidents by other national operators in the Antarctic, notably the sinking of the supply vessel Bahia Paraiso, the Antarctic treaty consultative parties discussed at their 15th meeting in Paris in October 1989 the prevention, control and response to marine pollution. Recommendations passed included measures to prohibit certain discharges and disposal from vessels, requirements for vessels to comply with specific international conventions on vessel safety and pollution control and a requirement for Governments to increase mutual co-operation in hydographic survey and charting in Antarctic waters, to assist in navigational safety and environmental protection.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Libya
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the number of British nationals currently working in Libya; and what were the figures for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Not all British citizens in Libya register with the British interests section in Tripoli, but we estimate that since 1985 the British community there has numbered between 3,500 and 5,000.

  Peru
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has raised with the Peruvian Government the detention of Victor Taipe Zuniga, president of the National Mineworkers Federation.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations 126
  he has made to the Peruvian Government about the detention of politicians, trade union leaders and trade union representatives.

  Mr. Maude
  We frequently raise with the Peruvian authorities the cases of individuals who have been detained or who have disappeared in Peru, including politicians and trade union leaders and representatives.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Peruvian ambassador; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last met the Peruvian ambassador on 18 January, at a lunch given by the Latin American heads of mission in London, at which a wide range of issues were discussed.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last raised with the Peruvian Government the subject of the violation of human rights in that country.

  Mr. Maude
  We frequently stress to the Peruvian Government our support for democracy in Peru and our wish that human rights be fully respected.

  Uganda
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Ugandan High Commissioner; and whether at that meeting he raised the subject of claims for compensation on behalf of British citizens.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since his appointment last October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not had a formal meeting with the Ugandan high commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development raised this subject with President Museveni when she visited Uganda in March.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the bilateral agreements between the United Kingdom Government and Uganda, (b) when they were signed and (c) when they are individually due for review or and renewal.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The main bilateral agreements signed by Her Majesty's Government with Uganda since 1986, when President Museveni came to power, are:(i) The Overseas Service (Uganda) Agreement; signed at Kampala 18 March 1986 and entered into force on 31 March 1986. Treaty Series/Command number not yet allocated. To be reviewed before 31 March 1991.
  The Public Officers' Pensions (Uganda) Amendment Agreement; signed at Kampala on 29 October 1987 and entered into force the same day. Treaty Series/Command number 057/1988 Cm. 145. To be reviewed as necessary.
  The United Kingdom/Ugandan Debt Agreement No. 3 (1987); signed at Kampala on 26 April 1988 and entered into force on 5 May 1988. Treaty Series/Command number 067/1988 Cm. 482. Under review.

  A number of aid agreements have also been concluded during the period.
  127
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have outstanding claims for compensation against the Government of Uganda.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No exact figure is available, but the Ugandan Government have reported that they have received slightly over 1,000 claims for compensation from persons in Britain. The majority of these will have been from British citizens and remain outstanding.

  Lithuania and Kashmir
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct his Department to convey to the official representatives of the Governments of the Soviet Union and India, respectively, the views of Her Majesty's Government on the demands for independence emerging from Lithuania and Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are in regular contact with both the Soviet and Indian Governments on the situations in Lithuania and Kashmir. Both Governments are well aware of our views on the issues arising.

  Iraq
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to raise at the United Nations the human rights record of the present regime in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have raised, and will continue to raise, our concerns about Iraq's human rights record, both directly with the Iraqi authorities and in all suitable international bodies. We expressed our views firmly at the recent UN Commission of Human Rights in Geneva.

  EC Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the topics discussed, and conclusions reached, at the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the European Community at Dublin castle on 21 April.

  Mr. Maude
  EC Foreign Ministers met in Dublin on 21 April to discuss preparations for the informal meeting of Community Heads of State or Government on 28 April. Ministers first considered the latest developments in Lithuania and the economic measures introduced by Moscow. The Twelve issued a statement expressing their serious concern and underlining that measures of a coercive nature could make no contribution to the search for a solution through dialogue. Ministers agreed to keep the situation and its policy implications under continuous review. An official working group will meet for this purpose this week.

  Ministers discussed the implications for the Community of developments in central and eastern Europe. They welcomed the prospect of German unification and the integration of GDR territory into the Community: the meeting on 28 April will discuss how to ensure this is achieved as quickly, fully and smoothly as possible. They also discussed—as will the meeting on 28 April—how best to ensure the healthy development of the Community's relations with other countries of central and eastern Europe, and envisaged a network of association agreements, tailored to the individual circumstances, and the pace of reform, in each of the countries concerned.

  Ministers also briefly discussed EC institutional reform, and the Franco-German proposal that Foreign Ministers should be asked to consider member states' ideas and report to the June and December European Councils. This issue, too, will be further discussed on 28 April.

DEFENCE

  Security Costs
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total cost of the security operation by Army and Royal Air Force personnel in connection with the visit of Mr. Charles Haughey to Belfast on Wednesday 11 April.

  Mr.. Archie Hamilton
  The armed forces in Northern Ireland provided military support as requested by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is not our practice to detail the costs of military assistance provided for specific security operations in Northern Ireland.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish for each of the last 10 years (i) the number of low-flying Royal Air Force training aircraft that have crashed over Wales, (ii) the dates of those crashes, (iii) the number of casualties and (iv) the value of the aircraft lost.

  Mr. Neubert
  Details of major incidents involving RAF training aircraft flying at low level over Wales in the last 10 years are as follows:

  Date

  Aircraft type

  Casualties

  22 April 1982

  Hunter

  One major injury (RAF)

  No civilian casualties

  13 May 1982

  Jet Provost

  No casualties

  5 August 1982

  Hunter

  No casualties

  Two fatalities (one RAF

  and one Royal Brunei

  20 April 1983

  Gazelle

  Armed Service)

  No civilian casualties

  It is not our policy to publish unit production costs.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force pilots have been disciplined for flying below the minimum height while involved in training exercises over Wales.

  Mr. Neubert
  Very few complaints reveal irresponsible breaches of low flying regulations and, therefore, formal disciplinary action is infrequent. Since 1979, from when records are available, no Royal Air Force pilots have been formally disciplined for flying below the minimum height during training exercises over Wales.

  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what percentage armed forces' salaries were abated in respect of imputed contributions to pensions in the armed forces in each year since 1960; and what information he has on previous years' abatements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no abatement of the pay of members of the armed forces in respect of imputed contributions to pensions. However, in recommending rates of pay for the armed forces, the armed forces pay review body (AFPRB) makes an adjustment to comparator earnings to reflect its judgment on the additional pension benefit received by members of the armed forces compared with that available for civilian 130
  schemes. Between 1981 and 1986 that adjustment was set at 11 per cent.; since then it has been set at 10 per cent. The basis of these adjustments is explained in greater detail in the AFPRB's 10th and 15th reports, Commands 8241 and 9784.

  RNAD Milford
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on negotiations for the disposal and future use of RNAD Milford after 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence expects shortly to receive the report of the consultancy study, commissioned in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency, into potential future uses for the RN armament depot at Milford Haven. In consultation with the Welsh Development Agency and the local authorities, we shall be carefully considering the options identified in the report and will be consulting the trade unions before a final decision is made.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the closure of RNAD Milford including the early retirement of staff, the transfer of staff to other MOD establishments and the job resettlement programme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The closure programme for the royal naval armament depot at Milford Haven is proceeding to schedule, with the progressive transfer of the remaining tasks to the MOD's depot at Trecwn. Milford Haven is scheduled to close on 31 March 1991.

  The position of the 163 staff employed at the depot is as follows:

  (a) Thirty-three non-industrial and 42 industrial staff (total 75) are to transfer to the royal naval armament depot at Trecwn during the period leading up to March 1991.

  (b) Nine non-industrial and four industrial staff (total 13) are to transfer to other Government Departments during the period leading up to March 1991.

  (c) A total of 67 industrial staff are to be made redundant in two groups: 30 on 2 November 1990 and 37 in early March 1991. All staff being made redundant are being referred to the Manpower Services Commission jobcentre at Milford Haven under the job resettlement programme.

  (d) Seven industrial staff will be normally or medically retired before the closure date.

  (e) One non-industrial grade is currently seeking early retirement.

  Aircraft Shelters (RAF Stornoway)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of the hardened

  aircraft shelters to be installed at RAF Stornoway.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Tenders for this work have not yet been invited, and it is not our practice to disclose estimates for specific work projects which will be the subject of contractual negotiations.

  Iraq (Gun Order)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers in his Department were first made aware of the Walter Somers export order for Iraq.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Earlier this month.

  Menwith Hill Base
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the works carried out at Menwith hill base during the past five years; what is the total cost and sources of payment for the work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: I understand that within the last five years five works projects have been completed at Menwith Hill station. Two involved improvements to operational buildings; a further two involved the provision of additional married quarters; and the final project was for the installation of additional generators. The projects were paid for by the United States Government and I am unable to comment on their cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  South Africa
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the political situation in South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  We welcome the recent announcement that President de Klerk will meet members of the ANC on 2 May. We hope that these discussions will lead to negotiations on the peaceful end of apartheid and its replacement by a system of government acceptable to all South Africans.

  Police
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the discussions with the Police Federation regarding the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  The regulations laid on 9 March took account of representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and representatives of the staff side of the Police Federation, at a meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 17 January. Since the regulations were laid, further representations have been made about the position of officers in forces whose maximum limits of rent allowance were last reviewed in 1988. As a result my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the protected rent allowances in such cases should be increased in line with the movement in the retail prices index since the date of the force's last rent allowance review. Further amending regulations to give effect to that decision will be laid as soon as possible.

  Germany (Foreign Troops)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she intends to hold discussions in the near future with Chancellor Kohl and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation leaders concerning the present and future stationing of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation armed forces in the Federal Republic of Germany and the continuing presence of Warsaw Pact armed forces in the German Democratic Republic.

  The Prime Minister
  When I met Chancellor Kohl on 30 March, we agreed on the importance of keeping United 132
  States and other NATO forces in Germany, as well as the need to look at transitional arrangements for Soviet forces in the GDR. These issues will be discussed further at NATO meetings this summer.

  Chinese People's Republic (Ambassador)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last met the ambassador of the Chinese People's Republic; where the meeting took place; and if she will state the subjects discussed.

  The Prime Minister
  The Chinese ambassador called on me on 16 March at 10 Downing street. We discussed Hong Kong and other issues of common concern.

  Engagements
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later this afternoon I shall depart for Turkey to be present at the 75th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings on 25 April.

  European Council Meeting, Dublin
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister under what arrangements the forthcoming European Council Meeting in Dublin on 28 April was called; what procedural rules will apply; when the agenda will be announced; and if she will place in the Library any document presented to that meeting for its consideration.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The meeting on 28 April is not a formal European Council, but a special informal meeting of Heads of State and Government. It was called to consider the implications for the Community of developments in central and eastern Europe, in particular, progress towards German unification. It will also look at preparations for the CSCE summit. There may be discussion of institutional reform. The agenda, and any papers, for discussion will be a matter for the presidency.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to the number of small businesses that will benefit as a result of the decision announced in his Budget statement to increase(a) the profits limit for corporation tax and (b) the limit for marginal relief.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is estimated that 20,000 companies will benefit from the increase in profit limits for the small companies' rate of corporation tax and associated marginal relief.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated loss of revenue if the 40 per cent. rate for capital gains tax were lowered to 25 per cent.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is estimated that the cost of charging all taxable capital gains realised by individuals in 1990–91 at
  133
  25 per cent. would be about £350 million. The estimate allows for some increase in disposals in response to the reduction in the effective rate of the tax but does not allow for possible short-term effects, nor for possible substitution by higher rate taxpayers of gains for income. No allowance has been made for any change in the treatment of capital gains of companies which are taxed within corporation tax.

  Taxation
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many income tax payers there were in Scotland in each year from 1986–87 to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  The estimated number of individuals resident in Scotland and liable to income tax is 2·04 million for 1986–87 and 2·16 million for 1987–88, the latest available year. Married women are included where their earned income exceeds the wife's earned income allowance and any personal allowances and relief's unused against the husband's income.

  Value Added Tax
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend VAT leaflet 700/11/88 to include a paragraph on not using VAT form 100 where deregistration applies.

  Mr. Major
  Customs and Excise is currently reviewing its published guidance and instructions relating to traders deregistering for value added tax following representations made by the right hon. Member to my noble Friend the Paymaster General. That review will consider whether leaflet 700/11/88 is the appropriate vehicle for guidance along the lines suggested.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the operation of the tour operators' margin scheme concerning the application of value added tax in relation to conferences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am not aware of any recent representations.

  Budget Surplus and Deficit
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the budget surplus or deficit for each of the European Community countries, the United States of America and Japan for each of the last three years, on a comparable basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following is the data requested for the United Kingdom:

  United Kingdom general government financial balance deficit (−) or surplus (+)

  Per cent, of GDP

  1987

  −1·2

  1988

  +1·1

  1989

  +1·3

  Source: CSO.

  General government financial balances as a share of GDP for the United States, Japan and the other EC countries are published by the OECD in "Economic Outlook" December 1989.

  European Investment Bank
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since the inception of the scheme the total funds lent by the European investment bank; if he will show as a proportion of the total the amounts provided to businesses and others in each of the member states; whether the rules governing eligibility of loan finance from the European investment bank are identical in various member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The European investment bank was set up in 1958. The membership of the bank has expanded as new members have acceded to the European Community—Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom in 1973, Greece in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986.

  Tables have been placed in the House Library which show the total of funds lent by the European investment bank including lending outside the European Community, the total of funds lent by the bank within the Community and the proportion of the total lent to the European Community provided to each of the member states. Records are available centrally only from the date when the United Kingdom joined the EIB and not for previous years. The rules governing access to European investment bank loan finance apply equally to each member state.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many responses he received to the Green Paper on Friendly Societies; and how many were favourable to his proposals.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: To date, I have received around 60 written responses to the Green Paper. The proposals have been generally welcomed. I shall, of course, give all responses careful consideration.

WALES

  Toxic Waste Disposal
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish before the end of June his response to the report by the Committee on Welsh Affairs on toxic waste disposal in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  It is my right hon. Friend's intention to provide a considered response to all such reports within the shortest possible time scale.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the number of people in Wales who will (i) be eligible to pay the personal community charge, (ii) be eligible to pay the standard community charge, (iii) be eligible for the 80 per cent. rebate on the personal community charge, (iv) be eligible for the 20 per cent. rebate on the personal community charge and (v) be exempt from the personal community charge.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The available information is given in the table:
  135

  Number (to nearest thousand)

  People registered for the personal community charge1 2

  2,175,000

  Properties subject to the standard community charge1

  61,000

  Estimate of chargepayers expected to receive 80 per cent, rebate3

  320,000

  Estimate of chargepayers expected to receive rebate of less than 80 per cent.3 4

  230,000

  People exempt from personal community charge1

  39,000

  Notes:

  1 As at 1 December 1989.

  Local authority

  Number of domestic hereditaments at April 1989

  Number of non-domestic hereditaments at April 1989

  Number of electors1

  First column as a percentage of third

  Cost of rate collection per elector2

  £

  Alyn and Deeside

  27,319

  3,826

  56,681

  48

  2·17

  Colwyn

  23,295

  3,427

  43,454

  54

  3·89

  Delyn

  25,342

  3,685

  51,531

  49

  3·47

  Glyndwr

  17,156

  3,271

  32,800

  52

  5·27

  Rhuddlan

  22,074

  3,387

  44,436

  50

  4·19

  Wrexham Maelor

  45,131

  7,227

  89,680

  50

  4·40

  Carmarthen

  21,725

  3,424

  42,867

  51

  5·39

  Ceredigion

  26,626

  4,780

  52,086

  51

  4·38

  Dinefwr

  15,264

  2,500

  30,358

  50

  3·72

  Llanelli

  30,508

  4,172

  58,994

  52

  3·41

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  28,631

  5,090

  53,225

  54

  3·27

  South Pembrokeshire

  16,708

  3,634

  31,787

  53

  4·28

  Blaenau Gwent

  31,312

  5,640

  59,253

  53

  3·70

  Islwyn

  25,663

  4,408

  51,176

  50

  3·42

  Monmouth

  29,508

  5,058

  59,899

  49

  3·22

  Newport

  52,606

  8,509

  96,516

  55

  4·28

  Torfaen

  35,826

  7,750

  69,563

  52

  3·52

  Aberconwy

  22,538

  4,502

  42,746

  53

  6·57

  Arfon

  23,678

  3,906

  42,194

  56

  5·85

  Dwyfor

  13,609

  3,109

  22,060

  62

  6·35

  Meirionnydd

  16,173

  3,708

  25,724

  63

  1·98

  Ynys Môn

  29,031

  4,676

  53,721

  54

  6·09

  Cynon Valley

  26,661

  3,663

  49,653

  54

  3·67

  Merthyr Tydfil

  23,577

  4,059

  44,613

  53

  7·15

  Ogwr

  50,593

  7,023

  102,147

  50

  1·92

  Rhondda

  32,011

  4,947

  60,404

  53

  5·30

  Rhymney Valley

  39,126

  5,705

  77,730

  50

  4·46

  Taff Ely

  36,214

  5,741

  70,683

  51

  9·49

  Brecknock

  16,544

  3,713

  32,502

  51

  4·43

  Montgomeryshire

  21,330

  4,757

  41,023

  52

  4·14

  Radnorshire

  9,830

  2,367

  18,636

  53

  4·94

  Cardiff

  110,676

  15,934

  215,013

  51

  6·44

  Vale of Glamorgan

  43,356

  6,164

  86,197

  50

  5·42

  Port Talbot

  20,440

  3,107

  40,529

  50

  4·84

  Lliw Valley

  24,625

  3,194

  48,115

  51

  3·60

  Neath

  25,926

  3,471

  51,710

  50

  4·58

  Swansea

  73,489

  8,696

  144,909

  51

  4·06

  Total Wales

  1,134,121

  182,230

  2,194,615

  52

  4·59

  1 As shown on the electoral register which came into effect on 16 February 1989.

  2 Cost information relates to 1989–90 and includes both the costs of domestic and non-domestic rate collection; separate information is not available for these two categories.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received, since occupying his present post, on the effect on home ownership of high interest rates.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information cannot be supplied as no record is kept, but I am pleased that home ownership has substantially increased during my period of office.
  136
  2 Including students.

  3 In 1990–91. It is not possible to provide estimates of those eligible for rebates.

  4 It is not possible to estimate the number of people eligible for or receiving a 20 per cent rebate on the personal community charge.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will detail the(a) number of ratepayers and (b) number of electors in each Welsh local authority area in 1989–90 together with the percentage that the number of ratepayers represented as a proportion of total electors for each local authority; and if he will give the cost of collecting the rates per head of ratepayers in 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter walker
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has commissioned on past patterns of fund-raising and charitable giving and the potential for future income from such sources in order to inform policy-making by health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Monday 23 April.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the costs of the Health Service were
  137
  met by charitable donations and fund-raising in each of the past 10 financial years (a) in Wales as a whole and (b) in each health authority district in Wales.

  Subscriptions, donations and fund-raising

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–891

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Clwyd

  92,158

  121,318

  114,969

  162,018

  179,622

  197,634

  181,249

  216,667

  318,933

  401,910

  Dyfed/East Dyfed

  126,701

  169,692

  212,308

  211,101

  192,740

  176,787

  178,259

  235,905

  240,990

  420,712

  Gwent

  44,870

  43,361

  70,873

  83,594

  101,669

  93,745

  173,114

  181,499

  274,380

  339,995

  Gwynedd

  38,211

  50,264

  59,097

  66,772

  121,449

  110,957

  229,483

  204,720

  201,816

  249,027

  Mid Glamorgan

  58,644

  147,378

  189,608

  162,514

  130,560

  195,727

  226,667

  293,804

  454,664

  376,798

  Powys

  27,855

  27,606

  29,389

  56,523

  45,373

  58,034

  55,488

  57,819

  74,115

  198,414

  South Glamorgan

  60,187

  102,274

  314,438

  165,334

  185,692

  182,437

  251,987

  345,310

  392,284

  435,370

  West Glamorgan

  75,212

  68,979

  125,570

  133,695

  178,797

  274,084

  182,207

  297,926

  307,858

  265,885

  Pembrokeshire2

  —

  —

  —

  78,214

  78,537

  74,789

  79,781

  132,231

  203,075

  142,225

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  192,384

  222,075

  Wales

  523,838

  730,872

  1,116,252

  1,119,765

  1,214,439

  1,364,194

  1,558,235

  1,965,971

  2,660,499

  3,052,411

  Notes:

  1 Latest year for which figures currently available.

  2 Pembrokeshire figures included within Dyfed figures prior to reorganisation in 1982–83.

  It should be noted, however, that trust fund income may be used for various purposes, depending on the respective deeds of trust applying to individual trust funds. Thus some of the above income will have been used for the benefit of staff as well as for the provision of equipment, vehicles, furnishings and so on to enhance patient services. It should also be noted that information on any donations or proceeds from fund-raising which are not associated with authorities' trust funds is not available centrally, since it is not recorded in the authorities' statutory accounts. It is therefore not possible to say what proportion of the costs of providing health services over the past 10 years has been met by funds from charitable sources.

  Industrial Land Sales
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take appropriate measures to ensure that the speeding up of the Welsh Development Agency's programme of selling off parcels of industrial land to the private sector will not mean that companies renting factories on this land will face increased charges from new landlords.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The level of rents charged by the private sector is a matter for commercial judgment based on prevailing market conditions. The Welsh Development Agency itself currently seeks to obtain the best price practicable in negotiating both rents and sales for its property and has for some time sought to operate on a commercial basis wherever possible.

  Moreover, tenants rights are unaffected by a change of ownership and they also have statutory protection through the Landlord and Tenants Act 1954 which provides recourse to arbitration if settlement of rent cannot be achieved between the parties.

  Estuarial Crossings
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those estuarial crossings in Wales for which a toll is charged and those for which no toll is made.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  There is no definitive list of estuarial crossings in Wales readily available. The following crossings are tolled:
  138
  Mr. Grist
  The information requested, as recorded in health authorities' trust fund accounts, is as follows:

  The information requested, as recorded in health authorities' trust fund accounts, is as follows:

  River estuary

  Cleddau Bridge

  Cleddau

  Penmaenpool

  Mawddach

  Barmouth Bridge (footbridge)

  Mawddach

  Penrhyndeudraeth

  Dwyryd

  Porthmadog

  Glaslyn

  Road Improvements, Pembroke
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will detail all road improvement schemes currently under construction in the former county of Pembroke together with their cost and target date for completion.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Three schemes are currently under construction:

  Schemes

  Estimated cost £ milliion

  Expected completion date

  A40 Haverfordwest eastern by-pass

  3·9

  Autumn 1990

  A40 Green Bower to Pricketts Gate

  0·448

  Summer 1990

  A40 East of Pricketts Gate

  0·289

  Autumn 1990

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of all road improvements completed by the Welsh Office in the former county of Pembroke in each year since 1979, together with the cost of each scheme.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Major schemes completed since 1979 are as follows:

  Year and schemes

  Cost

  (£ million)

  1979 A477 Castell Heli bridge

  1·4

  1984 Kilgetty-Stepaside by-pass

  14·2

  1987 A40 Pengawse hill diversion

  3·9

  1987 A40 Treffgarne quarries

  1·2

  1988 A40 Haverfordwest relief road phase I

  9·3

  In addition a number of smaller schemes have been completed on the A40, A477, A4076 and A40/A487 at a total cost of some £6 million.

  Local Authorities Land Holdings
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total amount of vacant land held by each Welsh local authority, the percentage this represents of each local authorities total land holding and as a percentage of the total land within each authority's area, and the estimated value of the vacant land held by each local authority together with the measures being taken by his Department to encourage local authorities to release such land.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on local authorities' total land holdings and on the value of registered land is not available centrally. Information summarising the Department's land registers could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Measures to encourage the disposal or bringing in to use of authorities' vacant land include incentives for disposal available under the capital and revenue finance systems, the public accessibility of the land register and of individual owners' registers, publicity given to the public right to order disposal, and in appropriate cases directions under section 98 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to take steps to dispose of particular sites. We are currently considering what further measures might be appropriate to reduce the amount of public sector vacant land.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the number and percentage of people in Wales whose first language is(a) Welsh and (b) English; and how many in each case speak only one language.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information is not collected in the form requested in that the census does not ask about a person's first language or any language other than English or Welsh. However of the 2·6 million people, aged three and over, usually resident in Wales at the time of the 1981 census, 503,549 or 19 per cent. were recorded as Welsh speaking and of these 21,283 or 0·8 per cent. were recorded as not speaking English.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra resources are to be made available to recruit and train additional staff to teach through the medium of Welsh to meet the requirements of the new national curriculum in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  A wide range of measures have been introduced to increase the supply of both Welsh medium teachers and teachers of the Welsh language. These include:(i) the Welsh teacher training incentive supplement scheme introduced in 1988 on a trial basis to attract Welsh speaking graduates to train for Welsh-medium secondary teaching by making a supplementary grant of £1,200 available. This pilot scheme is to be extended for a further two years and will include primary courses;
  (ii) increasing the amount of money available for LEA in-service training for Welsh from £233,000 to £900,000. This comprises the training of teachers transferring from English-medium to Welsh-medium teaching and teachers with limited knowledge of Welsh who wish to teach it as a second language within the national curriculum.
  140
  (iii) support for the `athrawon bro' mobile teaching force which will be worth some £1 million in 1990–91 and will have an increasingly important role to play in preparing primary school teachers for the demands the national curriculum imposes;
  (iv) £116,000 being made available to four local authorities in Wales under the teacher recruitment category of the education support grant scheme to support the development of schemes to increase the recruitment of former teachers and mature entrants to teaching. The overall objective is to improve the recruitment of Welsh and Welsh-medium teachers in primary schools and the recruitment of teachers in shortage subjects including Welsh and Welsh-medium teachers in secondary schools;
  (v) new criteria for the training of primary teachers requires all initial teacher training institutions in Wales to provide opportunities for students to learn the Welsh language while they are training to become primary teachers and to have instruction in the methodology of teaching the language. As an interim measure the Department is providing £110,000 to institutions to enable them to provide additional Welsh language instruction. In the longer term institutions will look to their funding bodies to provide the necessary funds.
  (vi) grant support of £47,000 to enable Trinity college, Carmarthen to develop courses for the teaching of Welsh to infant teachers and juniors teachers. In addition, grant of £29,000 has enabled the North East Wales institute to develop a training course for Welsh-speaking secondary teachers who are not at present teaching the language to enable them to do so.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to lay the draft measure dealing with the subject of a new Welsh Language Act submitted to the Welsh Office by the Welsh Language Board in November 1989.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The draft Bill proposed by the Welsh Language Board is currently receiving detailed consideration.

  Asthma
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the funding agencies responsible for financing research into asthma and other related illnesses in Wales since 1986.

  Mr. Grist
  Research into asthma is carried out at the asthma research unit based at Sully hospital. Funding for this unit is made available from the South Glamorgan health authority. The Medical Research Council is the main Government agency for the promotion of medical and related biological research in England and Wales; their remit extends to research into asthma.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the amounts, on an annual basis, allocated by the Government for research specifically into asthma in Wales since 1986.

  Mr. Grist
  Asthma research is currently being conducted at the asthma research unit funded by South Glamorgan health authority. No other research specifically into asthma in Wales has been funded by this Department since 1986. Research into asthma has, however, been supported under the joint England and Wales programme of health research, some under the auspices of the medical research council.

  Paediatricians
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of paediatricians engaged permanently by the area health authorities in Wales, who have undertaken specific and specialised training in the detection and treatment of respiratory diseases in young children.

  Mr. Grist
  At 30 September 1988 there were 39 consultants and 101 junior hospital doctors1, excluding locums, employed by health authorities in Wales in paediatric specialties2. Respiratory disease in young children form a very substantial part of the illness treated by paediatricians, all of whom undertake specific training in the detection and treatment of these diseases.
  1 Includes house officers, senior house officers, registrars, senior registrars, associate specialists and senior hospital medical officers.
  2 The specialties of paediatrics, paediatric neurology and paediatric surgery.

  Contaminated Land
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when it is planned to update the register of contaminated land in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The need to update the Welsh Office survey of contaminated land will be considered in the context of the response to the Environment Committee's first report recommendation to require local authorities to compile their own registers.

  Flooding
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list any measurements currently being made of average sea levels in Wales; and whether these can be compared with similar measurements made in previous years.

  Mr. Grist
  A national tide gauge network, capable of accurately measuring mean sea levels, was set up more than 30 years ago and has been continually maintained and updated since then. The network is operated and data is collected by the Proudman oceanographic laboratory of the natural environment research council with funding by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Development Department.

  Four of the 32 gauges are located in Wales, at Holyhead, Fishguard, Milford Haven and Swansea while others at Hilbre Island, Avonmouth and Ilfracombe provide data relevant to Wales. In addition, there are several other tide guages around the coast from which intermediate data can be obtained.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those coastal regions of Wales believed to be most vulnerable to inundations of sea water in the event of breaches of sea defences.

  Mr. Grist
  All coastal regions that lie below the highest sea level in their vicinity are at some risk of being inundated by sea water in the event of breaches of sea defences. The most significant such areas in Wales are parts of the north Wales coast, the Caldicot and Wentlooge levels and lands bordering the major estuaries, for example, Afon Glaslyn, Afon Mawddach, Afon Dyfi and Lougher inlet.

  Sewerage
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it is planned to review the question of ownership and adoption of sewerage systems serving existing and planned private housing developments in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Imported Waste
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to instruct all importers of waste material which is intended for disposal in Wales to provide publicly-available details of the pedigree and exact chemical composition of the material concerned.

  Mr. Grist
  Control over the disposal of imported waste material is the responsibility of waste disposal authorities.

  Teachers
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are to be taken to improve the recruitment of graduates into the teaching profession and to stem the further loss of men and women leaving the profession.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have introduced a number of measures to ensure that teaching remains an attractive career for graduates. The bursary scheme to attract students in the shortage subjects is being extended this year to include modern foreign languages. The bursaries have been increased from £1,300 to £1,500 with that for physics increased to £2,000. "Taster" courses are being run for mature people and others to encourage entry or return to teaching. These courses include seminars on subject content and delivery in teaching and information sessions on pay, conditions and career opportunities. 116,000 is being made available to four LEAs in Wales to support the development of schemes to increase the recruitment of former teachers and mature entrants to teaching. TASC (teaching as a career) has been established to promote teaching as a career and improve recruitment practices among local education authorities and initial teacher training institutions. One of the key areas addressed by the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions was the issue of attracting graduates. The IAC recommendations mean that the starting salary for a good honours graduate will be at least £10,500.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his maximum and minimum estimate of the number of people in Wales in part-time employment who are counted twice in the employment totals.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Labour force survey estimates of the number of people in part-time employment and with a second job, which are subject to large sampling errors, suggest that there were about 18,000 such persons in 1989. Maximum and minimum estimates are not available.

  Radioactivity
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) farms, (b) sheep and (c) acres currently subject to post-Chernobyl restrictions; and if he will make a statement.
  143
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Restrictions affect approximately 416 holdings, 300,000 sheep and 210,000 acres in Wales.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the number of sheep sampled for radioactivity in each county in Wales for(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988, (d) 1989 and (e) to date in 1990; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the number of sheep sampled for radioactivity in Wales for (a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988, (d) 1989 and (e) to date in 1990 including the number of sheep with levels of radioactivity (i) over 4,000 bq/kg, (ii) 3,000 to 3,999 bq, (iii) 2,000 to 2,999, (iv) 1,000 to 1,999, (v) 500 to 999, and (vi) below 499; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The results of my Department's monitoring of sheep for radioactivity, including live-monitoring of sheep leaving the restricted area in north Wales, are published regularly and copies placed in the Library of the House. Some of the published information is in the form requested by the hon. Gentleman. Where it is not, it could be put in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sheep have been monitored for radioactivity in slaughterhouses in each county in Wales in each year since 1986; how many were found to be above the 1,000 bq/kg limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A pilot programme of monitoring sheep carcasses at slaughterhouses has been in operation in north Wales since March 1989. In Clwyd some 2,300 have been monitored and in Gwynedd some 4,500; all were below 1,000 bq/kg.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Single-sex Schools
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in respect of each of those local education authority maintained single-sex secondary schools in Merseyside and Greater Manchester which have been closed since 1985, he will list (i) the gender of pupils, (ii) the maintaining local authority and (iii) the number of pupils on roll at the most recent convenient date before closure.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The maintained single-sex secondary schools in Merseyside and Greater Manchester which have closed since 1985 and the number of pupils on roll before closure are as follows:

  Maintained single-sex secondary schools in Merseyside and Greater Manchester which have closed since 1985

  Pupils on roll in January preceding closure date

  Boys' schools

  Boys

  Girls

  MERSEYSIDE

  Knowsley

  Knowlsey St. Kevins R.C. Boys1

  803

  3

  Liverpool

  Anfield County Comprehensive

  1,075

  —

  Alsop Boys Comprehensive

  1,002

  —

  Collegiate Boys Comprehensive

  522

  —

  Liverpool Institute Boys High

  396

  —

  Hillfoot Mey Boys Comprehensive

  519

  —

  144

  Pupils on roll in January preceding closure date

  Boys' schools

  Boys

  Girls

  St. Helens

  Campion R.C. High School

  318

  —

  West Park R.C. High School

  661

  —

  Wirral

  Bebington Boys Secondary School1

  557

  —

  The Henry Meoles School1

  759

  —

  Bishop Challoner R.C. High School1

  573

  —

  GREATER MANCHESTER

  Manchester

  St. Marks R.C. High School1

  609

  —

  St. Pius R.C. High School1

  535

  —

  Stockport

  Stockport School1

  989

  3

  Trafford

  Stretford Grammar for Boys1

  316

  —

  Urmston Grammar for Boys1

  377

  —

  1 Closed for the purposes of amalgamation.

  Maintained single-sex secondary schools in Merseyside and Greater Manchester which have closed since 1985

  Pupils on roll in January preceding closure date

  Girls' schools

  Girls

  Boys

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  Knowsley St. Gregory's R.C. girls1

  612

  —

  Liverpool

  Stanley Park girls comprehensive

  960

  —

  Aigburth Vale girls comprehensive

  634

  —

  Liverpool Institute girls high

  301

  —

  Queen Mary girls comprehensive

  1,015

  —

  St. Helens

  Mount Carmel R.C. high

  320

  —

  Notre Dame R.C. high

  773

  —

  Sefton

  St. Augustine's R.C. high1

  369

  —

  Wirral

  Bebington girls secondary school1

  823

  4

  Okley school1

  612

  —

  The Marian R.C. high school1

  512

  —

  Greater Manchester

  Manchester

  The Hollies R.C. high school1

  739

  —

  St. Joseph's R.C. high school1

  444

  —

  Stockport

  Priestnall school1

  889

  —

  Trafford

  Urmston girls grammar1

  487

  —

  Stretford girls grammar1

  435

  —

  1 Closed for the purposes of amalgamation.

  Education Costs
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the average cost, per student across all subjects, of education(a) in United Kingdom universities as a whole, (b) in United Kingdom
  145
  polytechnics as a whole, (c) in Scottish universities, (d) in English universities, (e) in Welsh universities, (f) in English polytechnics and (g) in the Polytechnic of Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  Non-university higher education in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I shall reply to the hon. Member on the other parts of his question as soon as possible.

  International Baccalaureate Examination
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the number of(a) independent, (b) local authority and (c) grant-maintained schools which offer pupils the international baccalaureate examination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs.. Rumbold
  This information is not collected centrally.

  City Technology College, Brighton
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what price was paid by the city technology college trust for the purchase of the site for the proposed city technology college, Brighton; and how much of this price was paid for or guaranteed by public funds.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A sum of £2.3 million net, excluding legal expenses, has been paid from public funds for the acquisition of the proposed CTC site in Brighton. The site is held by the CTC trust.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what undertakings were given by Mr. Ivor Revere, managing director of Greenleaf Planters, a subsidiary of South Weald Properties, in respect of his financial support for the proposed city technology college at Woodingdean, Brighton; what sum or sums he pledged; and what has been paid over.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Mr. Revere undertook to donate £1 million in support of the Brighton CTC. Mr. Revere has now withdrawn from his original undertaking without having made any payment.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of a city technology college at Woodingdean, Brighton.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The proposal to establish a city technology college in Brighton is under review because of the withdrawal of the principal sponsor. I hope to make a statement shortly.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what checks are made of the bona fides of potential donors to city technology colleges.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The CTC trust has the responsibility of identifying and putting forward potential sponsors. Detailed discussions then take place between the Department, potential sponsors and the CTC trust. If the project is to proceed, written heads of agreement are thereafter established.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is receiving or has received advice on the electricity privatisation from any accountancy firm, which has been criticised by the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have nothing further to add to the answers given to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 19 December 1989 and 21 February 1990.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline the proposals that exist for the reorganisation of the four state-owned companies operating nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Scotland announced proposals on 9 November 1989 to create separate nuclear generating companies from the assets of the CEGB and SSEB. Both companies, Nuclear Electric plc and Scottish Nuclear Ltd., were successfully vested at the end of March this year. There are no plans to change the present ownership of any of the nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom.

  Electricity (Distribution Companies)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what consultation he has had with large industrial users of electricity about a review of the 15 per cent. upper limit of the distribution companies' market share that can be captured by National Power and PowerGen before 1994;

  (2) if he intends to review the 15 per cent. upper limit on the market share of (a) all, (b) any one or (c) any group of the 12 electricity distribution companies that can be captured by National Power and PowerGen from 1990 to 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  The application, enforcement or amendment of licence conditions are a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply under the appropriate provisions of the licences and the Electricity Act 1989.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has consulted the Director General of the Office of Electricity Regulation on the possibility of raising or reviewing the 15 per cent. upper limit on each of the 12 electricity distribution companies' market, that can be captured before 1994 by National Power and PowerGen.

  Mr Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has discussed various aspects of the new regulatory regime with the Director General of Electricity Supply on a number of occasions.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list local authorities' expenditure by service for each Scottish region from 1979–80 to the most recent estimates available, at constant prices and in percentage terms.
  147
  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave on Monday 23 April 1990.

  Scottish Pride
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what consultations he has had on the report by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland entitled "The Scottish Pride Study";

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that the commercial relationship between the Scottish Milk Marketing Board and Scottish Pride meets the requirements of European Community legislation; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he expects to make a decision on the report by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, entitled "The Scottish Pride Study", which was placed in the Library on 18 May 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland published a report on the commercial activities of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board in May 1988, investigating in particular the extent to which the activities were on an equal footing with those of the independent dairy companies, as required by European Community legislation. My noble Friend the Minister of State has since met the chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board and the president of the Scottish Dairy Trade Federation to discuss the report, and officials of the Department have also held discussions with the two bodies concerned. These discussions are continuing.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of non-white personnel currently employed by the Scottish ambulance service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about the number of non-white personnel is not available.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify the location and status of waste disposal sites in Scotland by waste disposal authority, waste type, town, location of facility, name of facility and land size.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  District and islands councils as waste disposal authorities maintain public registers which provide up-to-date information on waste disposal activities in Scotland. The full data requested are not held centrally.

  A survey by the Scottish Development Department in 1989 indicated that licences and council resolutions had been issued in respect of 835 waste disposal facilities in Scotland. Of these, 700 licences and resolutions related to landfill sites and the balance to other operations such as incinerators, transfer stations, baling plants and civic amenity sites.

  The table gives the number of open and closed landfill sites and other types of facility for each waste disposal authority.
  148

  Landfill sites

  District/Islands council

  Open

  Closed

  Other waste disposal facilities

  Berwickshire

  3

  0

  0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  5

  2

  0

  Roxburgh

  3

  0

  0

  Tweeddale

  1

  1

  0

  Clackmannan

  7

  3

  1

  Falkirk

  19

  5

  9

  Stirling

  8

  0

  1

  Annandale and Eskdale

  3

  3

  2

  Nithsdale

  6

  0

  1

  Stewartry

  10

  2

  0

  Wigtown

  9

  0

  1

  Dunfermline

  19

  6

  2

  Kirkcaldy

  17

  6

  1

  North East Fife

  10

  2

  4

  Aberdeen

  16

  4

  6

  Banff and Buchan

  19

  10

  6

  Gordon

  12

  4

  1

  Kincardine and Deeside

  9

  7

  0

  Moray

  9

  2

  5

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  2

  2

  0

  Caithness

  7

  1

  1

  Inverness

  1

  1

  2

  Lochaber

  8

  2

  0

  Nairn

  0

  0

  0

  Ross and Cromarty

  5

  3

  0

  Skye and Lochalsch

  3

  0

  0

  Sutherland

  8

  0

  3

  East Lothian

  10

  6

  1

  Edinburgh

  13

  15

  7

  Midlothian

  9

  12

  0

  West Lothian

  19

  14

  3

  Argyll and Bute

  1

  0

  2

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0

  0

  1

  Clydebank

  l

  3

  1

  Clydesdale

  8

  3

  0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  9

  6

  1

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3

  3

  1

  Cunninghame

  16

  7

  8

  Dumbarton

  5

  1

  4

  East Kilbride

  10

  1

  2

  Eastwood

  3

  1

  2

  Glasgow

  17

  24

  16

  Hamilton

  10

  0

  3

  Inverclyde

  4

  4

  4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  4

  3

  2

  Kyle and Carrick

  4

  3

  1

  Monklands

  6

  6

  1

  Motherwell

  8

  3

  7

  Renfrew

  17

  15

  3

  Strathkelvin

  13

  5

  1

  Angus

  11

  6

  0

  Dundee

  6

  3

  4

  Perth and Kinross

  24

  8

  4

  Orkney

  15

  4

  2

  Shetland

  6

  0

  3

  Western Isles

  7

  0

  5

  478

  222

  135

  Education Service
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for local education and business partnerships and for the teacher placement service in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced today the Government"s decision to support local education business partnerships across the country. This will build on the work already done under the enterprise and education initiative, TVEI and compacts in Scotland. The
  149
  teacher placement service is also to continue, and arrangements for its future administration will be developed together with those for local partnerships.

  Partnerships involve local education and business interests in work that brings schools and other education institutions, industry and commerce closer together for the benefit of young people and the economy. I propose to ensure that these arrangements are built wherever possible on existing partnership work in Scotland. Our approach will be slightly different from that in England and in Wales to reflect the different circumstances affecting education and business links. I intend to invite interested parties, including the local enterprise companies if they wish, to submit proposals to lead and co-ordinate partnership activity in their areas. My aim will be to ensure the selection of the body with the most appropriate experience and best equipped to deliver a service effectively in each area. The Industry Department for Scotland will continue to be closely involved in the development of these arrangements.

  There will be a development phase over the next 12 months in which my colleagues and I will collaborate closely. Support will come initially from the Department of Trade and Industry. With the formation of partnerships from April 1991 responsibility will pass to the Department of Employment's Training Agency with the Industry Department for Scotland maintaining a close involvement.

  Region

  Year

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total

  Borders

  42

  34

  12

  5

  9

  102

  Central

  24

  33

  54

  46

  —

  157

  Dumfries and Galloway

  25

  25

  32

  44

  9

  135

  Fife

  21

  36

  30

  52

  10

  149

  Grampian

  24

  28

  30

  29

  7

  118

  Highland

  64

  31

  39

  57

  13

  204

  Lothian

  17

  9

  20

  27

  —

  73

  Strathclyde

  41

  28

  39

  49

  6

  163

  Tayside

  30

  20

  40

  50

  10

  150

  Western Isles

  48

  13

  7

  4

  —

  72

  Orkney and Shetland

  39

  29

  25

  28

  5

  126

  Total

  375

  286

  328

  391

  69

  1,449

  Only one reading was found to be above the 1,000 bq/kg limit, in 1986 in the Western Isles.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) farms, (b) sheep and (c) acres currently subject to post-Chernobyl restrictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of 74 farms, approximately 64,000 sheep and about 66,000 acres are currently subject to restrictions.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the number of sheep sampled for radioactivity in each county in Scotland for(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988, (d) 1989 and (e) to date in 1990; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the number of sheep sampled for radioactivity in Scotland for (a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988, (d) 1989 and (e) to date in 1990 including the number of

  Bail Applications
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of cases in which bail was(a) applied for and (b) granted, by sheriff court area, in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report tables for the Scottish Development Agency comparable to tables 15.2.4 and 15.2.5 in Public Expenditure to 1992–93: A Commentary on the Scotland Programme, but covering the years 1984–85 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency does not record financial information on its activities in the form requested, but I have asked the agency to consider whether and how much information can be provided in that form. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Radioactivity
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sheep have been monitored for radioactivity in slaughterhouses in each county in Scotland in each year since 1986; how many were found to be above the 1,000 bq/kg limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The information for each region in Scotland is set out in the table

  sheep with levels of radioactivity (i) over 4,000 bq/kg, (ii) 3,000 to 3,999 bq, (iii) 2,000 to 2,999, (iv) 1,000 to 1,999, (v) 500 to 999, and (vi) below 499; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The results of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's monitoring of sheep for radioactivity, including live-monitoring of sheep in the Scottish restricted areas and slaughterhouse monitoring of sheepmeat, are published regularly and copies are placed in the Library of the House. Some of the published information is in the form requested by the hon. Member. Where it is not, it could be put in that form only at disproportionate cost.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what published comments have been made by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in Scotland on the condition of school buildings.

  Mr. Lang
  Most of the reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate on individual schools contain comments on the state of the accommodation. The reports are published and copies are in the Library.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information on class sizes resulted from the 1989 school census.

  Mr. Lang
  Information about class sizes obtained from the 1989 school census is not yet ready for publication and will be included in statistical bulletins to be published later in the year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the average sizes of classes in(a) English, (b) mathematics, (c) science subjects and (d) history, geography, modern studies, home economics, physical education, technical education and modern languages in SI to S6 in 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not yet ready for publication. Information about class sizes in secondary schools in 1987, by subject, was published in SED statistical bulletin No. 14/C7/1989, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Child Care Policy, Fife
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has met Sheriff Brian Kearney during the inquiry into child care policy in Fife region.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: No.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if the findings from the inquiry into child care policy in Fife will be made public; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when the inquiry into child care policy in Fife will be completed; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a statement on progress being made by the inquiry into child care policy in Fife region;

  (4) when he is likely to receive the findings of the inquiry into child care policy in Fife from Sheriff Brian Kearney.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: I understand that Sheriff Kearney has reached an advanced stage in taking evidence but he is not yet able to indicate a final date for submission of his report. When the Secretary of State receives the report, he will decide whether to make its findings public.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the reasons why the inquiry into Fife regional council which was to be completed within three months from 1 March 1989 has now been running for over 12 months.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: It is for the chairman of the inquiry to determine the procedures necessary for carrying it out and to judge the length of time needed to explore the issues fully.
  152
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of the inquiry into child care policy in Fife and indicate who will pay the costs.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Since the inquiry is still in progress, it is not possible to estimate its costs reliably. When he has received the report of the inquiry, the Secretary of State will decide, in accordance with the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, whether to hold Fife regional council liable to pay all or part of the expenses of the inquiry.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flood Defence
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the effects on the flood defences around the Wash of storms of the nature of those in January and February but with the wind veering by five degrees at high tide.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am advised that the prevailing winds were such during the storms of January and February that there would have been no significant effects on the flood defences around the Wash had the wind veered by five degrees.

  The state of flood defences, including sea walls, is continually monitored by the responsible authorities and close liaison is maintained by my river and coastal engineers with the authorities, particularly the National Rivers Authority, who undertake most of the works.

  Orchards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the percentage of orchards in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland which would qualify for the European Community grubbing-up scheme on the basis of the criteria of (i) under 15 years old and (ii) more than 400 trees per hectare density.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not possible to estimate the proportion of the orchards which would be eligible under the EC Commission's proposal for grubbing-up scheme without disproportionate cost.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his meeting at Sandringham in Norfolk with European Commissioners; and whether he discussed rain forest issues.

  Mr. Gummer
  His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales invited Mr. Carlo Ripa di Meana, European Commissioner for the Environment and Mr. Ray Macsharry, European Commissioner for Agriculture, to visit Sandringham on 19–20 April. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I were also invited. Our discussions covered a wide range of issues.

  Deer Meat
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce compulsory inspection of deer meat intended for human consumption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Commission has published proposals for health rules governing game which, among other things, would require inspection of deer meat intended for human consumption. In advance of decisions in Brussels we have encouraged local authorities to introduce inspection procedures for farmed deer slaughtered in abattoirs.

  The production of deer meat, in common with all other food sold for human consumption, is subject to the general provision of the Food Act 1984 and the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970.

  Radioactivity
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of(a) farms, (b) sheep and (c) acres currently subject to post-Chernobyl restrictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 27 November 1989 at column 136.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the number of sheep sampled for radioactivity in each county in England for(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988, (d) 1989 and (e) to date in 1990; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the total number of sheep sampled for radioactivity in England for (a)1986, (b)1987, (c)1988, (d)1989 and (e)to date in 1990 including the number of sheep with levels of radioactivity (i) over 4,000 bq/kg, (ii) 3,000 to 3,999 bq, (iii) 2,000 to 2,999, (iv) 1,000 to 1,999, (v) 500 to 999 and (vi) below 499; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The results of my Department's radioactivity monitoring in sheep, including live monitoring in Cumbria under the "mark and release" scheme, spatial surveys of sheep in and around the restricted area, slaughterhouse monitoring and laboratory analysis of tissues from sheep carcasses, are published regularly and copies placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep have been monitored for radioactivity in slaughterhouses in each county in England in each year since 1986; how many were found to be above the 1,000 bq/kg limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since the introduction of our programme of slaughterhouse monitoring in February 1989, the following numbers of sheep carcasses have been monitored:

  Cumbria

  Lancashire

  Total

  1989

  5,405

  5,101

  10,506

  11990

  1,637

  1,758

  3,395

  1To 31 March.

  None have been found above the 1,000 bq/kg limit. This programme supplements the continuing live
  154
  monitoring mark and release scheme for all sheep moved out of the restricted areas. We continue to monitor to make sure that no consumer need have any concern whatsoever.

  Farms
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has any plans to introduce definitions of small, medium and large farms.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 April 1990, c. 447]: For the purposes of economic and statistical analysis, the initial farm business surveys undertaken for the Department show farm incomes according to farm size. The size is measured in financial terms and based upon standard gross margins per hectare of crops and per head of livestock.

  Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to prevent the dumping by ships in(a) United Kingdom and (b) international waters of prohibited materials; and what estimate he has of the total tonnage of material so dumped.

  Mr. Curry
  Dumping at sea is controlled in the United Kingdom by part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, under which a licence is required for disposal operations. The Act's requirements apply to all vessels dumping in United Kingdom waters, and more widely to British vessels and to vessels loaded in the United Kingdom. The ban on dumping without a licence will be extended to all vessels in United Kingdom continental shelf waters by the Environment Protection Bill currently before Parliament. Licensed disposal operations are inspected, and samples of waste are analysed, to enforce the legislation.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has introduced regulations to implement the provisions of annex V of MARPOL 73/78—the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships 1973, as amended by the 1978 protocol. The regulations which came into force on 31 December 1988 enforce restrictions on the disposal of garbage into the sea and include a complete ban on the discharge of plastics. These regulations apply to all United Kingdom-registered ships and to foreign-registered ships while in United Kingdom waters.

  From time to time reports are received of illegal dumping, normally of unlicensed rather than prohibited materials. All such reports are investigated but it is not possible to give any estimate of the tonnage involved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by year for the last 10 years for the Doncaster area, the number of(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful appeals for (i) disability allowance and (ii) mobility allowance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the Department does not hold the information on social security appeal
  155
  tribunals in the format requested. National administrative statistics for appeal tribunals are not available for areas smaller than a social security region.

  The tables give the details requested for social security appeal tribunals (SSATs) for the north-east region from 1984 until the nine-month period ending 30 September 1989—the latest figure available. SSATs decide non-medical appeal questions. Medical questions are decided by medical appeal tribunals (MATs), but the details requested are not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member when they are.

  Social Security appeal tribunals in north-east England

  Disablement Benefit appeals heard and decided

  Mobility Allowance appeals heard and decided

  Claimant successful

  Nine months ending 31 December 1984

  115

  2

  Year ending 31 December 1985

  140

  4

  Year ending 31 December 1986

  156

  6

  Year ending 31 December 1987

  141

  5

  Year ending 31 December 1988

  165

  1

  Nine months ending 30 September 1989

  134

  6

  Claimant unsuccessful

  Nine months ending 31 December 1984

  184

  52

  Year ending 31 December 1985

  238

  125

  Year ending 31 December 1986

  253

  234

  Year ending 31 December 1987

  261

  219

  Year ending 31 December 1988

  326

  207

  Nine months ending 30 September 1989

  207

  149

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has received to "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" from the Royal National Instutite for the Blind; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Royal National Institute for the Blind was represented at a meeting I held on 5 April with the disability benefits consortium to discuss "The Way Ahead". We shall give careful consideration to all the institute's comments in carrying forward the detailed work on our proposals.

  Region

  Number of Donations

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Northern

  131,947

  133,544

  128,321

  120,878

  122,267

  Yorkshire

  154,905

  149,128

  146,119

  134,463

  133,088

  Trent

  174,425

  169,680

  174,976

  186,605

  197,746

  East Anglia

  87,650

  86,393

  90,012

  91,536

  92,195

  North West Thames

  189,246

  190,048

  199,731

  193,372

  192,004

  North East Thames

  136,647

  138,875

  136,722

  135,439

  142,716

  South East and South West Thames

  302,097

  282,738

  277,696

  268,585

  282,188

  Wessex

  95,719

  94,088

  93,990

  95,931

  95,484

  Oxford

  119,689

  111,129

  104,609

  104,537

  107,805

  South Western

  170,859

  168,169

  175,570

  180,057

  182,008

  West Midlands

  200,128

  199,389

  199,290

  199,320

  216,485

  Mersey

  117,589

  121,642

  123,190

  112,659

  108,387

  North Western

  181,638

  180,133

  181,587

  176,843

  176,328

  Wales

  96,087

  94,104

  96,637

  94,091

  92,109

  Total

  2,158,626

  2,119,060

  2,128,450

  2,094,316

  2,140,810

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current calculation of the value to all categories of income support recipients of all rebates for community charge in all Welsh district council areas based on the charges now published.

  Mrs. Shephard
  I regret the information requested is not available.

  Spending Power
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East,Official Report, 19 February, columns 554–58, what information he has as to the number of families in each category, for each earnings level, at the latest convenient date.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The information requested is not available.

HEALTH

  Blood Donation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current restrictions are in force in respect of people wishing to donate blood.

  Mr. Freeman
  Healthy people between the ages of 18 and 60 are generally accepted as donors and those who have been regular donors can continue to donate up to the age of 65.

  Individuals at risk of AIDS or hepatitis B or any other disease transmissible by blood are excluded. Visitors to those parts of the world where certain diseases such as malaria are endemic are deferred for an appropriate period.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the past five years and by regional blood transfusion service, the number of blood donations given.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of donations made in the regional blood transfusion centres for the past five years is given in the table:
  157
  Mr" Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will show, by regional blood transfusion service, the frequency with which donors are requested to attend;

  (2) if he will list by regional blood transfusion service the number of donors, by blood group, for the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the last 10 years and by regional health authority, the take-up of hepatitis B vaccine.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advertising campaigns are being prepared by his Department, concerning the problems of bringing to public awareness the low take-up of the hepatitis B vaccine among high-risk groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department recognises the seriousness of hepatitis B. A new edition of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation's memorandum, "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease", will be published shortly and this includes advice on hepatitis B. The Health Education Authority is currently reviewing all its publications on sexually transmitted diseases, including information on hepatitis B.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 23 February refering to Dr. Sylvia Cree of Wolston.

  Mr. Freeman
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replied yesterday.

  Pulse Dye Laser
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if funds are to be made available to help specialist hospitals to meet the costs of installing and operating pulse dye lasers to help cure disfiguring facial birthmarks.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities are free to purchase equipment of this kind from their cash allocations. At present pulse dye lasers are more costly than argon lasers but this situation can be expected to change significantly in the next year or two as this new technology develops.

  St. Catherine's House, Kingsway
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the public inspection rooms at St. Catherine's house, Kingsway; and whether he has any proposals to improve them, including the provision of refreshment and other facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received no representations during recent months concerning the public search room at St. Catherine's house. At the end of 1989 the Registrar-General published the findings of a survey of users of the facilities provided, entitled "Attitudes to the 158
  Public Search Room" and we have now placed a copy in the Library. The survey revealed that a number of improvements were suggested by visitors, but more than three quarters of those responding expressed general satisfaction with the service and facilities provided.

  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which is responsible for the public search room, is seeking new premises in central London in anticipation of the expiry of the lease of St. Catherine's house later this decade. The views expressed by regular visitors will be taken into account in the quest for new premises but I regret that it is not possible to provide refreshment facilities at St. Catherine's house.

  Census Information
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will consider reducing the time limit from 100 years to 80 years or less under which census information on individuals is kept secret, for the benefit of genealogical research.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Census records in England and Wales are closed to public inspection for a period of 100 years to fulfil confidentiality assurances given to the public when a census is taken. This period comes near to ensuring that information is not disclosed about living people. However, with the consent of the person concerned or a direct descendant, or the next of kin if the person has died childless, researchers may be informed of the age and place of birth of an individual as recorded in the censuses of 1891 and 1901. These concessions do not extend beyond 1901 because of the stricter confidentiality assurances given in later censuses.

  Car Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adverse effects of(a) increased benzene concentration levels in the atmosphere arising from the increased use of lead-free petrol and (b) the decreased lead levels arising from reduced use of leaded petrol.

  Mr. Freeman
  The increased use of lead-free petrol is not expected to result in a significant increase in benzene concentrations in the atmosphere.

  As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 3 November 1989 at column 350, the levels of benzene in petrol are regulated under an EC directive. Because the exposure to lead and benzene from petrol is so low and the health effects attributable to these exposures difficult to measure, reliable comparative assessments are not possible. Since 1974 it has been the policy of successive Governments to contain and reduce exposure to lead wherever practicable. The Government will be participating in the European Communities review of benzene in petrol which will include the health implications of such use.

  Hearing Aids
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress his Department has made on the proposals outlined in his reply of 27 July 1989,Official Report, columns 918–919, on provision of hearing aids; and if he will make a statement.
  159
  Mr. Freeman
  The Department issued a consultation paper earlier this month inviting comments on the proposed arrangements for setting up and evaluating a number of pilot projects based on the direct referral of patients from their general practitioner to the hospital audiology service. It also invites comments on issues relating to the training of NHS and private sector audiology staff and the provision of commercial hearing aids under the NHS. The consultation paper has been drawn up with the help of outside experts, including two from the audiology field, an ear nose and throat consultant, a community physician and representatives from Mersey regional health authority and the private and voluntary sectors. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library. Some of the pilot projects, to which the paper refers, will involve contracts between health authorities and the private sector as well as the provision of some part of the hospital audiology service in a community-based setting. We expect to start the projects in the early autumn.

  GPs (Contract)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions there are under the new contract for general practitioners to refuse to add new patients to their lists if(a) women refuse to have cervical smear tests and (b) parents refuse to have their children immunised.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The new contract does not affect the long-standing right of a general practitioner to decide whether or not to accept a patient on to his or her list. GPs have never been required to have or to state a reason for removing a patient from their list or refusing to accept a new patient on to their list. However, to refuse patients solely because they do not wish to be immunised or have a cervical smear test is most unprofessional and suggests a remarkable lack of responsiveness to the needs and wishes of the patient. I am sure that the professional bodies would support the Government in condemning such action.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the changes in waiting lists for each district health authority within the East Anglian region during the period 1979 to 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The available information is given in the tables. Due to NHS restructuring in 1982, comparable figures are available only for the districts shown in the tables.

  In-patient waiting list, by district health authority, East Anglian regional health authority, as at 30 September, 1979 and 19891

  District Health Authority

  1979

  19891

  Change

  Change Per cent.

  Peterborough

  3,530

  4,829

  1,299

  36·8

  Norwich

  7,665

  10,177

  2,512

  32·8

  Great Yarmouth

  3,621

  3,940

  319

  8·8

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  3,073

  2,799

  −274

  −8·9

  1 Less self-deferred cases.

  Source:

  SBH2O3 return 1979.

  KHQ7,7a returns 1989.
  160

  In-patient cases treated, surgical acute sector1 by district health authority. East Anglian regional health authority, 1979 and 1989

  District Health Authority

  1979

  1989

  Change

  Change Per cent.

  Peterborough

  11,704

  18,412

  6,708

  57·3

  Norwich

  26,424

  34,408

  7,984

  30·2

  Great Yarmouth

  7,058

  11,118

  4,060

  57·5

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  8,676

  10,240

  1,564

  18·0

  1 General surgery.

  Source:

  SH3 return 1979.

  SH3a return 1989.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the awards given to voluntary organisations under section 64 procedure for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 February 1990, c. 122]: The grants awarded in 1989–90 are listed in the table:

  Grants to voluntary organisations under S64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968—general scheme (subhead E2(1)A) 1989–90

  £

  Access Committee (England)

  90,000

  Action for Victims of Medical Accidents

  20,000

  Action on Smoking and Health

  241,500

  Adfam

  18,375

  Advance

  33,000

  Age Concern

  252,000

  Age Exchange Theatre Company

  10,000

  AIDS Ahead

  40,000

  AIDS Care Education and Training (ACET)

  50,000

  Alcohol Concern

  583,000

  Aled Richards Trust

  7,500

  Alzheimer's Disease Society

  130,000

  Amarant Trust

  13,000

  Amnesia Association

  8,000

  Anorexic Family Aid

  29,000

  Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus

  14,790

  Association of Breastfeeding Mothers

  2,500

  Association of Professions for the Mentally Handicapped

  7,000

  Association of Residential Communities for the Retarded

  20,000

  Association to Combat Huntington's Chorea

  20,000

  Babylife Support Systems

  8,000

  Black HIV Network

  20,000

  Body Positive

  30,000

  Breakthrough Trust

  40,000

  Breastcare and Mastectomy Association of Great Britain

  15,000

  Bridge

  50,000

  British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering

  285,000

  British Association for Counselling

  28,000

  British Association for Services to the Elderly

  12,000

  British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (BASPCAN)

  23,125

  British Association of Cancer United Patients (BACUP)

  15,000

  British Association of the Hard of Hearing

  50,000

  British Council of Organisations of Disabled People

  30,000

  British Fluoridation Society

  30,000

  British Infertility Counselling Association

  3,500

  British Institute of Industrial Therapy

  25,000

  British Institute of Mental Handicap

  35,000

  British Kidney Patient Association

  25,000

  British Organ Donor Society

  5,000

  Brittle Bones Society

  8,000

  Brook Advisory Centres

  45,000

  Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped

  20,000

  161

  £

  Cancer Help Centre

  12,000

  Cancerlink

  10,000

  Carers National Association

  82,500

  Catholic Child Welfare Council

  1,750

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

  42,200

  Centre on Environment for the Handicapped

  82,010

  Chest, Heart and Stroke Association

  50,000

  Child Accident Prevention Trust

  93,500

  Child Care

  152,500

  Childline

  82,200

  Child Poverty Action Group

  17,000

  Child Psychotherapy Trust

  28,750

  Children's Legal Centre

  41,500

  Children's Society

  10,000

  Chinese Health Information Centre

  26,430

  Christian Concern for the Mentally Handicapped

  11,000

  Coeliac Society

  14,500

  Community Hygiene Concern

  14,800

  Community Service Volunteers

  6,200

  Compassionate Friends

  20,000

  Contact

  30,000

  Contact a Family

  95,000

  Cope

  1,600

  Coronary Prevention Group

  70,000

  Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People

  60,000

  Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme Ltd.

  80,000

  Cruse

  131,100

  Cry-Sis

  4,000

  Demand

  9,000

  Dial UK

  45,000

  Disability Alliance

  25,000

  Disabled Living Centres Council

  20,000

  Disabled Living Foundation

  326,000

  Disabled Living Services Manchester

  16,000

  Disablement Income Group

  33,000

  Downs Syndrome Association

  15,000

  Elizabeth Fitzroy Homes

  25,000

  Endometriosis Society

  10,000

  Ethnic Study Group

  67,625

  Extend

  25,000

  Family Holiday Association

  7,000

  Family Planning Association

  130,000

  Family Policy Studies Centre

  108,339

  Family Rights Group

  42,500

  Family Service Units

  240,000

  Family Welfare Association

  96,450

  First Key

  11,572

  Foundation for Conductive Education

  24,200

  Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths

  15,000

  Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development (Forward)

  20,000

  Friends for the Young Deaf

  10,000

  Frontliners

  101,811

  Gingerbread

  78,000

  Good Practice in Mental Health

  80,000

  Haemophilia Society

  15,500

  Headway Association

  40,000

  Herpes Association

  7,500

  Holiday Care Service

  17,500

  Home Start Consultancy

  67,500

  Homes for Homeless People

  48,000

  Horticultural Therapy

  58,500

  Housing Campaign for Single Homeless

  36,500

  Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence

  324,000

  Institute of Transcultural Health Care

  13,990

  International Social Service

  47,500

  International Society for Alternative and Augmentative Communication (ISAAC)

  4,000

  In Touch

  2,500

  Iris Fund

  2,500

  Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled

  1,100

  Kids

  25,000

  Kids Clubs Network (was Nat Out of School Alliance)

  95,400

  Kings Fund Centre

  16,000

  La Leche League of Great Britain

  7,390

  Landmark South London HIV Centre

  72,000

  162

  £

  L'Arche Ltd

  12,000

  Leisure Link

  7,500

  London Black Women's Health Action Project

  3,000

  London Lighthouse

  300,000

  MacFarlane Trust

  100,000

  Mainliners

  30,000

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  10,000

  Marie Curie Memorial Foundation

  10,000

  Maternity Alliance

  37,000

  Mencap

  250,000

  Menieres Society

  5,000

  Mental After Care Association

  50,000

  Mental Health Film Council

  45,000

  Mental Health Foundation

  50,000

  Mildmay Mission Hospital

  130,000

  Miscarriage Association

  4,000

  Mobility Information Service

  7,000

  Motor Neurone Disease Association

  10,000

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association

  10,000

  Nafsiyat

  15,000

  National Aids Trust

  204,964

  National Association for Maternal and Child Welfare

  15,000

  National Association for Mental Health (Mind)

  439,790

  National Association for Patient Participation

  6,000

  National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  290,000

  National Association for the Childless

  33,000

  National Association for the Limbless Disabled

  15,000

  National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital

  90,000

  National Association of Family Based Respite Care

  14,792

  National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends

  24,000

  National Association of Voluntary Hostels

  5,250

  National Association of Young People in Care

  5,000

  National Asthma Campaign

  10,000

  National Back Pain Association

  21,000

  National Childbirth Trust

  70,930

  National Childminding Association

  110,000

  National Children's Bureau

  370,790

  National Childrens Home

  8,750

  National Citizens Advocacy

  20,000

  National Community Health Resource

  61,545

  National Council for One Parent Families

  150,000

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  106,425

  National Federation of Kidney Patients

  10,000

  National Fostercare Asociation

  100,000

  National Information for Parents of Prematures (NIPPERS)

  10,000

  National Information Forum

  16,000

  National Institute for Social Work

  187,500

  National Joint Emergency Committee (Red Cross/St. John Ambulance)

  25,000

  National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents (NORCAP)

  8,000

  National Osteoporosis Society

  20,000

  National Playbus Association

  57,880

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  91,000

  National Self Help Support Centre

  40,000

  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

  325,000

  National Stepfamily Association

  10,000

  National Toy Libraries

  45,000

  National Youth Bureau

  69,000

  Neurofibromatosis Association (LINK)

  5,000

  New Horizons Trust

  10,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne Council for the Disabled

  10,000

  Northern Schizophrenia Fellowship

  27,500

  North Lambeth Day Centre Ltd.

  2,667

  North Regional Association for the Blind

  62,097

  North West Fellowship

  30,000

  Ockenden Venture

  186,866

  One to One

  23,500

  Outset

  25,000

  Overseas Doctors Association

  17,000

  Pain Relief Foundation

  8,500

  Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services

  6,500

  Parentline Opus

  40,000

  163

  £

  Parents Against Injustice (PAIN)

  24,000

  Parents for Children

  48,500

  Parkinsons Disease Society

  13,375

  Partially Sighted Society

  10,000

  Patients Association

  24,876

  Phobic Action

  20,000

  Phobics Society

  7,500

  Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied

  30,000

  Positively Women

  25,000

  Pre-School Playgroups Association

  410,000

  Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability

  62,500

  Queen Elizabeth Foundation for the Disabled

  36,000

  Rainer Foundation

  8,000

  Rape Counselling and Research Project

  25,000

  Rathbone Society

  20,000

  Raynauds' Association Trust

  6,000

  Research Council for Complementary Medicine

  20,000

  Research Trust for Metabolic Diseases

  5,000

  Restricted Growth

  6,500

  Richmond Fellowship

  97,000

  Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR)

  233,000

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  270,000

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  40,000

  Samaritans

  155,000

  Save the Children Fund

  923,309

  Scoliosis Association UK

  1,000

  Sense (NADBRH)

  45,000

  Sequal

  40,500

  Sexual and Personal Relationships of the Disabled

  36,000

  Shape

  3,650

  Sickle Cell Society

  25,000

  Society of Voluntary Associates

  2,550

  South Regional Association for the Blind

  107,381

  Spinal Injuries Association

  25,000

  St. Christopher's Hospice Information Service

  24,289

  St. Katherine Housing Trust

  18,000

  St. Mungo Housing Trust (Severe Weather Payment)

  1,186

  Standing Committee on Sexual Abuse of Children (SCOSAC)

  20,000

  Standing Conference on Drug Abuse (SCODA)

  277,000

  Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Association

  30,000

  Support After Termination for Abnormality

  5,000

  Tay Sachs and Allied Diseases Association

  1,000

  Terence Higgins Trust

  450,000

  Thalassamenia Society

  15,000

  Tibbie Trust

  1,500

  Tripscope

  4,000

  Tuberous Sclerosis Association

  2,000

  Turning Point

  110,000

  Twins and Multiple Births Association

  5,000

  Vitiligio

  4,000

  Vocal

  15,000

  Voice for the Child in Care

  10,000

  Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children

  60,000

  Voluntary Organisations Liaison Committee for Under Fives

  36,000

  Volunteer Centre

  12,500

  Walsingham Community Homes

  10,000

  Wessex Rehabilitation Association

  10,000

  Westminster Pastoral Foundation

  70,000

  Widows Advisory Trust

  18,000

  Winged Fellowship Trust

  15,000

  Women's Aid Federation (England)

  110,000

  Women's Health Concern

  20,000

  Women's National Cancer Control Campaign

  74,500

  Womens Therapy Centre

  15,000

  Working Mothers Association

  15,000

  Young Minds

  10,000

  Total paid

  15,049,069

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments (Committees)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the estimated cost of the sitting of the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, held on 28 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  It is not possible to identify separately such costs.

EMPLOYMENT

  Eastern Bloc Tourists
  Mr. Butterfill: T
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has to support schemes to attract tourists from eastern bloc countries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority has increased the resources in its London and Frankfurt offices in order to attract more tourists from eastern Europe. The authority is also developing programmes aimed at key segments of this market, including business travel, language and other educational activities as well as at general visitors.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Franks: T
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage United Kingdom unemployment has fallen since June 1987.

  Mr. Howard
  Since June 1987, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by 44 per cent.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in the rate of unemployment since July 1986.

  Mr. Howard
  In March 1990 the rate of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 5·6 per cent., compared with a rate of 11·3 per cent., in July 1986, a fall of 5·7 percentage points.

  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give figures for the number of unemployed in the London boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth, respectively, for 1985 and the latest available statistics.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in the London boroughs requested in March 1985 and March 1990:

  Unemployed claimants in the following local authority districts (not seasonally adjusted)

  March 85

  March 90

  Lambeth

  25,680

  13,378

  Southwark

  20,590

  11,354

  Wandsworth

  16,556

  7,707

  Note: Direct comparisons over the period cannot be made due to the changes in compilation of the unemployment count.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the United Kingdom unemployment rate and (b) the European Community average unemployment rate.
  165
  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest comparable data show that the standardised seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is 5·7 per cent. compared to an EEC average of 8·6 per cent.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in the north-west of England.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989, the civilian work force in employment in the north-west of England stood at 2,866,000. This represents an increase of 342,000 or 14 per cent. since March 1983.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in the east midlands.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In March 1990 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the east midlands was 95,200, a drop of 23,200 or 19·6 per cent. compared with a year ago.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the increase in the work force in employment in the United Kingdom since March 1983.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989, the latest date for which information is available, the work force in employment was 27,077,000, the highest level ever. This represents an increase of 3,513,000 or 15 per cent. since March 1983.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the increase in the work force in employment in the year September 1989 represents women.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the year to September 1989 women accounted for 68 per cent. of the increase of work force in employment in the United Kingdom.

  Retraining
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve retraining opportunities for those in work.

  Mr. Howard
  Training through life is necessary for all those at work and to maintain Britain's competitiveness. The main responsibility must lie with employers. They will receive support through the network of training and enterprise councils I have established and through the action programme to encourage investment in people being developed by the national training task force and other business organisations.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total expenditure planned for his Department in the 57 urban programme authority areas.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department will spend around £1·1billion in the urban programme authority areas during 1990–91 to help inner city residents through employment, training and enterprise measures.

  Community Industry Scheme
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional resources he intends to give to the Yorkshire and Humberside region to extend and improve the community industry scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department contracts with Community Industry Limited to deliver the community industry scheme. It is up to the company to decide how resources are allocated on a regional basis. The scheme plays a valuable role in helping up to 7,000 disadvantaged young people a year aged 16 to 19 to obtain and retain employment.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total estimated expenditure on employment training in 1989–90 and 1991–2.

  Mr. Howard
  Expenditure on employment training (ET) in 1989–90 is estimated to be £1,112 million. For 1991–92 planned expenditure is £1,180 million.

  Mr. Leight
  on To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the employment training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) on 5 March 1990,Official Report, column 507.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what procedures are undertaken when an employment training manager withdraws from employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Immediate action is taken by the Training Agency to ensure that trainees continue to receive their training with another training manager in the same locality and to secure the recovery of any outstanding public moneys.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training agents and training managers are involved in employment training; and how many of them meet approved training organisation criteria.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 31 March there were 194 training agents and 1,378 training managers involved in employment training. They are required to achieve approved training organisation status by the end of a two-year assessment. Those providers who started employment training in September 1988 are due to achieve approved training organisation status by September 1990.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the public expenditure per trainee on employment training in 1989–90; and what it will be in 1990–91 in Scotland.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimated public expenditure per trainee week on employment training in 1989–90 in Great Britain is £104. Regional ET plans for 1990–91 are for internal management information purposes only.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome
  167
  of the meeting held on 19 April between the Minister of State, Department of Employment and representatives of the voluntary sector on the changes to employment training.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: I had an encouraging and helpful discussion with representatives of the voluntary sector.

  Training Credits
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will ensure that every young person reserving a training place under the announced pilot schemes for training credits will have any additional costs met by either his employer or by the local training and enterprise council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  In the prospectus "Training Credits for Young People", in which I invite training and enterprise councils (TECs) to bid to run pilot credit schemes, I have made clear that any training costs additional to those shown on the face of the credit are to be met either by the employer or the TEC. Young people will not have to meet such additional costs themselves.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional funds the Government are making available to fund the training credit pilot schemes announced on 27 March.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training credit pilot schemes will be funded through: planned resources for youth training; transfer to the Training Agency of relevant provision previously made through the revenue support grant in respect of part-time courses of education and training for 16 to 18-year-olds; additional funding available specifically for credit arrangements, amounting to £12 million in 1991–92 and £25 million per year in subsequent years.

  Disability
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of firms with more than 20 workers employ fewer than their quota of 3 per cent. registered disabled people and have no permit to do so.

  Mr. Eggar
  In June 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, 19·3 per cent. of firms with 20 or more workers employed less than 3 per cent. people with disabilities and did not have a permit to do so.

  Employers who are below quota and without permits have not necessarily committed an offence unless they have engaged a person who was not registered as disabled when a suitable registered disabled person was available.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to announce the results of his Department's review of services to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Eggar
  As I announced in my reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 12 March >Official Report, column 135, the consultative document which will give the results of the review 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 anticipate that we will be in a position to publish the consultative document in June this year.
  168
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals for the future of the quota system in respect of the employment of disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  The quota scheme is among the matters being considered in the internal review of services to people with disabilities which my Department has been undertaking. We anticipate that we will be in a position to publish a consultative document with the results of the review in June this year.

  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the staffing of the employment medical advisory service within the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1990, there were 134 staff in post in the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what concessions he plans for companies prepared to fund more training through the training and enterprise council structure.

  Mr. Howard
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech on 20 March that any individuals or companies who donate funds to training and enterprise councils to support their activities will be able to claim tax relief on these contributions.

  This concession is a significant step forward in encouraging contributions to training and enterprise councils from local businesses.

  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received contracts enabling them to become operational.

  Mr. Howard
  Operational contracts have now been signed with 12 training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department intends to monitor the quality of training provided by TECs.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will be required to set out their strategy for ensuring the quality of training in their corporate and business plans. These plans will form part of a TEC's contract with my Department and will be subject to regular performance monitoring. In addition the training standards advisory service will be appraising the quality of training provision offered by TECs.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what mechanisms are in place to enable regular financial monitoring of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs), under their contract with the Secretary of State for Employment, will be required to produce regular management and financial information on their performance and activities. Details of these requirements are set out in the TEC's operating agreement, a copy of which is available in the Library.
  169
  The TECs will also publish annual reports and will be subject to independent audit by my Department and the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had from TEC board members on the funding of TECs.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received a number of representations from training and enterprise council (TEC) board members on general funding issues. The TECs will receive agreed resources to carry out their plans and my officials are currently negotiating with a number of TECs as they prepare their corporate and business plans about the resources that will be made available.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what original level of overall funding to the TEC network was outlined by his Department; and what is the latest figure.

  Mr. Eggar
  The prospectus for training and enterprise councils, "Training and Enterprise Councils: A Prospectus for the 1990s", indicated that TECs would have executive responsibility for almost £3 billion of public expenditure. The level of provision for training and enterprise programmes in 1990–91, including an estimate of spending through the TEC network is given in the supply estimate 1990–91, class VI Department of Employment (242-VI).

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure he has for the number of training and enterprise councils now in the development phase.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received development funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  Sixty-seven training and enterprise councils (TECs) have been awarded development funding to date. Of these, operational contracts have now been signed with the first 12 training and enterprise councils.

  TVEI
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total expenditure planned by the Government on the technical and vocational education initiative over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government currently plan to spend £801 million on the technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI) over the financial years 1990–91 to 1997–98. A total of £421 million has already been spent on the pilot-preparatory phase and on extending TVEI to all schools and colleges.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the statement by the right hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope),Official Report, 17 January 1989, column 141, what conclusions he has come to on the implications of the judgment in the Derek Cain case for health and safety on YTS schemes; how many families were contacted with regard to compensation following his review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 2 February 1989,Official Report, columns 336–37 and 11 April 1989, Official Report, column 809.
  170
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources have been given to the Health and Safety Executive to implement the COSHH regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 6 February 1990,Official Report, column 556.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the Health and Safety Executive; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and the director general of the Health and Safety Executive on 31 January when a range of matters relating to the responsibilities of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive were discussed.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many custodial sentences were given for Health and Safety offences instigated by the Health and Safety Executive for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Since 1974, two cases prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive have resulted in suspended custodial sentences.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many field inspectorate staff there were on 1 March 1987, 1988 and 1989, within the Health and Safety Executive, how many trainee inspectorate staff there were on these dates; and what was the number of workplaces registered with each inspectorate on these dates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not all available for the precise dates requested. On the nearest available dates, the information is given for those factory, agricultural, mines and quarries inspectors working from district or area offices. Field inspectors do not include nuclear installations or specialist inspectors.

  Composite

  Year

  Inspector Numbers

  Number of trainees in total1

  Number of workplaces as registered at 31 March

  1 March 1987

  727·5

  2117

  719,738

  1 March 1988

  716·0

  102

  707,444

  1 March 1989

  729·5

  99

  3692,078

  1 There are no trainee grades for mines and quarries inspectors.

  2 This includes figures for the factory inspectorate at 31 March.

  3 This includes agricultural premises registered in July 1989.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspectors there were in the Health and Safety Executive on 1 March 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, in the(a) nuclear, (b) mines, (c) quarries, (d) agriculture, (e) factory, (f) industrial air pollution, (g) explosives and (h) specialist inspectorates; and what was the total number of Health and Safety Executive inspectors on each of these dates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is as follows (1 March figures):

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  (a)

  Nuclear

  102

  118

  131·5

  163

  (b)

  Mines

  66

  63

  57

  46

  (c)

  Quarries

  16

  11

  12

  13

  171

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  (d)

  Agriculture

  164

  151

  155

  161

  (e)

  Factory

  561·5

  546

  560·5

  575·5

  (f)

  Industrial air pollution1

  37

  —

  —

  —

  (g)

  Explosives2

  16

  13

  13

  11

  (h)

  Specialist2

  208·5

  201·5

  197

  194·5

  Total HSE inspectors3

  1,241

  1,170·5

  1,188

  1,230

  1 The industrial air pollution inspectorate transferred to the Department of Environment on 1 April 1987.

  2 Explosives inspectors work alongside other specialist inspectors in HSE's technology division.

  3 The total number of HSE inspectors includes those working outside inspectorates eg, contributing to policy, standard work etc.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give(a) the number of cases brought to magistrates courts by the Health and Safety Executive between 1974 to 1989 and (b) the number of cases brought to Crown courts between 1974 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. Figures available to date for informations laid, are for the year 1988–89. In that year, of the informations laid in England and Wales by the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates, 1,990 were heard in the magistrates courts and 66 in the Crown court.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give(a) the number of female inspectors as a proportion of all inspectors within the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the number of ethnic minority groups as a proportion of all inspectors, for 1974 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Since 1 August 1975, the total number of inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive, the number of female inspectors, and the number of female inspectors expressed as a percentage of the total are as follows. Earlier figures are not available.

  Total inspectors in HSE

  Female inspectors included in total

  Female inspectors as per cent, of total

  11975

  1,014

  57·5

  5·7

  21976

  1,091·5

  67·5

  6·2

  1977

  1,352·5

  68

  5

  1978

  1,389·5

  79

  5·7

  1979

  1,426·5

  98

  6·9

  1980

  1,444·5

  108

  7·5

  1981

  1,404

  102·5

  7·3

  1982

  1,323·5

  85·5

  6·5

  1983

  1,276·5

  77

  6

  1984

  1,239

  74

  6

  1985

  1,266

  84

  6·6

  1986

  1,231·5

  87·5

  7·1

  1987

  1,204·5

  97·5

  8·1

  1988

  1,165

  93·5

  8

  1989

  1,182·5

  106

  9

  1990

  1,239

  118

  9·5

  1 (1 August).

  2 (1 April).

  Information on the ethnic origins of inspectors in HSE is available from 1988. Provision of the information by staff is voluntary. Details of those inspectors who responded to ethnic minority surveys are as follows:
  172

  Total respondents

  Respondents from ethnic minority groups included in total

  Percentage of respondents in ethnic minority groups

  11988

  1,076

  6

  0·6

  1989

  1,057

  6

  0·6

  1 December.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each year from 1974 to 1989, the number of Health and Safety Executive field inspectors(a) appointed, (b) resigning and (c) retiring.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information available is given for those factory, agricultural, mines, quarries and industrial air pollution inspectors working from district or area Offices. Field inspectors do not include installations or specialist inspectors.

  Year

  Number appointed3

  Number resigned3

  Number retiring3

  11979

  n/a

  14

  3

  1980

  n/a

  21

  19

  1981

  n/a

  26

  28

  1982

  n/a

  13

  21

  1983

  n/a

  9

  24

  1984

  n/a

  13

  23

  1985

  36

  19

  28

  1986

  72

  20

  22

  11987

  44

  37

  32

  1988

  52

  30

  19

  1989

  74

  28

  23

  1 Figures relate to period July-December only.

  2 The industrial air pollution inspectorate transferred to the Department of the Environment on 1 April 1987.

  3 Centrally held information is not available for before 1985 (appointments) or July 1979 (resignations and retirements).

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the(a) number of cases brought to court by the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the number of successful prosecutions for 1974 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. However, the table shows the number of informations laid and convictions obtained since 1975.

  Informations laid by HSC/enforcing authorities (excluding local authorities), 1975–1988/894

  Date of hearing

  Number of informations laid

  Of which convictions

  11975

  2,956

  2,732

  11976

  2,174

  2,010

  11977

  2,814

  2,546

  11978

  2,603

  2,364

  21979

  2,427

  2,227

  21980

  2,624

  2,416

  31981

  1,892

  1,654

  31982

  2,351

  2,065

  1983

  2,238

  1,941

  1984

  2,209

  1,944

  1985

  2,321

  1,915

  1986–87

  2,199

  1,771

  1987–88

  2,337

  2,053

  41988–89

  2,334

  2,079

  1 Informations laid by Her Majesty's factory inspectorate only.

  2 Informations laid by HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates.

  173
  3 Informations laid by HSE's factoryk agricultural and mines and quarries inspectorates.

  4 Provisional.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of workplaces that last received preventive inspection within(a) the past year, (b) two years, (c) five years and (d) 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The table shows the total number of preventative inspection visits made by the Health and Safety Executive's factory, agricultural, mines, quarries and specialist inspectors for the periods for which information is available:

  Period

  Number of inspections

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  158,860

  1 April 1987–31 March 1989

  317,964

  1 April 1986–31 March 1989

  481,641

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of
  State for Employment what was the budget for the Health and Safety Committee and Health and Safety Executive for each year from 1974 to 1989; what was the amount as a proportion of total public expenditure in each year; and what was the amount in real terms with 1974–75 = 100.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The level of gross financial provision to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, for each year from 1974 to 1989 is shown in the table, expressed(a) in cash terms (b) at 1974–75 price levels and (c) as a percentage of total public expenditure.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (£)

  (£)

  1974–75

  13,320

  13,320

  0·031

  1975–76

  27,922

  22,701

  0·052

  1976–77

  38,398

  26,802

  0·064

  1977–78

  44,413

  28,203

  0·070

  1978–79

  47,508

  27,555

  0·063

  1979–80

  56,843

  27,796

  0·063

  1980–81

  72,063

  31,275

  0·066

  1981–82

  81,303

  31,257

  0·067

  1982–83

  82,533

  30,224

  0·062

  1983–84

  89,361

  31,339

  0·064

  1984–85

  91,488

  30,566

  0·061

  1985–86

  96,585

  30,521

  0·061

  1986–87

  97,808

  29,831

  0·059

  1987–88

  102,341

  30,395

  0·059

  1988–89

  109,426

  30,092

  0·061

  For consistency, the figures have been adjusted to remove funds provided during 1981–82 to 1984–85 for HSE's dispersal to Bootle; and to remove provision in earlier years for the industrial air pollution inspectorate which transferred to the Department of Environment in 1987.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of doctors leaving the Health and Safety Executive for retirement or resignation reasons in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1988, four doctors resigned and four retired. In the following year a further three resigned and two retired.
  174
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of inspectorate staff(a) retiring and (b) resigning from each Health and Safety Executive inspectorate within the last 12-month period.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested for the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 is as follows:

  Inspectors:

  Inspectorate

  (a) Retiring

  (b) Resigning

  Nuclear

  5

  2

  Mines

  7

  1

  Quarries1

  1

  1

  Agriculture

  5

  3

  Factory

  10

  27

  Specialists2

  6

  11

  1 From 1 October 1989 the quarries inspectorate was amalgamated with the factories and agriculture division.

  1 Includes explosives inspectors working in HSE's technology division.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of manslaughter charges in respect of health and safety offences for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The offence of manslaughter forms part of general criminal law and consequently the Health and Safety Executive's inspectors are not able themselves to initiate prosecutions for manslaughter. However. when appropriate, cases are passed to the Crown prosecution service for consideration. The Health and Safety Executive does not, therefore, keep the information requested.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the average fines at (a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts in cases taken by the Health and Safety Executive in 1974 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is available in the form requested only for 1988–89. In that year, provisional figures show that the average fines obtained by HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates in England and Wales were £505 in a magistrates court and £2,145 in the Crown court.

  Training Tax
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to introduce a training tax on the payroll of every enterprise in Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The most effective incentive for companies to train is a knowledge and understanding of their skill needs, not centralised regulation based on statutory powers.

  Tourism
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what impact tourism has made on employment in the west midlands.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available in the form requested, but it is estimated that the number of employees in employment in the hotel and catering industry in the west midlands in December 1989 was 89,000—5,000 more than in December 1988.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to publicise the advantages for tourists of visiting areas outside the main tourist centres.
  175
  Mr. Nicholls
  From 1 April 1990, much of the work of the English tourist board has been devolved to the 12 regional tourist boards, together with substantially increased resources. This will enable the regional boards to market their regions more effectively, thereby encouraging the wider dispersal of tourism.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the tourism industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is published in table 8.1 of the April 1990 issue of Employment Gazette.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has commissioned any research into the effects of withdrawal of section 4 tourism grant funding on the tourism industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has commissioned research to look at the progress of those tourism projects whose applications to the English tourist board could not be considered before the suspension of the section 4 scheme.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total increase in the numbers of self-employed in the periods(a) 1959 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimated number of self-employed in the United Kingdom rose from 1,906,000 in June 1979 to 3,241,000 in June 1989, an increase of 1,335,000 or 70 per cent.

  Estimates before 1970 are not strictly comparable with later figures due to a change in methodology. In 1969, there were an estimated 1,853,000 self-employed in the United Kingdom.

  Training Costs
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will set out the weekly level of funding to cover training costs per youth trainees in 1989–90 and 1992–93 in 1990 prices.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Exchequer contribution towards youth training costs in 1989–90 and 1992–93 are set out in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm. 1006).

  Additional funds will be made available to training and enterprise councils, and local enterprise companies in Scotland, and whose bids to pilot training credits for young people are accepted. These will involve a transfer of the appropriate proportion of relevant elements from the revenue support grant, and additional sums of £12 million in 1991–92 and £25 million in subsequent years.

  Factory Inspectorate
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to retain trained factory inspectorate staff within the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has already taken measures to retain trained factory inspectorate staff. These include improved pay, particularly for basic grade inspectors and the introduction of a176
  flexible pay scheme which aims to reward good performance. Priority is also being given to creating improved career development and training opportunities.

  Job-related Training
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in the number of employers receiving job-related training between 1984 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Defining employers as self-employed people with employees, the number receiving job-related training in the four-week reference period of the labour force survey increased from 25,000 (2·8 per cent.) in 1984 to 56,000 (5·5 per cent.) in 1989.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how TECs and LECs will respond to the interests of small firms.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies will develop plans based on a sound assessment of local needs, including those of small firms.

  They will be directly responsible for major current programmes which help small firms and promote self-employment. These include the enterprise allowance scheme, business growth training and, except in Wales, business counselling for small firms. In Scotland, local enterprise companies will, in addition, provide a wide range of economic development and environmental improvement services.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received in respect of small firms and their opportunities to contribute to training.

  Mr. Eggar
  I receive a number of representations from the small firms sector concerning a range of topics including training. My Department helps small firms through a comprehensive package of training and business support. This includes the small firms service which dealt with some 300,000 inquiries in 1989 and provided 50,000 consultancies, the enterprise allowance scheme, which since its commencement in 1983 has helped over 500,000 unemployed people take up self employment, and business growth training, which has already provided 92,000 training opportunities since its start in April 1989. Training and enterprise councils are taking over the running and development of these and will introduce new services for small firms.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the Government's proposals to encourage an expansion in the provision of workplace nurseries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Since the beginning of the year, Ministers in the Employment Department have answered six questions in the House, received 15 letters from hon. Members and 20 from members of the public on the subject of child care facilities including workplace nurseries.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are placed into jobs in each year by the employment service.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1989 the total number of people placed in jobs in Great Britain was 1,890,790.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to improve the work of the wages councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The councils are empowered to set minimum rates of pay in certain industries. Checks by wages inspectors show that compliance with wages councils orders is running at a very high level.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions for contravention of wages councils legislation there were in(a) the last three months, (b) the last six months and (c) the last 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of prosecutions was as follows:

  (a) Four from 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1990

  (b) Six from 1 October 1989 to 31 March 1990

  (c) 13 from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the establishments prosecuted for contravention of wages councils legislation under the Wages Act 1986 in 1989 together with(a) the number of charges levelled in each case and the charges on which they were prosecuted and (b) the number of employees underpaid in each prosecution for underpayment.

  Table 1—Establishments found failing to post wages council notices—1989

  Wages Councils

  London

  South East

  Eastern

  South West

  Midlands

  North West

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Aerated Waters

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Clothing Manufacture

  68

  3

  2

  8

  31

  53

  7

  9

  4

  185

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  8

  7

  2

  6

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  29

  Button Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flax and Hemp

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fur

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  4

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  1

  1

  2

  4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  10

  Hairdressing Undertakings

  32

  41

  71

  72

  47

  90

  69

  47

  47

  516

  Hat Cap and Millinery

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Lace Finishing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laundry

  2

  4

  —

  7

  3

  4

  —

  2

  11

  34

  Linen and Cotton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Handkerchief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Made-up Textile

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perambulator and Invalid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carriage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  4

  3

  1

  —

  11

  Rope Twine and Net

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Sack and Bag

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Toy Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Retail Non-Food Trades

  35

  172

  154

  299

  265

  346

  193

  93

  177

  1,734

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  65

  353

  313

  436

  462

  794

  387

  238

  289

  3,337

  Licensed Non-Residential

  21

  145

  170

  205

  187

  183

  73

  110

  147

  1,241

  Licensed Residential and Restaurant

  39

  112

  94

  185

  91

  111

  45

  63

  121

  861

  178
  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:

  Number of charges

  Charges prosecuted

  Number of employees underpaid

  Maurices Discount, Nottingham

  1

  1

  1

  Bishops of Swanage, Swanage

  1

  1

  1

  Ron Whites Fruit Basket, Southampton

  2

  2

  1

  Johns, South Ockenden

  1

  1

  0

  Kingfisher, Hull

  5

  5

  5

  Bhatias, Rochester

  5

  4

  2

  Record Stores, Rochester

  13

  9

  2

  Gosport RN Association Limited, Gosport

  3

  3

  3

  Grahams Transport Stop, Bridgewater

  2

  2

  2

  Franklins of Saltburn

  3

  3

  3

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a breakdown(a) by wages inspectorate division and (b) by wages councils, of establishments checked, and those found to be contravening wages council legislation in 1989, and the number of prosecutions under specific sections of the Wages Act 1986.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on 29 March 1990,Official Report, columns 251–56, tables 2 and 4, which gives the numbers of establishments checked and those found to be paying less than the statutory minimum in 1989.

  The remainder of the information requested is given in the following tables:
  179

  Wages Councils

  London

  South East

  Eastern

  South West

  Midlands

  North West

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  31

  71

  52

  128

  55

  88

  76

  27

  87

  615

  Total

  304

  910

  863

  1,354

  1,145

  1,686

  857

  593

  887

  8,599

  Table 2—Establishments found failing to keep adequate records of wages paid—1989

  Wages Councils

  London

  S. East

  Eastern

  S.West

  Midlands

  N.West

  Yorks and H'side

  North

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Aerated Waters

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clothing Manufacture

  3

  1

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  2

  11

  Boot and Shoe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Repairing

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Button Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coffin Furniture and

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cerement Making

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cotton Waste

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Reclamation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flax and Hemp

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fur

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hairdressing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Undertakings

  5

  12

  6

  4

  5

  10

  9

  6

  3

  60

  Hat Cap and Millinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lace Finishing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laundry

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Linen and Cotton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Handkerchief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Made-up Textile

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Ostrich and Fancy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Feather

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perambulator and

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Invalid Carriage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retail and Bespoke

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tailoring

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rope Twine and Net

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sack and Bag

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Toy Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retail Non-Food

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trades

  —

  47

  35

  26

  27

  51

  31

  16

  31

  264

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  5

  129

  96

  71

  93

  203

  103

  75

  82

  857

  Licensed Non- Residential

  4

  60

  49

  22

  34

  39

  17

  20

  18

  263

  Licensed Residential and Restaurant

  1

  30

  9

  16

  5

  13

  11

  6

  25

  116

  Unlicensed PI of Refreshment

  —

  21

  11

  15

  7

  20

  12

  4

  33

  123

  Total

  18

  301

  207

  155

  175

  336

  184

  127

  196

  1,699

  Table 3—establishments found failing to keep adequate records of hows worked—1989

  Wages Councils

  London

  South East

  Eastern

  South West

  Midlands

  North West

  Yorks and H'side

  North

  Scotland

  GB

  Aerated Waters

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Clothing Manufacture

  10

  5

  —

  3

  18

  26

  4

  2

  3

  71

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  5

  6

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  28

  Button Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flax and Hemp

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fur

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Hairdressing Undertakings

  9

  83

  102

  62

  35

  56

  59

  53

  62

  521

  Hat Cap and Millinery

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  180 181

  Wages Councils

  London

  South East

  Eastern

  South West

  Midlands

  North West

  Yorks and H'side

  North

  Scotland

  GB

  Lace Finishing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laundry

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  7

  16

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Made-up Textile

  —

  3

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perambulator and Invalid Carriage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  Rope Twine and Net

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sack and Bag

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Toy Manufacturing

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Retail Non-Food Trades

  5

  209

  201

  199

  150

  216

  130

  84

  163

  1,357

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  28

  417

  370

  284

  242

  602

  267

  186

  261

  2,657

  Licensed Non-Residential

  16

  225

  198

  157

  147

  161

  72

  91

  134

  1,201

  Licensed Residential and Restaurant

  24

  123

  93

  126

  55

  87

  34

  46

  111

  699

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  11

  63

  38

  76

  24

  56

  41

  19

  69

  397

  Total

  111

  1,141

  1,009

  911

  675

  1,211

  609

  487

  816

  6,970

  Table 4—Analysis of criminal prosecutions in 1989 under the Wages Act 1986

  Division

  Number of cases

  Wages Council

  Section of the Act under which prosecution taken

  South East

  2

  Retail Food

  Section 16 (Underpayment)

  1

  Retail Food

  Section 16 and Section 21 (Producing false records)

  1

  Licensed non-residential

  Section 16

  Eastern

  1

  Retail food

  Section 21 (Failing to produce records)

  South West

  1

  Retail non-food

  Section 16

  1

  Unlicensed Place of refreshment

  Section 16

  Midlands

  1

  Retail food

  Section 16

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  Retail food

  Section 16

  Northern

  1

  Retail non-food

  Section 16

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide breakdowns by wages inspectorate division of information given in the Official Report, 1 March 1989, columns 199–201, regarding the establishments underpaying and prosecutions for underpayment of wages councils rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on 2 April 1990,Official Report columns 460–62.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the eradication of low pay.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 13 March 1990,Official Report, column 207.

  Workplace Training
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to establish a training body at every workplace in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Employers are best placed to determine the most appropriate arrangements to ensure that the training they undertake meets their needs and the needs of their employees. Anything else would be as bureaucratic as it would be impracticable.

  Shell Site, Stanlow
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how often Health and Safety Executive officers have visited the Shell site at Stanlow.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many stoppages due to industrial action were recorded in January 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is provisionally estimated that there were 48.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the measures which he is taking to deal with long-term unemployment.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have in place an extensive range of employment and training measures which have helped to ensure that long-term unemployed people have benefited fully from the general fall in unemployment.

  Long-term unemployment has halved in the last two years and in that period has fallen faster than total unemployment. These measures are kept under regular review to ensure that they continue successfully and cost effectively to help long-term unemployed people back into work. Details of improvements to our counselling and advice services for unemployed people were provided in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 5 April 1990, Official Report, column 647.

  European Community Meetings
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet his European Community counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Howard
  The next formal Council of European Community Employment Ministers will be on 29 May. The agenda has not yet been finalised.

  Redundancies, Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives his Department is taking to replace the 3,000 jobs lost on Merseyside after the announcement of redundancies at Ford's Halewood plant.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Ford has announced that as part of the company's continuing efforts to improve efficiency and productivity, employment at Halewood will be reduced by 2,800 over the next five years.

  Government policies are aimed at developing an economic climate where industry and enterprise can flourish, thus allowing jobs to be created by the private sector, including jobs to replace those lost at Halewood.

  My Department operates a wide range of employment, enterprise, training and inner city measures to help the unemployed and others, including those made redundant at Halewood, find new jobs, retrain or set up businesses of their own.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have started on the enterprise allowance scheme since it began.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Over 500,000 unemployed people have been helped to start their own business under the 184
  enterprise allowance scheme since it began in 1982. This most substantial achievement is being marked at a special ceremony today.

  VAT
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the net increase per week in businesses registering for value added tax in(a) 1989 and (b) 1974 to 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1988, the latest year for which figures have been published by my Department, the net increase in the number of VAT-registered businesses was an average of just over 1,200 per week. Early indications from data collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are that the net increase in 1989 was 1,500 a week. Between the end of 1974 and 1979, the number of businesses registered for VAT rose by an average of just over 300 a week.

  School-Industry Compacts
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources the Government are providing over the next four years to support school-industry compacts.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are making available £7 million per year over the next four years towards the cost of developing and operating inner city compacts covering all urban programme authority areas in England, and designated priority areas in Scotland and Wales.

  Low Pay Unit
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received the most recent report from the low pay unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend receives many reports from the low pay unit which he reads with interest.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the level of funding in 1990 prices for youth training in 1989–90 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Planned expenditure on youth training in 1989–90 and 1992–93, in 1990–91 prices, is £1,061 million and £716 million. Additional funds will be made available to training and enterprise councils, and local enterprise companies in Scotland, whose bids to pilot training credits for young people are accepted. These will involve a transfer of the appropriate proportion of relevant elements from the revenue support grant, and additional sums of £12 million in 1991–92 and £25 million in subsequent years.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the public expenditure per trainee in 1989–90 on youth training; and what it will be in 1990–91 in Scotland.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The gross public cost per trainee week on YTS in 1989–90 is estimated to be £50 per trainee week. Information about gross public costs per trainee week of youth training in Scotland in 1990–91 is not available.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss the employment aspects of the European Commission's range of social charter proposals.

  Mr. Howard
  The first formal proposals from the European Commission's social action programme are not expected to be published until May or June; substantive discussion of these proposals by the Labour and Social Affairs Councils is therefore unlikely to take place until the last quarter of the year.

  Training Allowances
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of representations he has received from Staffordshire in respect of his draft proposals to cut back funding for training allowances paid in respect of training and enterprise council allowances.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Wages Inspectors
  Mr, Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil cases were taken by the wages inspectorate in each year since 1979.

  Mr, Nicholls
  The number of civil cases taken by the wages inspectorate was as follows:

  Cases

  1979

  6

  1980

  4

  1981

  4

  1982

  1

  1983

  6

  1984

  4

  1985

  0

  1986

  3

  1987

  1

  1988

  4

  1989

  0

  Mr.. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many individual workers' complaints were received by the wages inspectorate division; what percentage of workers' lodging individual complaints was found to be underpaid; in those cases where underpayment occurred, what was the amount of arrears(a) assessed, (b) paid and (c) unpaid in each case; how many employees were affected by contravention of wages council legislation in instances where an individual worker complained; and what fines were imposed after prosecution in each case, according to each contravention, in 1989;

  (2) what was (a) the total amount of arrears (i) assessed, (ii) paid and (iii) unpaid resulting from individual workers' complaints to the wages inspectorate in each year since 1979 and (b) the number of instances in which individual workers' complaints to the wages inspectorate resulted in criminal prosecution in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of complaints received by each wages inspectorate division in 1989 is given in the table.
  186
  The receipt of a complaint from a worker is only one of a number of circumstances which might cause the wages inspectorate to check the levels of pay at a particular establishment. The results of complaint inspections are not kept separately from the results of inspections which are conducted for other reasons, and the remainder of the information requested is not, therefore, available.

  Division

  Number of complaints received in 1989

  London

  68

  South East

  89

  Eastern

  64

  South West

  201

  Midlands

  145

  North West

  323

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  138

  Northern

  147

  Scotland

  246

  Total

  1,421

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many wages inspectors are currently in post; and how many are long term sick.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are currently 68 inspectors in post in Great Britain. Three are absent due to sickness which has lasted for three weeks or more.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what proportion of instances, in which a worker makes an individual complaint to the wages inspectorate, the complaint results in a visit by the wages inspectorate; in those instances in which a visit occurs, what is the average length of time between receipt of the complaint and the visit; and in those instances in which under payment is uncovered, what is the average length of time between the visit and the issue of a schedule of arrears to the employer.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The specific information requested is not available.

  All complaints made to the wages inspectorate result in a visit by an inspector, unless it is obvious from the information given by the worker at the outset that the complaint is groundless.

  Complaints are given priority over all checking work and inspectors endeavour to complete inspection action, including the issue of an assessment of arrears if appropriate, within four weeks.

  Training (North-West)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on proposals for training in the north-west.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 3 April my right hon. and learned Friend signed contracts with the Cumbria and South and East Cheshire training and enterprise councils in the north-west. These training and enterprise councils will be responsible for the provision of training and enterprise activities in their localities.

  Employment Agencies (Literature)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will permit sponsored and commercial employment agencies to deposit their literature at jobcentres for a trial period.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for jobcentres, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the employment service agency's chief executive will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists concerning levels of staffing in the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has recently received a letter from the IPMS about staffing in the Health and Safety Executive.

  Children (Safety)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to tighten the laws governing the responsibility of owners of industrial and commercial premises to ensure that sufficient security arrangements exist to prevent children venturing into potentially dangerous situations on those premises.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc, Act 1974 already lays a duty upon every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way so as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employ are not exposed to risks to their health and safety. Such care would include the provision of adequate security arrangements if this was necessary to prevent risks to the public.

  Earnings
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time workers, by number and by percentage, earned less than the average earnings figure for all full-time workers in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Based on the distribution of earnings in the 1989 new earnings survey sample, the estimated proportion of full-time employees in Scotland was 61 per cent. The proportion of full-time employees in Great Britain earning less than the equivalent average for Great Britain was also 61 per cent. Information for the United Kingdom is not readily available.

  Agricultural Inspectorate
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspectors have been employed in the agricultural division of the Health and Safety Executive for each year from 1975 to 1989; and if he will make a statement.
  188
  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The number of agricultural inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April in each year from 1976 was as follows:

  Inspectors

  11976

  5

  1977

  187

  1978

  186

  1979

  190

  1980

  178

  1981

  176

  1982

  166

  1983

  159

  1984

  154

  1985

  162

  1986

  163

  1987

  166

  1988

  158

  1989

  165

  1990

  171

  1Agricultural inspectors joined HSE from MAFF from March 1976, but the bulk of the field force was not in place until later in 1976.

  Quasi-religious Cults
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that the Training Agency vets education institutions before accepting advertising material from them, with a view to excluding any institution having links with quasi-religious cults.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: Steps are already being taken by the Training Agency to ensure that advertising received from educational institutions does not include any material from institutions having links with quasi-religious cults.

TRANSPORT

  Troop Transportation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the agreements and arrangements made with British civil air carriers for the transport of American troops and equipment in a period of rising international tension.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Details of plans for the movement of allied forces in a period of tension are classified.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any representations from Kernforschungszentrum, Karlsruhe, West Germany, regarding proposals for the transportation of spent radioactive fuel to the atomic energy research establishment at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has not received any representations.

  Coal Imports (South Africa)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year for the last 10 years and by port the number of tonnes of coal imported from South Africa.
  189
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise figures for imports of coal consigned from South Africa for the last 10 years and by port are as follows:

  Thousand tonnes

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  London1

  —

  0·9

  —

  —

  —

  Colchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·2

  Shoreham

  1·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southampton

  0·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Exeter

  —

  —

  —

  1·2

  18·1

  Teignmouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·5

  Watchet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·4

  Avonmouth

  56·8

  76·2

  62·8

  44·1

  16·2

  Sharpness

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  1·7

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22·5

  Grangemouth

  2·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  River Trent

  1·2

  —

  —

  —

  5·6

  Belfast

  1·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  64·7

  78·8

  62·9

  45·3

  67·5

  1 Including Tilbury.

  Thousand tonnes

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  London1

  10·8

  16·4

  5·3

  5·9

  —

  Colchester

  2·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Exeter

  11·0

  2·6

  2·8

  —

  —

  Teignmouth

  7·6

  —

  1·2

  3·2

  2·0

  Falmouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7·3

  Avonmouth

  72·7

  57·1

  15·9

  13·6

  29·0

  Swansea

  5·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greenock

  142·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirkcaldy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·5

  Tyne

  0·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17·0

  Hull

  —

  4·1

  —

  —

  —

  River Trent

  —

  —

  2·3

  19·2

  14·3

  Immingham

  41·8

  23·4

  —

  9·2

  —

  Boston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·8

  Harwich

  —

  0·6

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  75·3

  2·0

  2·3

  11·5

  4·3

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·5

  Londonderry

  —

  —

  6·0

  3·3

  3·0

  Warrenpoint

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·8

  Total

  369·6

  106·2

  35·8

  66·0

  83·5

  1 Including Tilbury.

  Figures are not available by individual ports of coal originating from South Africa imported via third countries.

  Ferries
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he proposes to take to promote safety improvements on board ferries plying to and from British ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government regard safety as an overriding priority on ferries, as on other means of transport. We have taken a number of steps to improve ferry safety in recent years. New legislation has been introduced, supplemented by increased numbers of random and unannounced inspections of both United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom ferries by Department of Transport marine surveyors. We have also required all United Kingdom flag ferries, irrespective of year of build, to meet the United Kingdom residual 190
  stability standards introduced for new vessels in 1980. These requirements exceed current international stability standards.

  In addition, we have recently published the results of an important research programme, which has considerable implications for ship design and stability standards. We intend to pursue the recommendations resulting from this research through the International Maritime Organisation, and have already taken steps to ensure the proposals are considered at the maritime safety committee in May.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received of new working practices and productivity improvements in ports formerly covered by the national dock labour scheme since the abolition of the scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 5 December 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), at column 183.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effects on the port of Southampton of the abolition of the national dock labour scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A total of 508 redundancies, on which the Department provides 50 per cent. of the costs of compensation, have taken place or been announced. The trading performance of the port since the dock labour scheme was abolished is a matter for Associated British Ports, Southampton.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been made to him by employers in dock areas since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None.

  Cycling
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made towards developing a network for longer distance cycling in London; and if he intends to extend the initiative outside London.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has welcomed in principle the proposed development of a 1,000-mile strategic network of cycle routes for London.

  The idea of establishing a network has been promoted by the London Cycling Forum, of which the Department is a member. It is for individual highway authorities to develop those parts of the network which fall within their areas, but the Department is ready to help London boroughs with guidance and technical advice.

  The Department has already contributed towards the development of a cycle network in London by providing crossing points of trunk roads for cycle routes. We have also provided some cycle tracks on new trunk roads and additional cycling facilities on existing trunk roads

  In conjunction with the London planning advisory committee, the Department is organising a technical seminar to be held later in the year. This would be for London boroughs, and other bodies with an interest in providing cycling facilities in London.
  191
  The Department offers guidance to all local authorities on aspects of planning and designing facilities for cycling, through its traffic advisory unit and a wide range of publications.

  Ferry Fire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the fire on board B & I ferry Norrona en route from Pembroke dock to Ireland on Monday 9 April, and the subsequent involvement of the rescue services.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  At 2319 GMT on 8 April, the Master of the B & I chartered ferry Norrona, outward bound from Pembroke Dock for Rosslare, called Milford Haven Coastguard reporting a fire on board. The Coastguard immediately scrambled a rescue helicopter from RAF Brawdy, launched St. Davids and Fishguard lifeboats and made arrangements for a fire-fighting team from Dyfed county fire brigade to be airlifted to the ferry. It then became known that there were injured persons on board requiring evacuation. Additional helicopter help was requested: a further one from RAF Brawdy and one, with a doctor on board, from RNAS Culdrose.

  Approximately one and a half hours after reporting the fire, the master indicated that it had been extinguished. The ferry returned to Pembroke Dock under her own power. The fire officers remained on board the ship up until she docked at 0315 GMT. Ambulances stood by at the dock to transport other injured persons to hospital.

  The cause of the fire is being investigated by an inspector from marine accident investigation branch and, as arson is suspected, by the police.

  Severn Crossings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the percentage distribution between the sources of finances offered by the European Investment Bank and other sources offered by the two consortia who bid for the construction of the second Severn crossing;

  (2) what toll levels, over what period and rate of inflation on the Severn crossings were offered by the Trafalgar house/Balfour Beatty consortium and the Laing/GTM Entrepose consortium;

  (3) whether there was any difference in the burden for bearing the risks of the growth of future traffic levels in the bids made by the two consortia who bid for the second Severn crossing;

  (4) whether he advised the Trafalgar House-Balfour Beatty consortium of his concern at the perceived financial risk relating to the subordinated debt of £60 million on the existing crossing during the assessment period of the bids for the second Severn crossing.

  Mr. Atkins
  Both the final two shortlisted consortia offered a range of alternative financing and tolling options within their privately financed proposals. Details of these must remain commercially confidential. All proposals were assessed on the basis indicated to the bidders in the Department's tender invitation document, which explained that risks would need to be evaluated.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the experience of Laing GTM Entrepose of constructing estuarial bridges comparable with the Severn bridge and in current work in infrastructure in the British private sector.
  192
  Mr. Atkins
  Following the assessment of tenders, my right hon. Friend was fully satisfied that the Laing-GTM consortium has the requisite experience and capability to construct the second Severn crossing.

  M11 Service Areas
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which sites were given detailed evaluation for the establishment of a services area on the M11 motorway before Birchanger was nominated.

  Mr. Atkins
  In addition to Birchanger, 15 potential service area sites were examined between junctions 6 and 9 of the M11, at:

  Audley End Estate

  Wendens Ambo

  Whiteditch Farm

  Whiteditch

  Between Elsenham Station and Ugley Green (six sites)

  Parsonage Farm

  Sheering

  Moor Hall

  Junction 7

  North Weald Airfield

  These sites were first considered at various dates between 1966 and 1981 when the planning application was made. In 1988 each site was revisited by consultants to check that earlier assessments of them remained valid.

  Road Funding
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proposed level, at 1990 prices, of central Government funding for road improvements and new construction for each of the next three years; what proportion that will represent of total road spending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The proposed level of central Government funding for new construction and improvement of roads in Great Britain for the next three financial years at 1990–91 prices is:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1,818

  1991–92

  1,785

  1992–93

  1,828

  These figures include grants to local authorities for road construction and improvement. In addition, the financing costs of local authorities' use of credit approvals for road construction and so on, are taken into account in the determination of the standard service assessment on which the distribution of revenue support grant is based. Local authorities are free to undertake other local roads expenditure within their overall capital resources and it is therefore not possible to estimate what proportion of total road spending these figures will represent.

  The spending on new construction and improvement of trunk roads and motorways represents the following proportions of total spending on these roads:

  Percentage

  1990–91

  70·1

  1991–92

  69·5

  1992–93

  70·4

  193
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was invested by central Government, in each of the last five years at 1990 prices, in road improvements and new construction.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the last five financial years the total invested at 1990–91 prices by central Government in new construction and improvement of roads in Great Britain was:

  £ million

  1985–86

  1,211

  1986–87

  1,146

  1987–88

  1,227

  1988–89

  1,287

  1989–90

  1,509

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of British Rail's capital investment programme, in each of the last five years, has been funded by central Government; and how much that represented in each year at 1990 prices.
  194
  Mr. Portillo
  Table 7.33 in chapter 7 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm. 1007) sets out British Rail's capital requirements and the internal and external resources from which these are met. "External finance" comprises subsidy paid by the Government and borrowing, principally from the National Loans Fund. We do not apportion particular forms of finance between investment and other expenditure. British Rail "rail" investment (which includes investment charged to revenue account) since 1985–86 is as follows, in £ million and at constant 1990–91 prices:

  Year

  Rail investment

  1985–86

  528

  1986–87

  511

  1987–88

  640

  1988–89

  647

  1989–90

  1675

  Note:

  1 Based on BR forecast.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD (CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.
The Earl of Glasgow The Earl of Glasgow—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Community Charge Rebates: Formula
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of notional interest on savings is assumed by the Department of Social Security when applying the formula for extra community charge rebates announced by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, a tariff income from savings is taken into account when assessing claims for community charge benefit. No income is assumed to be received for savings under £3,000. For every £250, or part thereof, of capital between £3,000 and £16,000 a weekly income of £1 is assumed. The tariff income rules do not assume any particular level of interest on savings.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Bearing in mind that that formula assumes that an old couple or a single person with savings of £10,000 can secure a rate of return of nearly 15 per cent., and for those with the maximum savings of £16,000 it assumes a rate of return of nearly 17 per cent., will the Minister inform noble Lords in this House—some of whom may wish to draw benefit under the scheme—where they can secure such a rate of return? Secondly, will he inform the House whether the formula will be improved should interest rates and returns on investments ever fall?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we do not apply a particular level of interest. The noble Lord is quite correct in that for someone with savings of £10,000 the formula would imply a rate of return of some 14-9 per cent. to 14-6 per cent. Similarly, on savings of £16,000 it would imply a rate of return of 16-9 per cent. However, for someone with savings of £3,250 it would imply a rate of return of 1-6 per cent. I repeat that we do not use any particular level of interest.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that investment percentages of that kind are rather risky, as the investors in Barlow Clowes found out?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comment. However, as I said, we do not
426
assume any level of interest. We calculate the benefit on the basis of £1 per week for every £250 over £3,000.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that when the Chancellor announced the rebate scheme in the Budget he boasted that 250,000 people would benefit from the formula? Will he confirm that since then the DHSS has conceded that only 130,000 people will receive any benefit, most of whom will receive minimum benefit which will make little or no difference to their poll tax charges? Does he agree that the poorest households, which under the old rate rebate scheme paid nothing at all, will now have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax, at an average of £72 a year?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there will be some 70,000 gainers under community charge benefit among those with savings of more than £10,000. I do not have figures in front of me for those with savings of more than £8,000. Noble Lords will know that the limit for community charge benefit was increased from £8,000 to £ 16,000. Of those 70,000 community charge benefit gainers, approximately 50,000 will be pensioners.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister said that the imputed return for a couple with savings of £16,000 is 17 per cent. If one deducts 8 per cent. for inflation that gives a real rate of return of 9 per cent. The Government's own requirement for the real rate of return on public investment is 8 per cent. Therefore, why are people on benefit expected to achieve a real rate of return on their savings of 12-5 per cent. which is greater than the Government's own target?
Lord Henley: My Lords, they are not expected to achieve any particular rate of return. I believe that the noble Lord is slightly confused. While that would imply a rate of return of 16-9 per cent. or 17 per cent., one should also take into account the taper. As noble Lords will know, for the community charge the taper is only 15 pence in the pound, and therefore for every £ 1 of income only 15 pence is taken off the community charge benefit. If that is taken into account the percentage comes down to 2-5 per cent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord help us with our investment programme? We are supposed to get a return of nearly 17 per cent. on our higher savings. Can the noble Lord very kindly tell us where we can achieve that rate of return?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will know perfectly well—and I believe that I have said this to him on a previous occasion when answering a Question about premium bonds—that it is not my job to advise the noble Lord on his investments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord therefore take my return as read?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. I said that I was not here to advise the noble Lord.

North Sea Oil and Gas: Capital Investment
2.43 p.m.
Lord Gridley Lord Gridley asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money will be invested in the North Sea oil and gas industry this year.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the amounts of money invested in the North Sea this year will be decided by the companies involved. The indications are that exploration and appraisal activity could reach an all time record, and capital investment, which grew at over 20 per cent. to reach £2-6 billion in 1989, is expected to maintain this rapid growth in 1990.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the National Economic Development Office forecast that an investment of £350 million will be made this year, or an increase of over 50 per cent. on the 1989 figure? Does he agree that that is a wonderful testament to the way that the Government operate their regulations in the industry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I fear that my noble friend may have his figures a little awry. According to my information, a figure of £3-7 billion of investment is reported by the National Economic Development Office in 1990. Nearly £5 billion of investment in new North Sea projects has been approved by the Department of Energy over the past two years, and the lion's share of that investment is supplied by UK industry, adding to employment particularly in Scotland, the North East of England and the London area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell the House how much of that investment goes into health and safety? Is he aware in that context that trade unions have identified 40 serious accidents in the North Sea since the Piper Alpha disaster and that the health and safety regulations do not yet apply offshore? How much money and how much government lead is required to ensure the safety of workers in the North Sea?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, offshore safety is one of the considerations which the Government have consistently stressed. It is of paramount importance and the Government attach a high priority to the safety of offshore workers. Safety standards will not be compromised for any reason. We constantly seek ways to improve the safety of all offshore workers. The Government cannot be responsible for the amounts of money about which the noble Lord asked me. It is for the companies themselves to invest that money, but they are encouraged at all turns by the Government to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount when the Government will extend offshore the health and safety legislation which is in practice onshore, such as the Electricity at Work Regulations, the Pressure Systems and
428
Transportable Gas Containers Regulations, the Noise at Work Regulations and the Control of Major Industrial Accident Hazard Regulations.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that those matters are the subject of another Question, but many of the points raised by the noble Lord will be taken into account by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Cullen. That report, which deals with a great number of safety matters, will be available later in the year.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend go a little further and distinguish between investment for production of oil and investment for production of gas, inasmuch as the last Brown Book figures showed a decline in oil investment of 10 to 15 per cent., but a rise in gas investment of about 30 per cent.?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not have the figures which my noble friend seeks. It is a question of the part of the North Sea in which the investment is made, but I understand that the gas-oil split is about 30 per cent. to 70 per cent.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be encouraged by the figures which have been given this afternoon. Will the Minister tell us what are the anticipated revenues to the state from that massive investment and whether those revenues will be used to encourage manufacturing industry or infrastructure development instead of being dissipated?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the UK's visible trade surplus in oil was £1-5 billion in 1989 and the oil trade surplus is forecast to rise to £2 billion in 1990. It is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to how that money is spent. I do not think that I could agree with the noble Lord's comment about it being dissipated.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my question moves marginally away from the Question on the Order Paper. However, can the noble Viscount tell us from his brief what is the investment in the industry in the Celtic Sea, or whether the Government are pursuing a policy of depletion there?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on this occasion the noble Lord's question is outside the scope of the Question which deals with the North Sea.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Viscount clarify a point which arose from the question of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, regarding the split between oil and gas? As I understand the situation, most of the gas comes from the southern North Sea. If the majority of investment goes there, how can there be a massive increase of jobs in Scotland?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that onshore investment is mostly in Scotland. Offshore, employment remains at the very high level of over

429
30,000 jobs. The noble Lord is correct in saying that most of the gas comes from the southern basin.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the context of the question put to him a little time ago, does my noble friend agree that one cannot just apply a whole series of onshore safety regulations to the offshore situation without substantial amendment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I probably have to defer to my noble friend's superior knowledge about that matter. However, I know that the Cullen Inquiry was set up after the Piper Alpha disaster to look very carefully at all the safety standards which should be applied offshore.

Teachers and Salary Negotiations
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to restore the rights of teachers to negotiate their salaries.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science held a series of meetings, which were very constructive, with the teacher unions and employers toward the end of last year. He is considering carefully the points put to him and will make a further statement shortly.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness consider it a disgrace that the teaching profession has now been deprived of its basic negotiating rights for no fewer than five years? Is she aware that the Secretary of State made an erroneous statement to the Select Committee saying that the International Labour Organisation was satisfied with the Government's policy? The ILO, in its 1989 observation on the application of Convention No. 98 relating to the policy, which follows the normal procedure in these matters, gives no sup port whatever to the Government's policy. As the Government are a signatory to the ILO convention, how much longer will they continue with their present policy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his description of the waiting time. The Government have been actively seeking a solution to this problem. It is essential for the future of education in this country that we get the new arrangements right. It is not a simple matter and there are no easy answers.
We are well aware of the International Labour Organisation and it is well aware of the current situation. It understands that our aim is to re-establish permanent pay machinery. That is what we are working hard to achieve. The three new options tabled last year by my right honourable friend have resulted in some constructive meetings. I think that the noble Lord will know what I mean. The first option was negotiations between unions
430
and employers with appropriate safeguards for government. There was then a possible review body, and a third option was a move toward greater local flexibility. Those are all under consideration.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the teachers' negotiating machinery operated quite happily and satisfactorily for 60 years until it was abolished by this Government? Is she further aware that, together with the Government's ludicrous national curriculum, their obsession with assessment and all the other crazy reforms that they have Introduced, this has reduced the morale of an excellent teaching profession to an all-time low and that teachers are leaving the profession in droves? Ought not the Government to be ashamed of what they have done to the education system in this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with everything that the noble Lord said. I believe that there is widespread agreement that the Burnham Committee did not serve teachers very well at all and that the hope is that when a solution is found to the problems of negotiating teachers' pay it will be a lasting and effective one.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, whatever else is done about teachers' pay, so far as possible will the noble Baroness ensure that headmasters are enabled to attract teachers of adequate quality to the places where they are most sorely needed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that one of the options was a reference to greater local flexibility in pay, and that indeed would answer the point made by my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she disagreed profoundly with everything that my noble friend Lord Glenamara said, notwithstanding that his massive knowledge of this industry leaves her making a tiny contribution. Will she try to tell the House when the Government will say to the teachers of this country, "We shall now meet your representatives and bring back the rights that you had in negotiating your terms of employment and your salaries"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am indeed very modest about my own contribution in these matters. However, I believe there is widespread agreement that the national curriculum framework and the issue of assessment are very important to our education system. The Secretary of State is constantly meeting interested parties in this matter and will continue to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that members of the teaching profession would acquire much more support among their fellow countrymen if they showed rather more concern for the interests of the children whom they are looking after rather than for their own financial interests?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the whole thrust of the Education Reform Act was to provide a good and effective service for our children. I hope that we shall continue to keep in mind the children of our country when we discuss these issues.
Baroness David: My Lords, among the many matters which apparently the Government are considering during the long pause in the discussions—we have now been waiting for three months—are they considering financing teachers' salaries other than through the revenue support grant?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I understand it, the Government will continue to support teachers in the way that they have done so far and will fund through the revenue support grant.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is it not the case that, contrary to what was said, the new national curriculum has found widespread support among the teaching profession?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that that is so.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we profoundly disagree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the teaching profession in this country? It has made an outstanding contribution throughout the whole of this century and is regarded as one of the finest teaching professions in the world. Will she be good enough to prevail upon her noble friend to withdraw the unfair remarks that he made?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. The vast majority of teachers in this country serve our children very well indeed. I think that the point made by the noble Lord was that sometimes in our debates we forget that it is children about whom we are talking. That is the point that my noble friend was making.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us have been shocked and horrified by the action of certain sections of the teachers? It has damaged the educational prospects of the children for whom they are responsible by indiscriminate strike action. Does she agree that they will receive much more support if, instead of adopting the attitude of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, they show that professional devotion to the care of children which they certainly used to show?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the parents of our school children will be distinctly depressed about a major union that has decided, well in advance of the coming pay rounds, to take strike action. I hope that that can be withdrawn.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, my wife teaches, and I have come into contact with many teachers. Does my noble friend agree (I think she already has agreed) that one has the impression that teachers are dedicated and concerned for the children?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am entirely happy to repeat that we believe that the vast majority of our teachers do a very good job.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that when there have been strikes the teachers have taken great care that they do not interfere with the lessons that the children should have?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree. I believe that talk of strikes and actual strikes have a damaging effect on the education of our school children.
Lord Annan: My Lords, are we becoming confused in the House by talking about the teachers when the Question was mainly about the teachers' unions? I should have thought that there was always a distinction there to be drawn. The vast majority of teachers are—exactly as has been stated on this side of the House—devoted and dedicated to their task, but a minority of teachers have done great harm to the profession as a whole.
Is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure that she is—that doubt about the effectiveness of teaching in our schools was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, when he was Prime Minister? He asked for a debate to take place on the curriculum and other matters. Surely we can reach inter-party agreement on some matters concerning education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that on this issue there is more to unite us than divide us. Certainly the debate that was begun by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has been effectively acted upon and Parliament has decided in these matters.
On the other issue, I agree with the noble Lord that it is a minority of teachers. My hope is that a decision to take strike action in advance of the pay round has been made by a minority of teachers. I suspect that they will let down a large number of our teachers who are dedicated not to take strike action.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is not the lesson to be learnt from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that he should not make a wholesale condemnation when apparently he referred only to a small minority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in defending my noble friend, I have to say that sadly it is the minority who grab the headlines and the minority who set the tone in our schools.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness may wish to defend her noble friend. However, will she agree that unfair castigation of the teaching profession as a whole, which we heard in the first contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is exactly what lowers the morale of teachers generally because they consider that they are unappreciated by people who ought to know better?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for a fourth time I am happy to pay tribute in this debate to the vast

433
majority of teachers. My belief and understanding of the point that has been made is that a minority of teachers—those whom we see on our television screens, in the press and in the media—are grabbing the headlines and giving the remainder a very bad name.

Bird Conservation in England and Wales
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whit progress has been made in designating special protection areas and Ramsar sites in England and Wales, and what importance they attach to international bird conservation.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Nature Conservancy Council has identified 91 potential special protection areas in England and Wales, of which 22 have so far been designated. Consultations are continuing on the remainder in accordance with Article 2 of the EC directive. The Nature Conservancy Council has also identified 77 potential Ramsar sites in England and Wales, of which 24 have been designated. The Government remain fully committed to international bird conservation and will continue to meet their obligations.
Bareness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I am greatly encouraged by his remarks about the Government's intentions. There was rather a lot of noise when he started speaking and I did not hear the very first figure that he gave. I hope that it agrees with my figure of 218 notified sites for special protection. Is that correct?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the figure that I gave was that the Nature Conservancy Council has identified 91 potential special protection areas in England and Wales, of which 22 have so far been designated.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, there is a great difference between the figure that I have, which came from the Nature Conservancy Council, and that which the noble Lord has just given. My understanding is that 218 sites have been notified.
Nobles Lords: Question!
Baroness Nicol: The question is coming, my Lords. If the figure of 218 is correct, with 33 which we agreed have been designated, why is there such a delay on the remainder? I should like to ask in particular why there is a delay on the Exe estuary. There are no objections to the designation from anyone. Vet that site still remains to be designated.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot explain the difference in the figures that we have at the moment. Nor, I am afraid, can I say anything about the case that the noble Baroness raises. However, I shall be happy to write to her with information about it.
A number of sites proposed by the NCC are currently being considered by the Government. We hope that the next site will be announced as soon as
434
the necessary consultations have been satisfactorily completed.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, has any progress been made on reaching the same standards in Europe as those which we have already established in this country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, our principal concern must be to make sure that we carry out our obligations under the EC directive. We believe that our record in bird conservation is extremely good compared with that of some other countries.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is more than 10 years since the Ramsar arrangements were made. I understand that shortly there will be a comparable conference in Switzerland. What announcements does the Minister intend to make at that conference to demonstrate to our European neighbours that we are fulfilling the obligations of the directive?
Will the Minister also acknowledge that a great deal of his work is done by the voluntary bird organisations? What steps is he taking to ensure that the resources that they receive from all sources, including the Government, are maintained in order that they can help him to fulfil his obligations?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the extremely important work that the voluntary bodies do in the field of bird conservation. I have no doubt that they will continue to enjoy government support. I cannot give any promises about any future announcement with regard to Ramsar sites. As I said in a previous answer, sites will be announced as soon as necessary consultations have been completed.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on my estate in Scotland I have very rare birds, including the white-tailed sea eagle? So far no protection has been offered for these birds. Perhaps I am out of order. If so, I apologise. The Question refers only to England and Wales. It might have been better if it had included Scotland.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The Question relates to England and Wales. However, a Question tomorrow on the same subject will relate to Scotland. My noble friend will have an opportunity to make his point again.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, whether one accepts the figures of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, of 218 and 33 designated, or his figures of 91 with 22 designated, it seems a sadly small number? He said that the next batch is in process of being designated. How many will that next batch include? How long will it be before we have completed consideration of those which have been put forward?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot say how many will be in the next batch to be announced or when that may happen. The Government are currently H

435
considering 16, some of which are at a more advanced stage of consultation than others.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we have a specific as well as a general interest in the observance of these regulations by our neighbour member countries in Europe? Is he also aware that a number of species of birds have to cross Europe from North Africa in order to reach this country? Unless better care is taken, or less slaughter perpetrated by our neighbours, the birds will not arrive here. For instance, the poor little nightingale has a most perilous journey from North Africa, being destroyed on the borders of the Mediterranean as she flies to Europe. We are entirely dependent on our neighbours as to whether the nightingales arrive here. Far too few do so.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is right and I am pleased that he made the point.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was greatly encouraged by the assurance that he gave to me in the debate last November on the EC report? It was in response to my observations about the international responsibilities of member states in providing habitat and species protection. Is the Minister also aware that, as has been made clear during the course of our exchanges, many noble Lords are worried about the urgent need for more action before there are further losses to wildlife as a result of the lack of sufficient designation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in order to ensure that protection is given, even before designation of SPAs and Ramsar sites is made, circular 27/87 requires planning authorities to ensure that potential SPAs are treated as though they were already designated SPAs and to take account of their international significance when considering development proposals. They must do so in order to continue a substantial measure of protection for the sites before designation.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I find the undertakings given by the Minister today most reasssuring. However, does his response depend on the fact that we maintain a proper scientific base in the Nature Conservancy Council in Great Britain as a whole? Does he agree that the ill thought out ideas of the Government contained in the environment Bill that is soon to come before this House do not hold out much hope for the future and that we shall split our "old Britain" attitude to such matters which is so important and admired by our colleagues on the Continent?
Lord Reay: My Lords, no. I entirely disagree with the noble Lord. We value the scientific advice provided by the Nature Conservancy Council and we hope that it will be able to continue to provide that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his comments about Continental countries not adhering to regulations sounded
436
courteously negative? Are we not using any influence to ensure that they pay the same attention as us in order to bring about the preservation that is generally considered to be desirable?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have played a full part in that and also in reaching agreement on the EC directive.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that problems which arise as a result of there being users of the countryside other than birds must also be taken into account? Will he commend the decentralisation of the Nature Conservancy Council in order to ensure that there is a local and intimate knowledge of all the factors in designating? Will he also pay compliment to the Forestry Commission for protecting the osprey and, I hope, the capercaillie and other rare species in Scotland?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to note the noble Lord's remarks and to pass them on. I am also grateful for his comment about the Nature Conservancy Council. Of course there are many other interests which must be taken into account and to which the Government are bound to pay heed. For that reason we must proceed carefully when designating the sites.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Ramsar sites in France and Italy, which are so important in relation to migration, are being properly observed?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have any information about that but I shall be happy to look into the matter and advise my noble friend.

Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill
3.14 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate, 2nd May
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 debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Underhill set down for 2nd May shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—('Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I cannot allow the unanimity of this House to continue for one minute longer before making the usual comments in regard to consolidation Bills. Either the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack rises and thanks the committee consisting of Members of both Houses (they go through such Bills with great care under the chairmanship of a distinguished Law Lord) and I immediately rise from these Benches and say how right he is, or I do so and the noble and learned Lord rises and says how right I am. The agreement between us ought to be encouraged and therefore I express gratitude to members of the committee for the wearisome but useful task they perform for the House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on this occasion it is my privilege to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I should add to his list the parliamentary draftsmen who carry out the detailed work which underlies the work of the committee.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, a word or two ought to be said about the Bill before it is passed by your
438
Lordships' House, as one anticipates it will be. In moving the Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate described it as being a technical, perhaps even esoteric, Bill but not very exciting. It is a useful Bill which, thanks to the parliamentary draftsmen, has the great merit of establishing what I hope is a precedent for all time. The three conventions to which it refers appear as schedules to the Bill. The result is that anyone wishing to consult the Bill will find all the conventions and need not carry out any more research work. That is a tidy precedent to set and I hope that it will be followed in future.
I have only one question to ask. If I remember correctly, seven countries had to ratify in order for this Bill to take effect, and six had done so at the time of Second Reading. The Netherlands, Ireland and ourselves were in the position that one of us would make the running as the country to make this Bill effective. Have the Government managed this time to expedite their activities and thus become the Government to see that this Bill became effective? In other words, did they beat the Netherlands and Ireland?
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I should like to offer a very brief observation on this Bill. Before I do that, I should like to correct something which I said at an earlier stage and to offer an apology to the noble and learned Lord. In a speech replying to one of the amendments—and of course that speech was impromptu—I claimed to have suffered some embarrassment by a reference by the noble and learned Lord to a consultation which he said took place in 1979 which I thought had been sprung on me. That was a plain mistake.
The noble and learned Lord who, as always, has acted with complete fairness and appropriateness, had drawn the fact of consultation to my notice. I should have had that in mind and I am glad to offer him my apology and to correct the record regarding what I said on that occasion.
I endorse entirely what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as to the form of the Bill. That is excellent and very convenient. I am afraid that I do not go along with him altogether as to the substance. For reasons which I developed at earlier stages, I regard this Bill as unfortunate and unnecessary. It brings into English law the effect of a European Convention in an area which in English law is perfectly satisfactory, has been controlled by the judges and is now to be set into the cement of statutory legislation. There are various matters to which objection had been expressed in the course of the passage of the Bill, notably, intellectual property. That point was raised most forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. So far we have received no satisfactory assurance on that. I shall not expand on those considerations because they have not been answered or seriously controverted in the course of the discussions on the Bill.
It has been said that we are precluded by the terms of this convention, which I believe we have not yet ratified, from giving it a reasonable and limited effect. I offered to the noble and learned Lord what I thought and hoped was a reasonable and respectable

439
way out of that straitjacket; but on advice he felt that he was unable to accept that. I regret that and very much regret that after the passage of the Bill we and the commercial community will be fixed by the terms of it. We shall come to regret that fact. I maintain my objection to the Bill, and I am not able to give it my personal support.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in view of the fact that intellectual property was mentioned, I should like to draw to the attention of the House one matter to which the noble and learned Lord did not refer. I have spent a great deal of time pressing the point that on the face of the Rome Convention there is clearly an omission to include an exemption for intellectual property. After hearing me on that matter, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out that my amendments could not be accepted. However, he kindly said that if that was a substantial point, he would consider any matter which I put to him and perhaps the Foreign Office would also consider that. He said that those matters would be under consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have taken part during proceedings on the Bill which I believe—and I speak with deference here in the presence of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce—represents a valuable measure of co-operation with our partners in the European Community, albeit in a technical area of the law; namely, the rules of conflict in relation to contract.
The Bill has been improved by the amendments that have been made to it in this House, first by clarifying the powers of the courts when interpreting the conventions, which was proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale; and, secondly, by adding the preambles to the conventions to their substantive texts as set out in the schedules, which was suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, we now have the complete texts of all three including their preambles appended to the Bill.
One of the purposes of putting forward this Bill is to enable us, with parliamentary approval, to ratify; and ratification will follow assuming this Bill becomes law. There are still only six ratifications. If and when this Bill passes in the other place—as I hope it will—then we shall be quick, as the noble Lord suggested we should, to make use of that opportunity.
Ratification of the Rome Convention will lead to few changes in our law. Its two basic provisions—namely, that the parties may choose which law is to govern their contract, and that in the absence of choice the contract will be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected—correspond to our existing law. I agree that they are expressed in the language of the convention, but they adopt the fundamental principles of our law in this area. The convention was drawn up after very careful negotiations, and the United Kingdom's decision to ratify it was taken
440
only after very extensive consultations. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for accepting that I had sought to mention that to him in advance of our previous discussions.
Our belief is that those consultations show that there was virtually no opposition to the convention. Similar negotiation and consultation took place on the Brussels Protocol which gives the European Court of Justice limited powers to interpret the Rome Convention. References to the European Court will always be discretionary and they will only be possible where a reference is necessary to enable the court to decide the case before it. Those powers to interpret the Rome Convention are narrower than those which the European Court has under the 1968 Judgments Convention, to which the Rome Convention is closely related. I believe that references to the European Court will be rare and that there is no danger that the Commercial Court will suffer as a result of our ratification of the Rome Convention.
As I have said, this Bill will preserve the principles of our complex rules for contract, and the convention will create a harmonised set of such rules throughout the European Community; in other words, the other member states which ratify the convention will have the benefit of the same principles as those which the courts of this country have worked out, as my noble and learned friend said, over the years.
Regarding the rules relating to intellectual property, I am happy to repeat the assurance which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I am not aware that hitherto any difficulty has been expressed in that connection, but if any difficulty arises, that will be a matter for further consideration. I commend this Bill to the House.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Schedule 5 [Health Boards, the Common Services Agency and State Hospitals]:
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 77, leave out lines 31 to 34 and insert ("within

(a) a Health Board; and

(b) the Agency,").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 62 relates to the direction of labour for health board staff, for

441
the staff of the common services agency and state hospitals It will allow staff to be transferred from one board to another.
We accept that in the long term there must be allowance for flexibility, but as the Bill stands staff could be transferred between health boards. That could mean that a doctor or other officer or servant of the board could be moved against his or her wishes from, say, the north of Scotland to the Western Isles or from a rural area, a Border region, to an area such as Glasgow or Edinburgh, which might be quite unsuitable for them and their families. That could involve working with patients from different communities who require from their doctor a different expertise. The consultant surgeon in the Western Isles needs quite different surgical expertise from the specialist gastro-enterologist or vascular surgeon in Edinburgh or Glasgow. The people who were described to me as "super specialists" may not be the best people to serve the island communities.
Under the proposed legislation who will be responsible for such a transfer decision? On what basis will that decision be made? Will medical practitioners or other staff have a right of appeal against the decision? What will be the effect on continuity of care for patients? Where possible patients prefer—and I am sure that consultants will agree—to be under the care of one consultant for many years, particularly if certain progressive illnesses are involved which may entail a series of operations or other treatment.
There are examples in other fields where directions can be given to employees. In the education field it is possible to direct staff even within, say, Strathclyde, from Oban to Ballantrae. I do not know whether this is contained in any statute or conditions of service, but it is understood that common sense is applied and it is most unlikely that staff would be compulsorily moved more than travelling distance from where they already operate or work. I am not sure that that will totally satisfy the medical associations, the nursing associations and other staff working in the service. However, if the Minister were able to assure us that there was room for appeal if unreasonable transfers were contemplated by a health authority, that would go some way to satisfy them. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understand why the noble Lord moved the amendment. I know that staff are anxious that the new arrangements should not result in their being unreasonably at the beck and call of the National Health Service in Scotland to work at the other end of the country, with all the upheaval for their families that that may entail. However, although to adopt the amendment might appear satisfactory at the moment, it could damage Flexibility for the future. It is important for the Bill to allow for new circumstances which may arise in the future: new boundaries of the areas which health boards cover in Scotland or perhaps new functions for those boards or other bodies. For the sake of patients and, one might say, for the sake of continuity of employment of staff, the amendment perhaps goes too far.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): I follow what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said with regard to the concern of staff at the prospect that they may be transferred at the whim of the Secretary of State from one end of Scotland to another. I should like to assure him and other noble Lords, and the National Health Service staff, that that is not the intention. The new paragraphs which the schedule seeks to insert into Schedule 1 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 are simply designed to bring Scottish legislation into line with that of England and Wales.
In England and Wales the Secretary of State already has equivalent power under paragraph 10(2) of Schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977. I understand that those powers operated satisfactorily in England and Wales. There are no immediate plans to use those powers in Scotland, but they may be very helpful in the future if, as a result of the changes foreshadowed in the Bill, it was sensible to change the number of health boards or redraw the boundaries between health boards and the common services agency.
I stress that those are purely illustrations and that there are no such plans at present. Should the eventuality arise in future, the new paragraphs would be important in ensuring the smooth management of the National Health Service and in safeguarding the career and employment rights of the staff concerned. Therefore the power will be used to cope with a reorganisation of part of the National Health Service. Recent uses of the English equivalent power include the centralisation of schools of midwifery in Birmingham; the move of a school of physiotherapy from Wolverhampton to Coventry and the creation of centralised stores in the North West region. Those all involved some degree of staff relocation, but not more than National Health Service staff normally expect in the course of their careers. Such a transfer could involve no geographical move, but simply a change of employer within the National Health Service.
We do not intend to use the power, as the noble Lord may fear, to remedy a shortage of district nurses in Shetland by transferring some from Glasgow or vice versa. However, I must stress that such a transfer would not be carried out without consultation. It will always be the intention of the National Health Service as a good employer to consult staff regarding changes which might give rise to the use of the new power.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked who was responsible for the decision. The Secretary of State is responsible for the decision because he makes the regulations. He also asked about a right of appeal. There is no formal right of appeal, but there is no question of unreasonable transfer. Health boards will act in a common sense way. The Secretary of State, in making the regulations, will be able to review that action in a way akin to a right of appeal.
What about the patients themselves? Yes, it will mean a change for patients, but staff changes take place all the time and it will be a rarely used provision. I understand the concern of the noble Lord; the matter was raised in another place, as was the importance which some people attach to it. In

443
the light of the amendment I am prepared to bring forward a government amendment on Report to require the Secretary of State to consult staff representatives before making any decisions about the transfer of staff under the new power.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister for that concession. I look forward to seeing his amendment. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 62.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Special Health Boards]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 62ZA:
Page 27, line 37, after ("Act") insert ("or of any other enactment").
The noble Lord said: On speaking to Amendment No. 62ZA I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62ZB. This is a fine-tuning amendment, but I should like to explain it a little further at this stage because it is important. As the Committee is aware, the immediate intention of Clause 27 is to allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up a specialist body dedicated to the important task of health education in Scotland. While we have no other plans at present to set up other bodies, under Clause 27 we thought we should take the opportunity to give Scotland the benefit of a mechanism which has served the health service well in England and Wales for many years, the special health authority.
Potentially special health boards could come in many shapes and sizes dealing with various diffierent purposes, both national and local. We thought of applying to the new special health boards all the various powers and other statutory provisions which relate to ordinary health boards. We decided that that would be too wide. It could give highly specific special health boards, such as the health education body, access to powers which were unnecessary. We therefore concluded that it would be better to give each special health board access to a tailor-made set of powers. I stress that we do not want any special health board to have access to a wider range of statutory provisions than an ordinary health board. That is the reason the Bill contains the words in lines 38 and 39 on page 27 as apply in relation to health boards.
This clause does not give the Secretary of State a blank cheque to set up special health boards with sweeping powers. As I explained, we were anxious not to draw the powers of special health boards too widely. I confess that we went to the opposite extreme. The present wording of Clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to apply to special health boards only those provisions applying to ordinary health boards in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or subordinate legislation made under that Act.
We have concluded that that is too narrow. Health boards have important powers under other Acts; for example, Section 7 of the Health and Medicines Act
444
gives health boards power to generate income for improving the health service. The House of Commons Disqualification Act applies at present to health board chairmen who receive remuneration and Clause 56 of this Bill extends that to cover all health board chairmen and non-executive directors.
I can well imagine that it would be sensible for a special health board to have access to these income-generation powers and for the chairmen and non-executive members to be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. That is why we want to make this amendment, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 62ZB:
Page 27, line 38, after ("Act") insert ("or of any other enactment").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 63:
Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
["Chief of Research and Development.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an officer to be known as the Chief of Research and Development to advise him with respect to matters affecting or otherwise connected with the implementation of this Act or any other matters which he shall determine.
(2) The Chief of Research and Development shall establish and maintain an Advisory Council for the purposes of assisting him with his duties under this Act which shall consist of—

(a) a prescribed number of members nominated by the Secretary of State;

(b) a prescribed number of members nominated by representatives of the medical and nursing professions; and

(c) a prescribed number of members nominated by organisations representative of consumers.

(3) In consultation with the Advisory Council established under subsection (2) above, the Chief of Research and Development shall produce an annual report.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Nelson, Lord Hunter, Lord Walton, and myself, Amendment No. 62A having been withdrawn, has the purpose of ensuring that the NHS and the Department of Health has a proper research structure which is adequate for the large and important tasks which lie ahead.
In essence, the amendment proposes that the Bill should specify a chief of research and development who will be the major source of advice to the Secretary of State on the working of the health service and who will be equipped with an advisory council comprising persons of wide experience and acknowledged eminence in research and development as well as those who are knowledgeable about the delivery end of health care provision. The amendment also aims to secure that the chief of research and development produces an annual report.
Perhaps I should say a few words on the history of events over the past few years. The Committee will recall that the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this Chamber issued in April 1988 a report on priorities in medical research. It was the work of a sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, who unfortunately cannot be here today. The report was debated in this Chamber in June 1988, and in December 1989 the Government responded stating that while they accepted the "principal thrust of the recommendations" they rejected that part of the report which proposed a National Health Service research authority. Instead, the Government response proposed the appointment of a full-time chief of research and development to,
"advise and act for the Secretary of State for Health across the whole range of his interests in research".
We have since learnt, of course, that this person is to be based in Leeds, somewhat remote from the centre.
The response indicates the range of duties of the chief of research and development and gives some idea of his position in the hierarchy of the Department of Health. These matters are further elaborated in the briefing information that is available to applicants for the post, which has recently been advertised.
We recognise that the Government's proposals represent a significant improvement on the present manifestly inadequate arrangements; but then I suppose almost any change would do that. The important question which we as proposers of this amendment have asked ourselves is whether the Government proposals are sufficient for an enterprise with the huge annual turnover of about £20 billion. It is because we do not consider them adequate that we have felt it necessary to table this amendment.
That there must be a chief of research and development is not in contention. One would expect that, as is the case in any business of this size or indeed businesses of a smaller size, the chief of research and development would have a seat on the main management executive. However, the Secretary of State clearly, but surprisingly, states that he does not intend the chief of research and development to have such a seat. The chief of research and development will be a member neither of the NHS management executive nor of the NHS policy hoard.
It is also crucially important to ensure that the benefits of the work which he commissions are carried through into the operation of the service. In our view, that can only be assessed if he is given an evaluative role; that is, he is able to make an appraisal of the efficacy, or otherwise, of existing practices and also, of course, of the utility of new experimental procedures suggested by the management executive or as a result of the application of some of his own organisation's research findings.
The chief of research and development must therefore be charged with the additional duty of monitoring and evaluation. As we all know, without
446
such a built-in function with an effective voice at the highest level in both the NHS and the department, any organisation as large as these two combined will lack that tautness and efficiency of operation that are vital if money is not to be wasted in substantial amounts. Therefore, that is the purpose of subsection (1) of the amendment.
The remaining two subsections are designed to strengthen the position of the chief of research and development, to assist him in devising a sound research strategy and to enhance the quality and authority of the opinions and advice that he is able to proffer. That high quality and authority can only accrue, in our view, when those most knowledgeable—many of whom work in the NHS and community care service but who are outside and distant from the Department of Health and NHS senior management—are convinced that, judged against their experience, the advice and opinions proffered are well-founded. They and the public will be satisfied on this matter and the advice will gain its necessary authority and credibility only if the advice is known to have been hammered out in a body whose members have high competence, who are professionally independent and who are allowed to pass judgment on the quality of the commissioned research and development work.
This is a far cry from what is called, in the Government's response, a "reconstituted Departmental Research Committee". In passing, I should say that I have always disliked materials which are reconstituted ever since I was forced in my early life to eat reconstituted dried egg. Such a departmental research committee may well be I needed, but it is all that the Government response now offers. Those of us who have had to perform in roles similar to that of the proposed chief of research and development know from our experience that the more independent and disinterested the advice, the higher its quality and therefore its ultimate utility and benefit.
The third subsection requires the chief of research and development to produce an annual report. By that we mean a report which is published and not a report which is, as the advertised job description specifies, merely to be produced for the benefit of the NHS policy board. It is obviously desirable that the report should be published and that it is made as a discipline, for accountability and for maintaining a focus on essentials in the minds of the chief of research and development and all his staff. Moreover, it will facilitate discussion and decision within the NHS management executive and its policy board.
However, a report would serve another valuable purpose. The NHS affects us all from time to time between the cradle and the grave. Indeed, I doubt whether there is any other aspect of government activity which arouses such public interest and concern. For this reason alone an annual report which shows how the NHS is working and in what directions it might change would be fully justified.
I fully understand the Secretary of State's dilemma. I am in a slight dilemma myself today because tomorrow the Select Committee on Scientific Research and Development of your

447
Lordships' House will be meeting the Secretary of State to discuss some of these questions. In a sense I should have preferred the order to be the other way round. The problem which the Secretary of State faces is how best to manage research and development in this huge enterprise to serve departmental policy or to improve the operation of that large, government-funded service called the National Health Service.
That kind of difficulty goes back a long way in that interface between government and the execution of research and development. It was very clearly articulated some 72 years ago by our first Minister of Health, Christopher Addison. Some Members of the Committee may recall that Addison was a very distinguished medical man before he became a Member of Parliament. He had been made a professor at the University of Sheffied at the age of 28 and Hunterian Lecturer of the Royal College of Surgeons at the age of 32. As Minister of Health he was very much concerned because he was tempted to take control of medical research in the country which was about to be institutionalised. He resisted that temptation in the following words, which will bear repetition in this debate. I have to be selective without in any sense spoiling the sense of what he wrote.
He stated:
"A progressive Ministry of Health must necessarily become committed from time to time to particular systems of health administration … A particular Minister may hold strong personal views on particular questions of medical science or its application to practice … A keen and energetic Minister will quite properly do his best to maintain the administrative policy which he finds existing in his Department, or imposes on his Department during his term of office. He would therefore be constantly tempted to endeavour, in various ways, to secure that the conclusions reached by organised research … which was substantially under his control should not suggest that his administrative policy might require alterations … It is essential that such a situation should not be allowed, for it is the first object of scientific research of all kinds to make new discoveries and these discoveries are bound to correct the conclusions based upon the knowledge that was previously available and, therefore, in the long run to make it right to alter administrative policy … This can only be secured by making the connection between the administrative departments concerned, for example, with medicine and with public health, and the research bodies whose work touches on the same subjects, as elastic as possible and by refraining from putting scientific bodies in any way under the direct control of Ministers responsible for the administration of health matters".
I consider that these are extremely wise words which are as valid today as they were 72 years ago. We would do well to remember them. That is why the proposers of this amendment regard it as so important to protect the independence of the advice which the chief of research and development can give to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Hunter of Newington: A great deal of time has been spent recently considering membership of committees at various levels and whether professional members should be representatives or not. Whatever the arguments, there are no doubts that the key relationship vital to the future of the service is between doctors, the spenders and management. That has to occur at all levels in the National Health Service.
448
This amendment has to do with the input of research and development studies. It is particularly concerned with the top level relationship between the royal colleges, professional associations, research councils, charities and others. How can the results of their researches reach the management and policy boards of the National Health Service and the department and be effectively examined?
Traditionally, public health issues have been programmed through the chief medical officers' division. They have a range of other advisory committees as well. The need for high immunisation rates for measles to have any real impact on the situation is one very good example of this effective work. However, medical and surgical diagnostic and treatment methods, in contrast, have been presented in the main to professional societies. That has often resulted in individual units or districts deciding to develop and try new things.
About 15 years ago that gave rise to a great deal of concern in the National Health Service resulting in the introduction of a national funding policy for some key developments, the costs sometimes being too great to allow haphazard changes to take place. It took some time to persuade the Government to do that.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology studied these matters under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nelson. It developed the idea of a free-standing research authority. With hindsight, I believe that that was not sufficient. The Government's response is likely to be more effective and to have a greater effect on the departmental and NHS system. The reason is the necessity to bring medical results to the attention of management so that consequences can be studied.
For example, should a particular finding be drawn to the attention of all hospitals for immediate examination? If so, what is the cost likely to be? Should further local studies be done? Should the new treatment be a local response or a national facility? Is the treatment effective or is it more expensive than the present measures? The prize example of that is the treatment of simple warts by laser beams. I believe the cost is 50 times greater than the present standard and perfectly reasonable treatment.
The proposal that there should be a chief of research and development with a specialist staff could only facilitate these matters and the examination of different proposals. The royal colleges, their faculties and the clinical medical schools have already developed the necessary research potential. They have increased their capacity to do this work particularly in relation to clinical audit.
However, there is another range of matters which is not strictly clinical and where research and development studies should be conducted in a businesslike manner. Those must be developed. Traditionally, some have been run by divisions of the Department of Health. The provision, examination and choice of X-ray equipment is an example. These are the kinds of changes which the department proposes should be taking place in the future.

449
There is an argument that this could be a much more efficient method for doing clinical trials. At present there is a tendency among some people to have a go. We discovered that in 1963 when the Safety of Medicines Committee was set up under Sir Derrick Dunlop. That is a very delicate area because there is the eternal accusation that there is interference with clinical freedom.
I now turn to the amendment. I totally support the proposal that substantial information about the chief of research and development and also the advisory council should be on the face of the Bill. I say again that there is a greater need to establish the correct relationship between the royal colleges and others doing this work.
4 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In the light of the eloquence and force with which the amendment has been proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Hunter of Newington, little remains for me to say except to the effect that I warmly support this important and crucial amendment.
The appointment of the chief of research and development now advertised will be one of enormous importance to the future of our National Health Service. I hope the Committee will forgive me for using for just a moment a personal analogy. When I was appointed dean of the medical school in Newcastle in 1971 I discovered that the medical school, being the oldest part of the university, had acquired unto itself the statutes which had been originally established in 1834 in the then medical school of the University of Durham. They had been little amended since that time. Two of those statutes said, respectively, that the spending authority for the faculty of medicine shall be the dean, and that the planning committee for the faculty of medicine shall be the dean.
I am sure that every Member of the Committee will feel that there are times when it is an enormous advantage to have a committee of one. Nevertheless, my responsibilities soon became so onerous that it was perfectly clear that in order to fulfil them adequately and to take note of appropriate professional advice it was crucial that I should appoint a dean's advisory committee to advise me on how 10 fulfil those onerous responsibilities. How much more is it important that an advisory council should he established to advise a chief of research and development whose responsibilities to the National Health Service in the future will be so demanding in the light of all the developments which have taken place and are continuing to take place in medical treatment and research. In the light of these matters, I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I support this important proposal and in doing so I shall concentrate on the evaluation aspect. The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nelson. I am sorry that he is not present today. He and his committee recognised not only the crucial importance for the nation's health of medical research but drew attention to the inadequacy of research and evaluation in the NHS's own operations.
450
I regret that the Government did not accept the main recommendation of the report for the establishment of a National Health Service research authority. But they went some way to meet the Select Committee by their decision to establish a chief of research and development responsible to the Secretary of State but without an advisory council. I warmly support the proposal that there should be an advisory council with professional involvement and with representatives of consumer interests. This new body should take on board that part of research which so much concerned the Select Committee—operational research, including structures, methods and processes for improving the methods of providing for the delivery of care in the most effective possible way.
I want also to congratulate the royal medical colleges—the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the colleges of the professions allied to medicine—on their constructive proposals in the report The Way Forward for the NHS with its subtitle Proposals for an NHS Evaluation Programme. They considered the three novel and highly controversial proposals within the Bill—proposals for NHS trusts, fund-holding GP practices and NHS contracts—and said in unambiguous terms that there was no evidence that these changes would improve the standard of care, access to care, choice of care or the cost-effectiveness of care. They considered that the introduction of these changes across the National Health Service in 1991 was completely unrealistic and that a rapid and widespread introduction could seriously damage the service.
However, the colleges were very constructive in their approach. They told the Secretary of State that they were ready to support proposals if properly costed and funded which could be shown to provide a better service. With all the skills, knowledge and experience at their disposal, they proposed what is now before the Committee. It was their view that the new structure for NHS evaluation would have a crucial role to play in a partnership between government, the professions and the public. They said that the structure should not restrict change but should identify and foster those changes that could be shown to be beneficial and modify those that were shown to be less effective. I entirely agree with this hopeful and constructive approach. I want to see new ideas for the improvement and delivery of health care. I do not want to see the NHS standing still. It is essential that new ideas are effective and necessary and systematically evaluated. That is part of the proposal now before the Committee.
This sudden introduction of new structures to the National Health Service may prove to be extremely damaging to a service based on public service and responsibility for the needs of patients. In a later amendment we shall argue that new ideas must be tried out and evaluated before being applied across the country in ways which the royal colleges believe could,
"plunge the NHS into uncertainty, confusion and chaos".
What is essential is to have an effective means of evaluation without simply trying it out on the patient.

451
The fundamental proposal is that, in addition to the medical research tasks which have been well explained, the new chief of research and development should have the responsibility for NHS evaluation. He should be advised by a carefully chosen advisory council consisting of representatives of the NHS management executive, the health authorities, the royal colleges and other recognised professional and staff bodies, together with appropriately selected representatives of consumer bodies and the general public. This new independent structure for NHS evaluation would have a crucially important role to play now and in the future. It might later take on the evaluation of community care policy and procedures, with the involvement of local authorities, health authorities and the voluntary sector.
The new structure would have the objective not of restricting change or restraining initiative but of fostering the development of new ideas and evaluating their impact. The work of the chief of research and development together with the advisory council would, in this way, stimulate imagination and initiative and, by reporting results of evaluations, would enable health authorities and providers to decide how best to serve their local populations.
To achieve this goal is a major task. Its acceptance by the Government would give new confidence to those who today are concerned about the future of the National Health Service in the light of current government policies. It would require the recreation of the mood of co-operation between the Government and all who work within the service which is so essential to the future of health care in this country. The acceptance of the amendment would go a long way to changing the disturbed atmosphere which exists at present within the NHS. I support the amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, seems to assign the main role of the new chief of research and development to one of evaluation.
Lord Ennals: No!
Lord Carr of Hadley: I thought that that was the strong point he made in his speech.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said that I would concentrate on that aspect. Others had concentrated on the medical research aspect. I agreed and associated myself with what others had said.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I am glad to have that clarification. I apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood him. While I would agree that evaluation of what is going on both in existing methods and in new methods might indeed be part of the role of the chief of research and development and his staff, I could not accept for one moment that it would be anything like the only role or the main role or that he should occupy most of his time with it. Moreover, I cannot accept that his role in
452
evaluation should be the only source of evaluation for the benefit of the Minister and everyone else.
I want to make quite clear the fact that, although I strongly support the amendment, I do not rate very highly the part played by the chief of research and development in the evaluation process. I agree that it is most important. No doubt he will wish to contribute more than this; in fact, more than contribute. But it ought not to be the main source of evaluation, nor should it be his main, or one of his main, jobs. In supporting the amendment I must make clear that my own interpretaton of the amendment puts a rather limited value on the chief of research and development's role in evaluating new proposals, important though his role may be. I hope that I shall have other opportunities to express i the importance which I, and I am sure others, attach to that role.
I think that the amendment is important for a much more fundamental reason. The Government rejected the Select Committee's proposal for a separate National Health Service research and development authority. Instead, they have come forward with this proposal. I believe that, providing they give it proper weight and status, they are right in making such a proposal.
My own passionate belief is that the function of research and development must be integrated into the very management of the health service from the highest level downwards. I do not want it to be seen to be floating around the periphery in a prestigious, but nonetheless essentially only advisory, capacity. I believe that it should be integrated fully with the management of the National Health Service. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, that starts by making the holder of that office a member of the policy board.
I cannot imagine any sizeable organisation, let alone one which is very strongly based upon results of research and development, having its chief executive or director, or whatever you may call him, in any position except as a member of the main policy board. In my view that is absolutely essential. All his work must be integrated into the management of the health service. I imagine that most of his work, and most of his advice, would flow straight to the National Health Service Executive, which sits immediately beneath the policy board.
I believe that the amendment is very important. I strongly urge the Government to accept it. Of course, I realise the slight delicacy in the situation, in that we are having this debate today while the Secretary of State is to meet your Lordships' Select Committee to discuss the matter tomorrow. I well understand that that may preclude my noble friend Lady Hooper from making any firm commitments today one way or another. However, I hope that she will at least give us an indication that what has been said will be taken on board and that it will be very seriously and constructively considered. I also hope that amendments can be produced at a later stage if she feels it impossible to accept the amendment for the reason I have just mentioned.
Lord Winstanley: At this stage in our discussions—and I emphasise those words—and like

453
the noble Lord, Lord Carr, I have no wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, too far in his remarks on the document produced by the royal colleges entitled The Way Forward for the NHS. I shall concentrate on this amendment. I rise simply to make it absolutely clear that this is an all-party amendment. Members on these Benches who have an interest in such matters have met and have discussed the amendment in detail. They are wholly in support of it. I want to make it absolutely clear that | Members of all parties in your Lordships' Committee support the amendment, so admirably moved, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
We on these Benches would certainly underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, about how essential it is that this officer should be on the main board. That is absolutely essential. I want there to be no doubt about the fact that this is an all-party matter. We all support it. We hope that our discussions will prove helpful, rather than the reverse, to the Secretary of State at the meeting tomorrow.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: We on this Bench also strongly support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned in his opening remarks, the proposal was based on the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford. I should like to quote but one passage from the report. Paragraph 2.32 reads:
"A major area of concern for many witnesses was in public i health research and evaluation of practice".
The burden of this section of the report was that there was a serious lack of public health and operational [research in this enormous organisation of the National Health Service. The point was made repeatedly by expert witnesses. For example, in the same paragraph. Professor Alan Williams said:
"Far too much money is being spent at the moment on scientific I and technical aspects of new developments, and far too little evaluating their cost effectiveness".
In the following paragraph Professor Maynard of the Centre for Health Economics at York said:
"The Department of Health has spent a lot of money producing performan;e indicators which are measures of activity and not measures of outcome. The debate about health care in this country is obsessed about either spending money (with one side saying we are spending too much and the other saying too little) or it is obsessed about doing things to patients, but it is not really looking at the results of activities and this expenditure, and that is what we have got to be looking at: the cost and the outcome".
Therefore all the expert witnesses were at one on that point in the evidence they gave to the Nelson Committee.
I entirely agree with what has been said about this officer. He must have more clout than is actually being given under the Government's proposals in their response to the Nelson Report. It is obviously essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said, that he should be on the management executive. It is inconceivable that he should not be. It is also vital that he should produce an annual report. I simply reiterate the fact that we strongly support the amendment.
Lord Auckland: The amendment is tabled in the names of distinguished scientists and doctors. However, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if someone from the second tier who is merely a Member of this Chamber intervenes at this stage. I believe that this amendment is of fundamental importance. Of course we must avoid overloading these committees with too many people. But it is surely the case that research and I development is the absolute crux of the health service. Without it doctors and nurses cannot function and for those reasons I hope that, notwithstanding what happens tomorrow in the Select Committee, the Government will give the most serious consideration to the amendment.
Lord Butterworth: I very much hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the principles which have been expressed in the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, explained, there was no difference between the view of the Select i Committee on Science and Technology on the one hand and the department on the other. They are united in the view that the NHS should do more to identify and meet its own research needs and that it should be brought into the mainstream of medical research.
However, for perfectly proper reasons the proposal has been put forward that, instead of placing the responsibility for R&D on a national health research authority, such responsibility should be placed upon one person. Therefore, it would seem to me to be entirely proper that his appointment should rest upon statutory authority. It will enhance his position and give him a foundation from which to spring. It may also help with the subsidiary arguments which will now continue about how he should be resourced and what staff he should be given. The advisory council which the amendment proposes is clearly quite fundamental to the successful operation of the officer. I must express surprise that he does not have a seat on the management executive.
There is also a subsidiary reason why this office should be given statutory authority. Because of the history of the matter serious reservations have been expressed, especially among senior members of the medical profession with experience in the field. It would do much to reassure them if an amendment could be accepted that gave the officer statutory authority.
Lord Butterfield: I add my support to the general thrust of the amendment. However, I should like to say how much I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. We have been talking without reference to the present leader of the medical profession in the Department of Health, the Chief Medical Officer of Health. I assure the noble Baroness that, whatever may develop on the research side, I hope that it will not be to the discomfiture or diminution of the influence of our successive gallant Chief Medical Officers of Health. I hope that it will be possible for a structure to be designed where these two men, women or man and woman are able to work together.
Baroness Hooper: I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for the thorough way in which he introduced his amendment on this important topic. Like him I am sorry that my right honourable friend's appearance before the Select Committee tomorrow does not pre-date this debate. However, I hope that what I am able to say today will advance matters.
The Government are firmly committed to research in and for the National Health Service. As has been said, it was last December that we announced the creation of the new post of chief of research and development to spearhead improvements in the area. I am extremely pleased by the general welcome that this initiative has been given by noble Lords and others outside your Lordships' House. There may still be concerns which we shall be happy to try to answer but the point remains that this new development has been welcomed. We are grateful for that and for the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the report of which was most influential in our thinking.
We do not regard the creation of the post as the end of the matter. We continue to develop our thinking about the role of the post and the views of the post-holder will obviously be of great importance here. However, we are responding to arguments that have been advanced and some conclusions can already be announced. First, after some consideration we have decided that the title of the post should be Director of Research and Development rather than chief to emphasise the similarity with the directors of the National Health Service management executive.
More importantly, in the light of the generally welcome response to the announcement of the post, and in response to the criticism which has again been raised today by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, by my noble friend Lord Carr and others, we have decided that the director should sit as a full member of the National Health Service management executive.
Non-executive members of the policy board, however, as Members of the Committee will know, are appointed on a personal basis. Research will inform discussion by the policy board and, as has been said on previous occasions, the director can attend relevant discussions. In any event, the presence of the National Health Service chief executive, the Permanent Secretary in the Department of Health and the chief medical officer, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has referred, as well as the other non-executive members, will make sure that research experience is represented on the board.
In addition to his new position on the National Health Service executive, we anticipate that the director will have a number of tasks relating to other responsibilities of the Department of Health. However, we believe that placing him on the National Health Service management executive will make clear his strong role in relation to research in the National Health Service and will strengthen the executive's work on evaluating and implementing our plans.
456
Turning to the amendment, the first part proposes to make the director a statutory appointment. Perhaps the Government should be flattered that within a few months of the creation of the new post Members of the Committee are asking to put the appointment on a more permanent basis. The difficulty is that times and circumstances change and what seems appropriate now may not seem to be quite so helpful in five, 10 or 15 years' time. As we all recognise, legislative time is always a scarce and precious commodity and limits our capacity to respond flexibly to changing needs.
However, I can assure the Committee that the Government intend the appointment to continue so far as they can see. I hope that that will provide reassurance on the security of the office, as is the case with respect to other offices held by distinguished individuals in the Department of Health.
The same arguments apply to the second part of the proposed clause, which provides for an advisory council to assist the director. I am sure that when the director is appointed he will wish to consult intensively and extensively in order to perform his duties. Indeed, we wrote in our response to the Select Committee's report that the director will wish to involve himself in the Medical Research Council, for example, and in scientific committees and advisory bodies. We also said that the director will maintain close contact with the research community and convene groups as necessary in the development of the programme in particular areas. He will also have an adequate back-up staff, including at least 20 who will have key senior professional roles.
I fear that the creation of a statutory advisory council could hinder the director in identifying and developing his preferred arrangements for consultation with the research community. Again, a statutory requirement could be unwieldy and inflexible, even more so than that suggested by the first part of the amendment.
The third part of the new clause provides for the director to make an annual report. The department already publishes an annual year book on its research programme. The latest was published in January. It is quite a bulky volume and provides a full account of the work done. I know that the director's responsibilities will go wider and I am sure that he will wish to consider how best to account publicly for his work. We shall certainly ask and expect the director to propose how best to account for himself But I plead again for the new appointee to be given reasonable freedom to give his views on how this public accountability is best provided.
This is an important topic. I hope that the Committee will feel that, with the important concession that I have been able to announce this afternoon, things are without a doubt moving in the right direction, and will therefore support the Government by accepting that there is no need for the amendment.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps I may respond straight away to the Minister. There are certain aspects of what she said that I welcome. I am glad to hear that the officer will be a director and that he will sit on the management executive.

457
I was much concerned about what the noble Baroness said about the recommendation which is fundamental for an advisory council. I believe that, with the responsibilities that are being taken on across the whole field of medical research, including evaluation, it is vital that there should be an advisory council. Not only will the director be strengthened but it will give the professions, others who work in the National Health Service and the consumers the opportunity of becoming involved in the work that he is doing. Simply to have an official who then decides for himself, or who consults the Secretary of State ahout whom he should talk to, is not good enough.
Although I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State will be speaking tomorrow, it would be a pity if he gained the impression that the Committee was satisfied with the reply that has been given by the noble Baroness.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, decides what course to pursue with regard to the amendment, perhaps I may say that I was absolutely delighted to hear most of the reply of the noble Baroness.
However, I was puzzled by one point. On the question of whether this appointment should be a statutory appointment, the noble Baroness asked us to accept that times change and that the time for legislation was in very short supply, the implication being that, if we do not make this statutory now and later we wish to, it will be very difficult to find time. But surely the boot is on the other foot. If this office is made a statutory appointment of the National Health Service, I cannot see the remotest possibility at any time in the future of our suddenly deciding that we do not wish it to be a statutory appointment. I cannot see how that could arise.
In a sense, I think the argument of the noble Baroness, is on our side rather than on hers. As she said, time is short. I am convinced that this should be a statutory appointment. I am convinced that the time will shortly come when, if it is not made one, the Government will wish it had been made one, and then they will be in difficulties because they will be looking for legislation time. So I hope that the noble Baroness and her colleagues will change their minds on that point. Otherwise, I was delighted to hear what she had to say to us.
4.30 p.m.
Lady Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord replies to the debate, I should like to raise a matter with my noble friend. Looking at the amendment, I see that what is proposed is the classic statutory body with a few professional representatives and a few consumers, as if they can really say what it is that the public wants from the National Health Service.] am always a little cynical about that kind of amendment. At the same time, in a job like this I should have thought that such an officer would probably want, and indeed construct, a group of people with whom he or she worked in order to do the job well in a responsive way and to talk things through.
458
I do not know whether the noble Lord has it in mind to divide on this, but I wonder whether what the Committee wants would be for my noble friend to talk to her right honourable friend about what has been said by a number of people who know how this works, and also by politicians who are making political points in addition, and see whether it is necessary to put something about a support group into the Bill, or whether we could simply be given an assurance that that is the way that this very important official would be meant to work. I do not like this kind of amendment, and yet I see the need for the group.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Before my noble friend says any more and before the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, makes up his mind what he wishes to ask the Committee to do about the amendment, I should like to add a few further thoughts.
I too very much welcomed a lot of what my noble friend had to say, particularly concerning the position as a director. I talked about the main policy board, but I am not wanting to make a great issue about that. I am very satisfied with what my noble friend said about his position as a director, in title and as a member of the top executive. However, I was disturbed by something else that she said: that is, that being the director of research and development for the National Health Service would not be the whole of his job. She spoke about other responsibilities within the department. I am sure there are such responsibilities, but I find it quite astonishing that the director of research and development within this vast health service should not be a whole-time post and nothing but that. I would ask the Minister and her right honourable friend to think about that.
I know that we do not want to make too many analogies bwetween companies and the health service. In some ways it would be inappropriate, but in some organisational ways it is very appropriate to do so. Can anyone imagine ICI having its director of research and development also doing another job? He might be allowed or even encouraged to be a non-executive director of another company, but to have another executive job anywhere is beyond imagination. I really must ask my noble friend and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to give further thought to that.
There is a final point about the advisory committee. Normally I would share the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about advisory bodies of that kind. However, I think there are special circumstances within the health service. Surely the overriding need within the health service is to weld or meld—whatever the right word may be—into a single team the managers, the doctors and this function of research and development. That is not how the great hospital medical service has grown up in this country. There are the Royal colleges and their continuing great role, and other aspects of this, and in this area we need some body such as has been proposed—it may not be quite right as suggested at present—to bring all that together.
While agreeing with what my noble friend said, and being sceptical about such committees in almost

459
every other field I can think of, I behieve there is a special reason for doing this, or something like it, officially as a long-term commitment within the health service.
Lord Young of Darlington: I join other noble Lords in welcoming the statement, particularly for its tone, which I hope augurs well for what is to come, but I could not follow what was said about making the appointment a statutory one. I gather that the argument was that there might be a need to make a change at sometime in the future and it would not be so easy to make it if it were a statutory appointment. I cannot see how there could ever be the case in the future—as long as the National Health Service exists or as long as there is any concern for the health of the nation—that research would not be necessary and that it would not be necessary also to have someone in the Department of State concerned with health who was primarily concerned with looking after the research effort in the country. If one cannot envisage the circumstances in which there would be a change, surely that helps to fill out and reinforce the case for making the appointment statutory.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I should attempt to respond briefly to some of the additional points that have been raised. I should like to confirm particularly to my noble friend Lord Carr that there is no question but that this appointment will be a full-time appointment. The duties, other than those relating to the National Health Service which we envisage will in fact form the major part of the new director's duties, relate to policy development work which feeds into the National Health Service.
Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that this appointment will replace the existing appointment of chief scientific officer, which goes wider than the National Health Service as such. It is important that the kind of co-ordination which we envisage to be a major result of this appointment is there, and that the individual who is appointed will straddle not only the National Health Service, where we recognise the need as great, but also other aspects of the department's policy work.
On the question of whether or not the appointment should be a statutory one, I accept what has been said to some extent, but I reiterate that neither the chief medical officer nor the chief executive of the National Health Service are statutory appointees. I hope that nobody is suggesting that their roles need statutory support to ensure respect and effective work within and for the National Health Service.
As to the question of whether we should have the statutory advisory body, I hope that I was very clear in saying that we expect the new director to consult and take advice widely. However, we believe that when he is appointed he should have a say on how best he should carry out that function. In any event, an advisory council of the sort suggested in the amendment may not alone be sufficient to hear all the views. I reiterate that we fully agree with the aim of listening widely to the National Health Service and the research community. I believe that the Committee's anxieties in that respect are unfounded.
Lord Dainton: As the debate progressed I was greatly heartened by what seemed to be strong support for the amendment from all sides of the Chamber. Therefore, I was correspondingly somewhat disappointed with some of what the Minister said in reply. Clearly, we all welcome what is an obvious step—namely, that the director of research and development must, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said, have his seat on the executive and his proper place within the structure.
Reference was made to the existence of the chief scientific adviser, a post which is to disappear. That post is heavily engraved on my mind because in 1972 I was involved in giving advice to the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was, on who should be the first chief scientific adviser. I have watched that post and its effectiveness—or I should say ineffectiveness—very carefully from then onwards. It was ineffective for a variety of reasons but the main one was that it did not have what has been so inelegantly, but aptly, described as sufficient clout within the department.
As I understand the position from what the noble Baroness has said, the chief of research and development will have the clout of belonging to the management executive. That is an important step forward. However, I remain unconvinced by the Minister's reply and her reasons for not providing a statutory advisory council. That is for a whole variety of reasons, not least of which is that taking advice is one thing; one goes to people whose advice one wants to hear. An advisory council is another thing; it is a body in which, whether one likes it or not, contrary opinions which one ought to hear may be expressed with great force. That distinction is a very important one.
It is also extremely important to have an advisory council which is established under statute. That would assure the world outside, and particularly the professional people—doctors, nurses, dentists and others—who work within the health service, that the director of research and development, as we must now call him, will be informed by the best advice available. It would ensure that he will have to argue his case with those people who are—to mix my metaphors—at the coalface of the health service—the doctors, the dentists and so forth. It is not satisfactory just to have an arrangement under which, when the director so chooses, he will be able to consult a body of uncertain duration and uncertain membership. That does not seem to me to meet the point.
I was also concerned with the reply regarding the annual report of the department. I believe that that is splendid. I have read the annual reports in the past. In a little book which I wrote some years ago I pressed for that change to take place and it happened, although I do not say that the two events were connected. One wants to see it given special prominence. All of us outside the health service feel that it is such a vast enterprise that it is very difficult for us to come to grips with its performance. How does it measure up? Is it, as some people say, a very wasteful body or is it an economical body? One would like to see some genuinely judgmental position taken by somebody standing back from the service,

461
informed by an advisory committee who make a fair judgment on such matters. That would enable us, as citizens no less than as Members of this Committee, to have some idea of the effectiveness or otherwise of the workings of the National Health Service.
As the Committee has appreciated, for which I am grateful, I am in a difficult position in view of the fact that your Lordships' committee on scientific research and development is to meet the Secretary of State at 11.15 tomorrow morning on this very subject of the position of what we must now call the director of research and development. Therefore I find it difficult to know whether or not to divide the Committee now. Am I likely to hear something tomorrow to my advantage or am I likely to hear nothing? All I can say at the moment is that I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment. However, I would also give notice that in case by the Report stage the situation appears to be little better or, alternatively, in view of what the Secretary of State may say tomorrow the situation has changed so markedly that I am content, I believe that I have to reserve my position. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 3 [Primary and other functions of health authorities etc. and exercise of functions]:
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 3, line 10, at beginning insert;
("( ) It shall be a primary function of any Regional District or Special Health Authority only to enter into an NHS contract after such time as the conditions laid down in section 63 (2A) below have been met.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 64 I must begin by making it plain that it is a paving amendment for the subsequent and substantive amendments, Amendments Nos. 119 and 121, which are the ones I shall be addressing primarily. The purpose of the amendments is to reflect and to respond constructively to the widespread and deeply felt concerns expressed very strongly by so many highly responsible senior and experienced professionals working in the National Health Service. They are motivated not by self-interest but by acute anxiety over the potential effects of the proposed changes on the patients whom they serve. I believe that never before has there been such a anited plea to the Government from the royal colleges and other professional bodies. It is a plea which I believe is eminently principled and rational and one which I believe it would be both unprincipled and irrational for the Government to ignore.
The essence of the plea, which is the basis of the amendments, is the requirement for some systematic evaluation to be built into the process of change. It is not the purpose of the amendment to prevent the implementation of the changes proposed in the Bill but to try to ensure that they are implemented on as sound a basis as possible with the information necessary to achieve the desired outcomes. Such information can only become available by systematic, empirical evaluation.
In speaking to the amendments perhaps I may remind the Committee of the breadth of the support that they command, the reasons for that support and the potentially serious effects if they are rejected.
First, I do not believe that 12 royal colleges, five professional colleges and eight other reputable professional bodies can all be entirely wrong. Perhaps I may briefly remind the Committee of the prestigious and responsible bodies which are calling for some kind of empirical evaluation of the proposed changes. They include the Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, of Pathologists, of Physicians, of Physicians of Edinburgh, of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, of Psychiatrists, of Surgeons, of Surgeons of Edinburgh, of Midwives and of Nursing. They include the College of Anaesthetists, the College of Radiographers, the College of Speech Therapists, the College of Ophthalmologists, the Society of Chiropodists, the British Dietetic Association, the British Orthoptic Society, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the British Psychological Society and the Hospital Physicists' Association.
Those professional bodies have united in an unprecedented fashion, not to plead for any self-interested cause. They are not seeking to oppose government policy. They are merely requesting the Government to commit themselves to a programme of evaluation before opening up the gates to wholesale change when there is a dearth of adequate information on which to base that change or on which to assess its effects.
That point has been made very powerfully by Sir Henry Yellowlees, formerly Chief Medical Officer of Health, in his letter to The Times of 17th April. I should like to quote him, as he writes with the authority and direct experience of his responsible post. He said:
"Over the past few weeks a series of reports published in January 1990 have been issued from the Department of Health on the detail of the information and information technology needed for the implementation of the reforms. The reports illustrate the complexity of the undertaking, and demonstrate the enormous gulf that still exists between the theory of these reforms and the practicability of the timescale proposed for their introduction. These documents—'Framework for Information Systems'—are full of phrases like 'it is difficult to introduce', 'time is not on our side', 'details of how the reforms will work are still not clear', 'lack of clarity about roles', 'responsibility for that function is not clear'".
I continue to quote from Sir Henry:
"It has become evident that the Department's own advisers recognise that it is not at present possible to cost an out-patient's attendance or a course of in-patient treatment with any accuracy. How can it be sensible to introduce scattered NHS Trusts hospitals and fund-holding practices where those must depend on buying and selling a product which cannot be costed?"
Sir Henry concludes:
"even at this stage there is still time for the government to change the pace of their introductions, and not risk failure of the reforms, or possibly of the whole of the NHS, by insisting on a rushed timetable that appears to be potentially disastrous".
Surely the Government must heed such sober warnings. I therefore hope profoundly that they will respond as sympathetically to these amendments designed to help them to proceed with the changes proposed in the Bill, but to do so in a way that

463
maximises the chance of their succeeding in achieving their objectives—better patient care.
I now turn from the background of the amendments to a few brief words on their substance. In essence, they ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to establish some systematic programme of evaluation during the initial stages of the implementation of the proposed changes before giving the green light to wholesale, nationwide change without the benefit of the results of that evaluation.
The Committee may have noticed a change in the wording of Amendment No. 121 since it was first put down last week. In its original form, it put certain specific limits on the number of changes to be introduced, limiting those to two regional health authorities. It would also have delayed the national implementation of the reforms for a period of three years until evaluation of the effects of change in those two regions had been fully assessed.
I still believe that there was a sound logic in that original amendment in terms of systematic, rigorous research. However, it was suggested that it would be politically and practically unfeasible, given that there may be many hospitals and practices which have already been working hard to try to prepare themselves for the proposed changes and it would be unfair to exclude them from a such a limited sample. Therefore, the other noble Lords associated with the amendment and I agreed to modify the amendment to respect those concerns.
Since being catapulted, to my never-ending astonishment, into the political arena, I have devised a principle which I think is appropriate for any politician; namely, to have open ears, open eyes and an open mind before having an open mouth. I believe that the changes in the amendment reflect that principle. We have modified our amendments in the light of discussions that we have had and advice that we have received. We have modified them to an extent which we believe makes them unexceptionable and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will show a comparable openness of mind and flexibility on behalf of the Government.
We are aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has until now made clear his resistance to the kind of evaluation programme which was put forward in the paper The Way Forward which was prepared by the royal colleges, and the other bodies to which I have already referred, although I believe that my right honourable friend has committed himself in general to the concept of evaluation. We have therefore now proposed amendments which ensure that the principles of evaluation will be implemented, but which give to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State maximum leeway in how that will be done, both in terms of locations and numbers of hospitals and practices and also in terms of the timescale involved. If he is committed, as he says he is, to the fundamental principle of evaluation, the amendments provide an opportunity to demonstrate that commitment, but in ways which he can choose. It no longer imposes the constraints which he previously appeared to find unacceptable.
We cannot be more reasonable or accommodating than that. Perhaps I may conclude with a brief personal statement as to why I as a nurse, a social scientist and a Conservative, plead with my noble friend the Minister to give a sympathetic response. As a nurse, I know from working with my professional colleagues not only in nursing but in the other health professions, that their concerns are not self-interested in this matter. They are genuinely, deeply worried about the implementation of change in a system as complex as health care on the basis of inadequate information. In health care, mistakes cause suffering to vulnerable people. Every precaution must therefore be taken to avoid unnecessary detrimental side-effects of change. That can be achieved only by phased, controlled and systematic evaluation of change.
As a social scientist I have been deeply influenced by the work of writers such as Sir Karl Popper, especially his convincing arguments for the need for piecemeal reform rather than the imposition of wholesale, radical, untried change. Social systems such as health care are far too complex to anticipate and plan in advance for every contingency and, especially with a warning such as that sounded by Sir Henry Yellowlees to which I have already referred, it would be foolhardy in the extreme to proceed with such changes without any kind of controlled evaluation.
Finally, perhaps I may speak particularly to my noble friends on these Benches. I hope that they will understand that I support the amendments as a deeply committed Conservative. I shall just give two examples as to why I do; first, in terms of basic Conservative principles. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding spoke eloquently last week of Conservatives being appropriately cautious about change and indicated that the onus of justification should be on those who advocate it. I agree, but part of that justification must be a commitment to rigorous testing of the effects of change. Theory must be tested in practice. The acceptance of the amendments on the face of the Bill would be a reassuring proof of that commitment.
That leads me into my second reason for supporting the amendments as a Conservative. I am sure that many noble Lords will have had the opportunity of talking to, and with, fellow Conservatives throughout the country. Wherever I go, I hear expressions of profound concern about the proposed changes to the NHS. Recent opinion polls demonstrate that too. A large majority of the electorate are very worried. Therefore, if the Government wish to reassure the public, including their own supporters and, more importantly, to avoid potential mistakes which might lead to human suffering and which would make them subject to legitimate criticism, I believe that they must take that step to commitment to some form of evaluation as they embark on the reforms.
The terms of the amendment are eminently reasonable and give great power to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to determine the nature of the evaluation programme. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be persuaded to respond sympathetically to the

465
amendments which reflect the sincere concerns of so many senior, responsible people working in and for the NHS and for the patients whom it serves. If the Government respond sympathetically, I believe that they can enhance their credibility with the professions and with the public. If they do not do so, I fear that their credibility will be severely damaged and I would have to say deservedly so.
I hope that my noble friend will therefore be able to respond in a way which avoids that potential damage but, much more importantly, in a way which will set the scene for a carefully programmed and systematically evaluated introduction of change which respects the wise advice of senior professionals and, most important of all, will best promote the interests of the patients, the clients, and the communities which the National Health Service exists to serve. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Smith: This amendment, so admirably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, stems in part at least from a statement made by the presidents of the royal medical colleges. At the Second Reading of this Bill I listened with much enjoyment to the superb introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. In that speech she paid tribute to the presidents of the colleges but as regards the fate of this Bill she held that their opinions were largely irrelevant.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who spoke immediately after her, declaimed with emphasis what must have been apparent to the Chamber—that the opinion of the presidents must be respected and believed. Later the same day I overheard several remarks in this Chamber. While not in the least critical of the presidents, in the main they were to the effect: the presidents are doubtless very eminent in the medical profession, but I wonder how they were elevated to that position? Was it seniority, popularity, a reputation for knowledge, wisdom or skill, or was it medical authorship? What was it? Above all, what particular qualities had they developed which made them more trustworthy in predicting the future of the National Health Service? In deciding upon such vital issues, what weight should we attach to their views?
The same evening the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guidford, said with characteristic kindliness that he regretted the infrequency with which I addressed noble Lords. I answer that indirect question by replying that in recent years I have perhaps been unduly shy of speaking unless it is certain that I have some special knowledge which can briefly be stated, which will contribute to the debate and which may fill in the gaps that may prevent some noble Lords from making a fair judgment.
I know about royal medical colleges. The various colleges have many similarities but one or two differences in internal structure. I should like the Committee to come behind the scenes and visit just one Colllege in Lincoln's Inn Fields to find out what might be learnt. The colleges co-operate fully with other medical bodies. On the other hand, they are not allowed to argue on behalf of the self-interest of doctors. It is not traditional. In any event, were they
466
to do so, the college would lose its charitable status. Each councillor is elected by all the fellows of the college and learns straight away that he or she is there to put the interests of patients above all and to maintain and advance the standards of medicine. The hard work is largely done in the committees. I shall not bore the Committee with a list but I must mention two of them.
To foreshadow the first beginnings of audit, one committee sends round visitors to inspect all hospitals where training of surgeons takes place. When the visiting team of surgeons from the college arrives, all the staff surgeons are expected to give an account of their individual work and the training that they undertake: teaching clinical diagnosis, teaching operative techniques, pathology and radiology. The staff surgeons co-operate fully and cheerfully with the college's requirements which stimulate a higher standard of surgery throughout the country. Very rarely the standard of teaching proves inadequate and the college withdraws recognition of training from the hospital. That situation resolves itself, because when any vacancy for a trainee surgeon arises no young men or women will apply for it and a hospital cannot perform surgical work when there are no junior surgical assistants.
Of course the Department of Health thoroughly approves the college's inspection of hospitals. In a way that approximates to the beginning of surgical audit. In the college the most effective members on the committee later become chairmen—I dislike the word "chairperson"; and, for example, a lady is chairman of the Court of Examiners—and the most effective chairman ultimately becomes a president who is elected by the 30 councillors. It is a reputation for good judgment on critical issues that in the end decides the council.
To digress for a brief moment, looking back over the years it is not often that the council can have elected a president of wisdom and judgment as outstanding as the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who commands respect and great affection throughout the medical scene in this country and the world. The president is expected to serve for a maximum of three years, although he can be turned out at a yearly election. I have the greatest respect for the wisdom and judgment of Terence English, the president, and for Margaret Turner-Warwick, the first lady to be elected president of the Royal College of Physicians—to name only two presidents.
Finally, I must mention one more committee because it is extremely relevant. There used to be a committee called the standing joint committee. It had only three members: the presidents of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It seemed to me in the mid-1970s that that might be replaced by a conference of presidents of all the colleges in the United Kingdom, which would be a sounding board for colleges to make sure that every college knew what the other colleges thought about every thorny problem. Morever, should things go badly with the National Health Service it would give an opportunity to make sure that the Department of Health, the Government

467
and the public knew the conjoint opinion of all the presidents in the United Kingdom.
That prescience was well judged. The Secretary of State's White Paper and the text of this Bill were considered many times by the conference. Doctors are not famed for unanimity and although the many presidents come from a great number of colleges whose only common feature is medicine the conference agreed with no dissentient voice to state its case for the information of Parliament.
I hope sincerely that I have not repeated knowledge that the Committee already possess. If so, I apologise. My aim was to fill in a few possible gaps in knowledge.
In conclusion, I believe that Members of the Committee should not underestimate the passionate conviction of each president to do what is best for patients and for the National Health Service. The Committee should not underestimate the knowledge, wisdom and judgment that guide them. It should not underestimate the feeling of the conference to have the courage to issue the statement.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has introduced the amendment in such terms that there remains very little for us to say. She has expressed what we all feel.
I am one whose name was on the original amendment. I am happy to accept the change that has taken place since we last met. This amendment is more realistic, and it would help enormously to allay the fears of people within the health service. Over the past few days I have been to various National Health Service establishments. The one factor about which all grades of staff within hospitals are concerned—doctors, nurses and administrators—is the impossible timetable set by the present Bill. The amendment would not only give us a chance to consider the outcome of the proposed changes, but it might also give everyone a little time to settle down and prepare more thoroughly for any change that is coming.
I have frequently been told by the Secretary of State and Ministers that various pilot schemes to test the system have been going on around the country. That may be so. However, to test these changes that are being introduced necessitates using at least a district. One cannot test the system by using a hospital somewhere in Manchester and a private practice with its own funds somewhere in East Anglia. One must test it within a district so that the interaction between a National Health Service trust hospital and a hospital that remains within the district health authority's jurisdiction is tested. One must test the interaction between fund-holding practices and single practitioners and those who do not wish to hold funds. Above all it must be tested against the ongoing community care provisions which also change under the Bill.
Unless we have a real test in at least a district, preferably a region, we face enormous problems. We should give ourselves the time to make certain that we are going in the right direction. I support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: The Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendment have done so on the basis of special knowledge and experience. It was brilliantly presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I present my own party's point of view.
It is my fear that the National Health Service is in for a very rough ride in the next year or 18 months unless the Government take note of the recommendations that have been made. First, there are bound to be service cuts on a scale no less dramatic than two years ago. They are starting already in district after district. Members of the Committee will recall that it was service cutbacks which led to the Prime Minister setting up the working group that produced the Bill. I fear that we are in for trouble.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has set a cracking pace for changes which are not only unpopular and unproven but which seem destined to create chaos. That is what the royal colleges and others were saying. From my own knowledge, the information technology is simply not ready. The database will not be ready by 1st April. The staff are not trained. The vast additional administrative costs to put these schemes into practice can be available only at the expense of patient care. A King's Fund spokesman said at the conference last week that the authors of the White Paper had seriously underestimated the scale of change. That is what the colleges were saying in their very important statement. Since that statement literally dozens of other organisations within the health service, including the main trade unions, the voluntary organisations and community organisations, have endorsed the statement made by the colleges. I do not recall a consensus of opinion on any subject such as now exists. If we as Members of the Committee neglect or ignore what the colleges are saying at this time then it is at our peril.
I believe that the amendment expresses the mood of the nation at the present time. From all sides, including many worried Members of Parliament, and such responsible organs as the health service journal, Mr. Kenneth Clarke is being urged to take note of these growing concerns before it is too late.
No one is seriously expecting that he should do a U-turn and drop his latest crop of ideas which now form the basis of the Bill. We are saying, "Try them out. Get some experience in a limited number of selected districts. Have them tested the hard way by local experience and, when there is time to learn the lessons of experience, decide what is best for the health service as a whole". That is what the amendment is about.
None of us is opposed to change. However, what is proposed in the Bill is so new, so unlike any procedure carried out in the National Health Service over the past 42 years, so full of potential—it may be for good or ill—that we say, "For God's sake get it right before anyone plunges the National Health Service into new uncertainties".
At a time when the Government are obviously facing great unpopularity and severe criticism, surely someone somewhere must be learning the lessons of the poll tax. I imagine that many people will ask,

469
"Why was that not tested?" If it had been tested, we may have had something more serious before us. It is sheer common sense.
I make two concluding points. I am sure that the noble Baroness will say that to some extent there will be pilot projects, and that the lessons will be learnt about these new NHS trusts and so on as time goes on. It is not enough to say that we shall learn as we go along. Evaluation is extremely important in order that we learn the lessons before such schemes are introduced across the country.
I wish to emphasis a point that has already been made. It is not the same proposal as was made by the royal colleges. All those whose names are down to the amendment met the Secretary of State last week when he came to the House. We recognise his arguments that the proposal from the royal medical colleges for evaluation of the scheme in two regions of not less than three years was too rigid. While I do not suggest that he agrees with the new amendment, it reflects our wish for agreement, and our wish not only to be flexible but to leave the vital decisions of where and when to the Secretary of State.
If this proposal were to be accepted, I believe that it would take a lot of the venom out of the present debate about the National Health Service. It would be welcomed by the public and by the vast majority of those who work in the service. Equally if the noble Baroness when she speaks on his behalf refuses what several commentators have called a lifeline, I believe that he will come to regret such refusal. He must be aware that the polls show that three-quarters of his party's supporters would put their names to the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: It may assist Members of the Committee if at this stage I explain how the Government see the implementation of the reforms. I shall later attempt to respond to specific points raised in the course of what promises to be an important debate.
There is considerable agreement about the ends and objectives of the Bill. We all wish to see improvements in the National Health Service. We want those improvements to be soundly based, to command the support and respect of patients and staff and to have within them scope for further refinements over time. I hope to demonstrate that the Government's approach to implementation fully meets the spirit of all the concerns about which we are aware and which were expressed today by the movers of the amendments. I believe that our approach is more effective than the amendments proposed, the precise terms of which could not be satisfactorily translated into practice.
On Second Reading I spoke at length about the evolutionary nature of our approach to implementation. There will be no big bang, no overnight change, no disruption of services. Our proposals were carefully thought through before the White Paper was published and have since been carefully refined and developed. That process will continue until 1st April 1991, thereby guaranteeing that the reforms have the best possible starting base.
470
However, April 1991 will not be the end of the process. The careful preparations during the preceding year will give place to what will in effect be pilot projects. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, says that that is not enough but I assure him that, for example, the first National Health Service trusts will be in operation from that date. There will be a few dozen drawn from the many units which have expressed interest. The first GP fund-holding practices will be in operation; that is, a few hundred from the 850 which have so far sought further information about the schemes.
In both cases strong candidates will be chosen—those whom we and the regional health authorities believe to be best able to meet the challenges inherent in the schemes. We shall not be coercing them into participating because that would be totally against the spirit of both schemes. Instead, we are looking for volunteers and enthusiasts. But by no means all those who seek trust or fund-holding status will be given that. They will need to demonstrate their competence. Therefore, the size of the first wave will be restricted to one which the National Health Service is satisfied it can handle and from which important lessons can be learnt.
We shall all learn from the first volunteers but not, I maintain, if we impose upon them too tight a monitoring or evaluating mechanism. By their very nature they will uncover new opportunities, find new ways of solving problems and identify difficulties and challenges which were not anticipated. They are the very aspects that the proposers of the amendments wish to see. Both schemes will be considerably refined as implementation develops, taking account of everything that we and participants learn as the pace of change develops. Bringing forward those schemes at a pace they can handle, and in a way that best promotes patient care, will be a heavy management task.
A similar process will take place in respect of the National Health Service contracts. Already the thinking on the implementation of the contracts has developed markedly in sophistication since the publication of the White Paper, the working paper and the recent operating contracts guidance. We shall continue to learn from experience in that area. Without doubt, in the initial stages some contracts will be in relatively simple block form and there will be little difference from existing patterns of service. What will increasingly happen, and has already begun to happen, is that further refinements will be made in the identification of quality standards and the definition of service requirements. Both aspects are most important to our plans. In time that will open up even wider opportunities for providers and suppliers of services.
I have said that we shall learn from experience. No doubt noble Lords will ask how we shall do so. First, we shall be monitoring through the National Health Service management executive and we shall keep in close touch with progress on the ground. Regional health authorities will be doing the same. I am confident that problems and good practice will be swiftly identified and solutions found and disseminated. Secondly, we shall be supporting the enthusiasts. We are not engaged in a world of

471
cut-throat competition. Throughout the 1990s we shall be working with trusts and fund holders, supporting them in their individual work and ensuring that lessons are properly learnt and information is spread across the country. In that respect regional health authorities will have a crucial role.
Thirdly, and most importantly, we shall be evaluating the changes as we go along. That is a central task for management at all levels within the National Health Service. I do not believe that it can be sensibly carried out by a separate body outside the National Health Service management. With the best will in the world, such an external body is likely to lack the resources and supply of information required in order to form a comprehensive picture. I shall develop those points further in dealing with the precise amendment. However, I emphasise that National Health Service management does not live in a vacuum. There will be many influential commentators on the reports and their effects and we shall ensure that their views are taken fully into account as part of our wider evaluation.
We need to ensure that we have the tools in place to act on that ongoing evaluation. The Bill allows for that. It provides arrangements by which a GP practice can relinquish fund-holding status and trusts can return to the directly managed sector. I do not believe that there will be many such cases but it is right that we should anticipate that they may happen occasionally and we should provide for them. More importantly, I emphasise that much of the detail of the schemes will be non-legislative or contained in secondary legislation.
As our debates progress, no doubt we shall discuss how the various regulation and direction-making powers in the Bill will be used. We tried to give a full indication of that in the Notes on Clauses. I shall try to provide further information where possible during the course of our debates. I emphasise that the powers can and will be used flexibly in the light of experience in order to ensure that the legal framework which the Bill brings forward is sufficiently dynamic and flexible to adjust to operational requirements and opportunities as they emerge during the coming decade. That gives us the right balance of evolution within a clear legal framework and not, I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, an impossible timetable.
I believe that that is a realistic approach to implementation. It will allow the National Health Service to dictate the state of progress with districts, hospitals and GPs moving by locally determined and considered steps. It builds on experience already gained from within the National Health Service; for example, the delegation of functions to operational level, the contracting experience developed through the waiting list initiative and the improved information and resource management. Above all, it is a framework which seeks to encourage rather than to constrain.
The present proposals for implementation have the support of those working within the National Health Service. We have worked closely—
Lord Ennals: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is there any single hospital which has expressed an interest in becoming an NHS trust in which any but a small minority supported the proposal? Is there a single hosptial where there has been a ballot in which the majority of staff have said yes, they wish to go? Is there a single hospital where there has been a community ballot? Why is the Minister saying that that has been done with great enthusiasm?
Baroness Hooper: I am aware of only a few ballots on the subject.
Lord Ennals: No, no.
Baroness Hooper: We have worked closely with the health authorities and managers. In turn, they have involved their clinicians and other health professionals. There are many individual members of the profession—and no doubt we shall hear from some of them during our debate this afternoon—who believe that our proposals are the way forward. We believe that we need to continue working with those people, taking their advice and learning with them. It is no part of our strategy to second-guess them by imposing our means over theirs.
Health authorities and their staff have a statutory duty to provide services and we believe that nothing should be interposed between them and that duty. I shall respond later to any other specific points raised in the debate in relation to this amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rea: As we come to expect from the noble Baroness, those were conciliatory words. The tabling of this amendment has helped the Government to bring this issue into focus. However, I still believe that the amendment is very important and I strongly support it.
The changes in this Bill are supposed to make the National Health Service more efficient and businesslike. Leaving aside the question of whether we believe that the proposed changes which introduce financial incentives into the National Health Service actually do that, we should consider whether the way in which those changes are being introduced are businesslike in themselves.
I am sure that all Members of the Committee know far better than I that changes in the management of large-scale commercial enterprises are carefully tested in pilot or demonstration projects. New product lines are subjected to market research using tried and tested techniques and methods which are quite vigorous and are acccurately predictive.
Professor Alain Enthoven, who many Members of the Committee will have heard of, is a professor of public and private management at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. He made a study of the National Health Service in 1984 and published a Nuffield monograph on the management of the National Health Service. It is on his thinking as much as anything that the Government's plans are based, particularly separating the provider from the purchaser.

473
Professor Enthoven is quite critical of the way in which the Government are bringing in their plans. I should like to quote from an interview which he gave to Dr. Richard Smith in the British Medical Journal a year ago. He said:
"I cannot understand why the Government didn't choose to test these very promising ideas"—
and those are his words:
"in a series of pilot projects. Health care is an institution which is very difficult to change. There is much uncertainty and so much is at stake so people are reluctant to change. That reluctance may be broken down by successful pilot projects".
With regard to the timing of the National Health Service reforms he said:
"Considering the large changes that will have to be made—in informantion systems and culture—that's an amazing speed. Health care just doesn't change that fast".
I am aware that the Government plan initially to introduce National Health Service hospital trusts and budget-holding general practice to volunteers. The noble Baroness confirmed that. However, I hope that those will be evaluated rigorously, preferably through the good offices of the director of research and development and, as we discussed on the last amendment, guided by an independent advisory body.
The introduction of a contractor/provider principle and capital charging looks set to be imposed universally in April 1991. I suggest that, as intimated by Professor Enthoven, that will not be possibile without the risk of great disruption or very great expense, and probably both. The resources needed are great and if all districts try to introduce costing and contracting systems simultaneously, there will be insufficient resources and expertise to go round.
It is far more sensible to concentrate on one or two regions, invest expertise there and carefully measure and assess the results. The bugs can be ironed out, the best information systems developed, costing systems which take into account outcome and effectiveness can be worked out, and initially methods of monitoring standards can be applied and carefuly evaluated in a few districts.
As I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, when major reforms of a not dissimilar nature were proposed in the USSR, three regions were first selected to try out those measures: Leningrad, Kuibyshev and a city in Siberia. As a result of that many changes were made before the countrywide reforms were instituted. They are now going ahead. The original changes which gave budgets to polyclinics, (similar to the general practice budgets here) to buy hospital services were found to be wildly impractical. It is impossible to go into detail here but the original projects were found to be extremely useful when evaluated before going ahead with nationwide schemes.
For all those reasons, we should insist on this amendment, otherwise we shall run into a dangerous situation.
Lord Hunter of Newington: Something which the Minister said seemed to me to be a brief glimpse of light in the darkness, and perhaps she will confirm that she said it. She conveyed to me that there
474
are quite a number of volunteers who have special hospitals and practices and she said that in 1991, 30 or so from each group would be chosen. The critical point is: are the Government prepared to say now that, having set that experiment going, until those experiments in hospitals and general practices are evaluated, nothing further will be introduced?
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: I simply and briefly support the amendment before us. Although in a sense I speak for myself at this point, I believe that I have the support of many Church leaders across the country. I say that because at the General Synod last July when the National Health Service and various proposals connected with it were debated, a resolution was passed which runs on almost similar lines, calling for this sort of evaluation.
That particular resolution was passed virtually unanimously. Therefore, I believe that in supporting this amendment I should have the support not only of my fellow bishops but also of the General Synod of the Church of England.
I support it for a second reason. Today we have heard the very helpful opinions of various colleges and great associations. Perhaps I may take Members of the Committee into the inner city of Bradford where I addressed a conference of community workers just a few weeks ago. There were some 90 or so professionals, some from the statutory service, some from the voluntary sector ranging right across the political, Church and inter-faith divides. One thing united that entire conference which I was very privileged to address: it was united in its determination to make the Bill work for patients. It was united in its anxiety at the lack of clarity and the vagueness surrounding some of the proposals. They were also united—very strangely because they did not know that this debate was to be held—in their plea for this kind of evaluation or pilot project so that they could see the end results before full implementation took place.
On the basis of my experience with the General Synod and on the basis of working at the coal face in that particular part of Bradford, I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
Baroness Young: It is extremely helpful to hear my noble friend the Minister explain how the Government see this amendment. Quite clearly, from the discussion which has taken place, it has considerable support in the Chamber. It is very helpful that the Minister has set out the Government's approach to the Bill. It is an evolutionary approach, and on re-reading the Bill and re-reading the White Paper before the debate, one is struck by that as the whole thread and principle behind the Bill. It is not as though everything will suddenly change on 1st April 1991. Even if that were possible—and I do not believe it is—that is not the case.
It is always very difficult for lay people to argue with doctors on any point. The battery of expertise which we heard today is a very daunting audience for those of us who are lay people taking part in the debate. Among the experts I include my noble friend Lady Cox, who speaks both as a nurse and a social

475
worker. We all listened to her and admire the sincerity of her beliefs.
That said, the amendment does not make plain the point which underlines the whole Bill, that after 40 years of the National Health Service—I speak as a great supporter—it is right to look at it again and make changes. The changes proposed are not of such a fundamental nature that somehow we will find that the National Health Service, as it exists today, will be completely changed. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, shakes his head, but the debates which we have so far heard in Committee concerning Clauses 1, 2 and 3, set out the structure of the committees at regional and district level.
We then move on to the National Health Service trusts. There has been much argument about them, but they still come within the National Health Service. Nobody suggests that they should become private hospitals, except those who wish to frighten individuals. I regret to say that there has been a certain amount of that sort of propaganda, but they will not become private hospitals; they will remain within the National Health Service.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. She referred to me nodding my head; perhaps I can explain why. She is aware that from April 1991 all health authorities will be obliged to contract for all services. They have never done that before; they are ill-equipped to do so and it will create, from my experience and discussions with health authorities throughout the country, terrible uncertainty. When the noble Baroness says that there will be no big bang, I fear that there will be a big bang. They are all being plunged into doing something which they have never done before without evaluation.
Baroness Young: I take the point, which is a matter of fact, that health authorities will have to contract for services. It is something new that they will do, but that will not entirely change the health service; it will change a part of it. It is an evolutionary reform which will give them more responsibility; it will give them, in a sense, more interest and, at the end of the day, it will not just obtain better value for money but help to improve patient care.
I said that I am a great supporter of the National Health Service; I am. It has problems but, as I said earlier, they are not problems of failure; they are problems of success. The National Health Service has been immensely successful. Nevertheless, anybody who looks at it objectively will realise that one cannot possibly pretend that it is absolutely the best and offers the best of all possible worlds.
I often listened in your Lordships' Chamber to criticisms of the health service on behalf of those who, for one reason or another, did not receive the services to which they were entitled, whether it be children receiving vaccinations, old people and home visiting or whatever it may be. The Bill is a very sincere attempt to raise standards throughout the health service. It recognises—and that is a fact for whatever government is in power—that there will never be enough money for it. Money has been poured into the National Health Service; to talk of
476
cuts is absurd. To pretend that every single request in the future will be met would be to commit oneself to something which is unfulfillable. I am certain that the amount of money going into the health service will increase every year, but we need to satisfy ourselves that it is being spent as well as possible.
I believe that the National Health Service is, among other things, the biggest employer in the European Community. That in itself gives rise to enormous problems of making the best use of its resources which, after all, are its employees. Whether we are satisfied that it has always done that and is still doing it is one of the questions which remains to be answered.
My response to my noble friend Lady Cox and others who spoke most eloquently on this point, is that this is an evolutionary Bill. As my noble friend made quite clear, there will not be some sort of "big bang" on 1st April 1991. Already many reforms have been introduced which presage that which will happen in 1991. For example, the National Health Service trust status is a logical further step in the devolution of responsibility which is already taking place in some hospitals at an operational level. The other examples given by my noble friend also illustrate that.
The point has been made by many people that we need these experiments, and that shows that they are being carried out. The effect of the amendment, should it be carried, would not be to enable the improvements in the health service to be made, but rather for there to be delay. That would be the end effect of the amendment.
The Bill is important. Perhaps I may comment on one other point. A great many people said in various polls that they are very much against the reforms. I am afraid that I am not surprised that that was the outcome. Some of the propaganda that has been put out by the BMA is little short of disgraceful. It has frightened a lot of people in a very unprofessional way. I think it right to say that. Some of its observations, such as the statement that the National Health Service has been starved of funds, are simply untrue. It ill befits a profession to go around making totally untrue statements. It is right that we should say so in this Committee and that we should say to people who have been frightened or alarmed that they should read the rest of those statements, recognising that some of them which are ascertainable are not true.
I am not surprised therefore that when many people read and hear all that propaganda, when asked they say that they are alarmed, because they think something alarming will happen. That is why it is important that we recognise that the Bill is an evolutionary measure. It maintains the National Health Service, because we all believe in it and it is a very good service, but it is designed to improve it.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I can ask whether she puts in the same class as what she refers to as "propaganda" the very serious professional representations put forward by all the royal colleges and professional organisations quoted in the earlier speeches?
Baroness Young: I was very careful in what I said in my remarks. I picked out that particular piece because it appeared in many national newspapers and a1 least one of the statements was completely untrue. I could say a great deal more regarding the other statements, but I will not take up the time of the Committee.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: Perhaps I may point out that if this was 1972 I would view these amendments very favourably. In 1972 I introduced a modest pilot study into the National Health Service simply to improve the lot of the junior staff of our hospitals throughout the country. It was a small pilot study which gave them security for the first time. The study looked at their families and family life. Was it right to move the staff around every year? Was it right that they should have absolutely no security? I had no axe to grind because I had been treated very well as a member of the junior staff in my time. Therefore, I introduced this scheme into a small part of one of the 14 regions of England. That was in 1972. No one was going to lose any money or prestige. All that would happen was that junior staff would get a better deal.
What happened to that pilot study? It operated for 15 years and was constantly attacked by people who should have known better. What was the basis of the attacks? It was said that security—which is what the scheme gave—was bad for young people; very good for old people and for consultants but bad for the junior staff. The scheme continued for 15 years until finally it was destroyed. I did not particularly mind because by then the Government had included it in their document Achieving a Balance, so it was going to be implemented eventually and in fact it will be soon—after 20 years! That is what is done with pilot studies. I would be very chary of any pilot studies or of the people who suggest them. We know what professions do with pilot studies. I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who said that a profession is a conspiracy against the laity. Of course, I would not go that far in regard to my own profession but I understand what he was getting at.
I am delighted at the reply we have had from my noble friend Lady Hooper, who suggested that perhaps 24 hospitals might become self-governing. That is a reasonable trial to start with. Only those hospitals that are fit, able and willing to undertake the scheme will be permitted to do so. Only those which in the future become able and fit will be allowed to proceed. That seems to me to be a suitable way of proceeding.
I underline what has recently been said about why the people of this country are so against the Bill. Have they read the Bill? Have they read the White Paper? Have the million people employed in the NHS read the White Paper? Remarkably few have done so. However, what they have been given by the media is the sort of information that has been scattered around by people who should know better. People have said that when the money for drugs runs out and you happen to be a diabetic there will be no more money for the insulin you need and you will have to die. Is it surprising that people are worried
478
about the Bill? We have had rumours that, if there is a change of government, who knows what will happen to those NHS managers who have been rather keen on the scheme? I do not think that is a particularly honourable suggestion to make.
I do not believe that these amendments should be supported. We should support the Government in going ahead carefully and steadily but not allow the NHS to drag its feet, which it has always had a tendency to do. We desperately need reforms in the National Health Service. The Committee may not be aware that many districts within the NHS do not even know what their budgets will be—and we are at the end of April—and will not know until May or June. How can one run a £50 million outfit without knowledge of the budget?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very careful reply to an authoritative debate on this amendment. I also thank my noble friend Lord McColl, who has great expertise in this field, for his remarks. Nevertheless, I am still left with queries as to what will happen on 1st April next year.
I do not see how any hospital can decide that it wants to become an NHS trust until it has introduced a resource management initiative, established a complete system of modern technology for the information system of the hospital and a modern cost-accounting system which will enable it to produce its own budget. That will take four or five years to achieve and my noble friend Lord McColl will confirm that. Indeed, a Select Committee of another place, after experience in America, confirmed that to be the case. Therefore, I am sure that come 1st April next year nothing will change immediately.
Some hospitals will, I hope, have already opted for starting on a resource management initiative. That is the first step towards a strong and sound management. When that has been done, when costing has been carried out and the position is known, hospitals will be able to say whether they will become self-governing in an NHS trust. I do not see how they can decide until that has been done. It will not happen overnight. Hospitals cannot say, "Yes, we would like to become an NHS trust" because they will not have sufficient information to understand all the implications. My noble friend Lord McColl was one of the pioneers at Guy's Hospital and a marvellous job has been done with six pioneer hospitals. I believe that 50 or 60 other hospitals are making a start, but it all takes time because it is evolutionary.
In my judgment the proposals in the Bill, and the White Paper behind it, are good. I have no objection to self-governing hospitals. On the other hand, I must be realistic and recognise that not every hospital will want to become self-governing. Some will and some will not. However, every hospital can benefit if it has a resource management initiative because it will then be an efficient hospital which can produce its own budget, control its own costs and therefore receive its allocation of money on the basis of realism.
Lord Ennals: Why is it that 90 per cent. of the staff at Guy's Hospital, when given the opportunity of expressing an opinion, said that they did not want to become a self-governing trust?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I need not answer the noble Lord's question. He must do that for himself. My guess is that some would want to and some would not. I believe that is a fact. The first thing they would want to do is to ascertain what it meant. They would need a modern management system so that they knew what they were dealing with.
The noble Lord rightly said that as the Bill stands, when it becomes law, the contract system will be introduced next April. I have to say that that alarms me a little. My noble friend has a monumental task in mastering the enormously authoritative arguments put to her by so many experts. She said that the scheme will be evolutionary. It cannot be anything else, but it is a good evolution. Perhaps my noble friend can put a little more emphasis on the evolution and a little less emphasis on something specific which is to happen on 1st April next year. That would certainly give me a little more confidence in believing that these ideas, which are so good, can develop gradually throughout the country—over the next decade, I should have thought—to improve the health service in many ways.
6 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: On two occasions—on Second Reading at the beginning of this month and in the first of our short general debates at the beginning of September—I have coupled strong support for the Government's proposals in principle with strong warnings about the dangers of trying to proceed too rapidly and treading on ground without testing it as one goes along. Therefore, I suspect it would be natural for the Committee to imagine that I support this amendment.
I support the spirit of the amendment but I must make clear that I cannot support it in the form in which it appears on the Marshalled List. I ask noble Lords to read the amendment carefully and imagine that they are the Secretary of State with the amendment included in the Bill and wondering what on earth they can or cannot do. It does not make practical sense as it stands.
If I am honest, neither do I believe that one can put into statutory form the careful and steady progress that I imagine the majority of the Committee wishes to see made in implementing the Bill's provisions. It is not possible to define in statute what you can or cannot do at a particular time. If that is done I hope that the result will not be as extreme as my noble friend Lord McColl indicated, but it will be a cause for delay rather than for progress. I want to see progress and to see these provisions implemented as fast as possible, provided that the speed is sensible and that the measures are tested step by step, as we go along. I would hesitate to lay down a timetable.
What I believe we all seek from the Government, both in Parliament and outside, is a clear statement of their intentions. My noble friend Lady Hooper has made a very helpful start this afternoon. But it
480
is only a start and not a completion. She will need to address herself to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, raised during an intervention.
It is comforting to know that, as at the beginning of April next year, there will be a relatively small number, not closely defined, of experiments started about budgeting practices and the National Health Service trusts. But when will the next wave come? I do not expect the Government to say that it will not come for two years or for any fixed time, but I expect them to give us an idea as to how the first wave of experiments will be watched, evaluated and reported on before the next wave.
My noble friend must also meet the point just made by my noble friend Lord Nugent. I too cannot help but be sceptical about whether a sufficient number of hospitals will have the sophisticated tools of management to embark on the National Health Service trust scheme as early as April next year, although I am not as gloomy as he is in thinking that the scheme might take four or five years.
I hope we can be assured that there will not be a deadline: come hell or high water, an unknown number of trusts must start work on 1st April or 15th April next year regardless of whether they are fully prepared. I have no objection at all to it being a target of ambition to get two or three dozen schemes started at that time. However, I do not want it to become a test of the virility of the Government or of anybody else to meet that target if the trusts are not ready to start.
We must make these experiments successful. Nothing would be more damaging than to rush into getting the schemes going only to find that we had failures on our hands. Premature failures could easily damn the whole development and undo a good deal of work. The Government must qualify a little further what they have said on those two points.
The third point which concerns me greatly is the contracting system within district health authorities. I accept that that is a vital part of the overall scheme. It is a very valuable and good part of the whole scheme, but I also know that it will be very difficult to implement. A week or two ago I spent two or three hours talking with the chairman of a district hospital authority. It would be unfair to name the authority or the person. He expressed great support for the idea, but great worries if he had to implement the scheme in his district from the beginning of April next year. He said that though he had willingly given a great deal of attention to how the scheme could be managed, he could not see how in his district he could have the necessary strength of trained middle management with the necessary technological expertise in place by that time. He thought that he could not start it as soon as that without a grave, unnecessary and unacceptably high risk of breakdown.
There is that worry. However, I do not want to confuse that worry with the Government regarding it as a cause for seeking delay for the sake of delay. That is why I do not want to fix timetables or procedures. I want the Government, by firm statements, to flesh out what my noble friend Lady Hooper has said this afternoon about this evolutionary process. It is an evolutionary process

481
and it is intended to be so. I hope she will say that it is an evolutionary process on which the Government wish to see progress as fast as possible but only at a safe and sensible speed.
If that can be repeatedly said and assurance given to those who are shying away through fear at all these new ideas—they are genuine fears about the welfare of patients; do not let us despise those fears—acceptance will gradually grow. I do not want to fix rigid and mechanistic timetables or methods of evaluation. The process must be governed by common sense, responsibility and, above all, care for the patients and the concern should begin with the Minister and go right down through the whole service to both lay and medical people.
Lord Kilmarnock: I have a slight difficulty with these amendments. They are less prescriptive in form than the idea that was originally discussed of an experiment in two regions and over a defined period of three years. To that exent I find the main amendment more attractive.
I am a passionate believer in formative evaluation. Recently I was responsible for editing a pamphlet on the topic. In an ideal world I would be happier if experiments and evaluations took place across the whole service and were not confined to one or more regions, while the rest of the country stood still. Across the country there are numerous health service bodies which are gearing up for change and they are eager to go. However, my support for universal and ongoing evaluation and what I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Young, called an evolutionary approach crucially depends on getting certain matters into the Bill.
For example, we have already discussed the powers of the chief of research and development and his power to conduct research, evaluation and measurement and to make proper recommendations. He should also have proper clout. I want to see those factors in the Bill. I also want to see quality control and the maintenance of standards included. We shall be discussing those matters shortly. I want to see a mechanism for those provisions in the Bill. I want to see the role of the universities also enshrined in the Bill. I wish to see all those matters in the statute.
The difficulty is that we do not have any of these provisions in the bag at the moment. We do not have guarantees that these reforms will take place with the proper quality controls, proper monitoring of results and unbiased response to those results undistorted by ideology. Unless I hear some very encouraging remarks from the noble Baroness when she makes her final reply in this debate, I shall have to consider very seriously whether to advise my noble friends to support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I oppose this amendment mainly because, despite the very big names of the royal colleges which are behind it—I have great respect for their views—I believe that it is not right because the measures proposed are impractical. To start one or several pilot schemes is simply a method of delaying the whole matter. It would be unfair in terms of pressure on the people
482
in the pilot areas as opposed to other areas of the country. It will be almost impossible to determine which areas, regions or districts to use. How would one choose which would give a representative result at the end?
Many areas are now set to go. They will be very disappointed if everything is held up. Above all, the point which came through in the speeches of all four proposers of the amendment and of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford was the anxiety that people have, most of which is created by uncertainty about what will happen. If the Bill is passed the plans could be made and people would know where they stood. They would be able to go ahead and implement these proposals.
There was a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms to which the Secretary of State invited all parties and all those who had spoken in the Second Reading debate. On that occasion he made it clear to us that this will be a process of constant evaluation. It will not be introduced in toto. It will come in gradually and it will be evaluated. What is good and successful will continue and what is not will be set aside. So many of the points that I could have made at this stage of the debate have already been made. I shall not delay the Committee, but I oppose the amendment as it stands.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I would not want to tell my noble friends on the Front Bench what to do, but having listened to the debate, I hope that on this occasion the matter is not allowed to come to a Division. We have heard from authoritative sources and we heard effective speeches from my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Carr of Hadley. I believe that purely from a parliamentary point of view enough has been said to show that a decision should not be taken at this stage, even though we may return to the point later on. Can my noble friend give an indication that it will be looked at and that some words can be found to end the fears genuinely expressed? That would be right.
I have always looked on the Committee stage of the Bill as much as a negotiating period as a time to come to a decision by a vote. It is one way of finding out what is in the minds of people who have something important to contribute. On this issue we have had contributions of the highest standard. To allow a decision on the principle behind the amendment to be settled by a vote at this stage would in a way be refusing the Committee stage of the parliamentary process. Can my noble friend find some words to end the fears of those who support the amendment? I do not say that I do, but from a parliamentary point of view enough evidence has been produced and doubt expressed from all sides of the Committee for at any rate the issue to be kept open for a period until we go further along the journey.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I do not propose to detain the Committee on this issue. At Second Reading I said how much I deplored the aura of confrontation which had all too often in recent months clouded the discussions between members of my profession on the one hand and representatives

483
of government on the other. I hope that we can proceed to look at this problem carefully, coolly and in a spirit of constructive collaboration, debate and assessment. Any noble Lord who heard the persuasive and cogent arguments adduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, could not fail to be moved. I, like her, have been immensely impressed by the way in which the royal colleges have come together with many other organisations representing those in the health service to put forward their views. Having said that, I could not—I said this to a number of my colleagues—have supported the amendment as formally tabled, in which, despite the cogent arguments of the royal colleges and others, it was proposed that the assessment should take place in only two regions. I wholly accept the arguments made today against such a proposal.
I support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, that it is crucial at this stage that the method of implementation of these reforms, with particular reference to self-governing hospitals and to budget-holding general practices, should be looked at carefully in order that their effects in a limited number of areas, which as the noble Baroness said will be the effect of the Government's policy in the course of the few months after April 1991, can be carefully assessed and the further development and introduction of similar changes in the other parts of the health service can be examined and if necessary changes made.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carr and Lord Nugent, that the complex accounting system and management structure still do not exist in many of our hospitals in order for them to be able to fully implement these changes. The noble Baroness said that it was likely that the self-governing hospitals would in the first instance be relatively few—some 20 or thereabouts. Secondly, she said that a limited number of general practices would be chosen from the applicants in order that they could become budget holders. If that is the case, it is very much in the spirit of the amendment even though its wording has been properly and rightly criticised by some noble Lords. If the Minister could assure us that that spirit and method of slow and gradual implementation which she and the Government now propose will be followed by the careful assessment of the effects of the introduction of those changes before the next tranche of self-governing hospitals and practices is introduced, the Committee would be greatly reassured.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, that we shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend the Minister has to say about evaluation, as time goes on, of the implementation of the Bill. However, the Committee should decide now whether it wants a formal pilot scheme, albeit in a number of places, or, as the Bill suggests, a brake—my noble friend Lady Cox said that the Government needed brakepower—the brake being the speed at which the Government accept or do not accept proposals from different hospitals and different GP practices. We should decide that.
484
Pilot schemes sound wonderful. They sound wonderful to the Royal College of Surgeons. But the Royal College of Surgeons thinks that there is no evidence that six or seven different aspects of these proposals for the health service would work. It says that in its paper with the green cover. It has not looked beyond the National Health Service to where all those principles are working in many spheres of life. It finds change difficult in the National Health Service. At least one noble Lord has said that it is exceptionally difficult to make changes in health care.
The Government should accept that they must proceed carefully in the way my noble friends Lord Carr and Lord Nugent suggested. In his Second Reading speech my noble friend Lord Carr talked about the importance of carrying with one all those who have to implement the changes. He spoke of building up their confidence, their trust and their understanding of how the system will work. That is about the speed of progress. It is not about pilot projects. One noble Lord pointed out that there was no pilot project for the introduction of the community charge. What happened? It was not intended as a pilot project, but Scotland went first. It saw itself being treated as a guinea-pig and disliked that very much. Any region or district where a pilot project was implemented would see itself as being treated as a guinea-pig. Some people would be delighted, others would resent it, and the scheme would be attacked by the whole country, and I suspect even by some noble Lords, while it went on.
We badly need this Bill. We must get it right and it must be implemented in the best possible way. I do not think that the amendment is the right approach, but I understand the anxieties which have brought it about. I disagreed with a great part of the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Cox; but I agree with her in that it meets the anxieties which have been expressed. I believe that the way to meet them lies in the timing with which the Government implement the Bill.
The contracts have to be implemented at once; they will not work in any other way. However, the process as regards self-governing hospitals and the budgets for GP practices can be implemented at any speed which seems satisfactory. That speed could be decided by Parliament or it could be decided upon pragmatic grounds as we progress. The issue of the need to carry out research as we proceed could be decided by Parliament. There are many alternatives. However, I do not think that the amendment is the right way to go about it. I hope that we shall decide the matter this afternoon.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have a very simple question for the Minister. What happens if the trust hospitals run out of money? Moreover, what happens if the budget holding GPs also run out of money? Much has been said about security in today's debate. I think that the Government should give some security to the patients because, after all, they are the most important people in the National Health Service.
I believe that the Members of the Committee all have heavy responsibilities resting on their

485
shoulders. I say that because what happens if the implementation goes wrong? Moreover, will the Government give some funds for the better tools and management which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said were essential? At present many GP practices do not have computers. They are expensive items and, in any event, the staff do not have the skills necessary to operate them. If one considers some of the cherks in our National Health Service hospitals, it will be realised that they certainly do not have the ability to send bills out or to handle the money.
Baroness Hooper: I stressed earlier that our plans were largely based upon taking account of the working experience of the first waves of volunteers. I cannot sufficiently emphasise that fact. I do not believe that it is the intention of the proposers of the amendment to constrain enthusiasts within the National Health Service, but I greatly fear that that would be the effect of the proposals in the amendment. They may indeed have recognised this themselves by removing the earlier reference—and my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out that they did—to two regions and a three-year timespan, but I believe that the danger remains.
Isolating any individual area would prevent the benefits of any changes flowing to patients elsewhere. The enthusiasts in other regions would be held back, while the sceptical in the trial regions would be forced to comply. Moreover, a limited trial would create the maximum uncertainty for participating and non-participating regions alike. I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Young, Lady Gardner and, indeed, to my noble friend, Lady Carnegy of Lour for emphasising that fact. The effect of it would be to produce a blight upon all forms of development pending the outcome of the assessment, with a resulting deleterious impact upon staff morale and, therefore, upon retention, motivation and recruitment.
But there are more fundamental questions about the practicability of such a proposal. Organisational change cannot be tried out in the same way as one tests a new drug, however attractive that may seem. We benefited from the experience of my noble friend Lord McColl in his very vivid example. Perhaps I may illustrate a few of the difficulties. How could the assessor, for example, evaluate the outcome? What would be the criteria? At present standards of performance vary remarkably between districts and between different specialties within them. At best then there could be no single or simple baseline against which to monitor developments. In most cases there can be no baseline at all, because we simply do not know what existing standards are. Moreover, standards are not static. How would the assessor isolate a single proposal in the review as the cause of a change, whether advantageous or not? If the rest of the NHS were to act as a control group—and this in itself raises major difficulties—how would its standards be assessed against those in the selected regions concerned?
I turn now to the pilot areas. I should be interested to know how these would be selected. Would they, for example, include a Thames region and, if so, could the trial be kept separate from the complex
486
cross-boundary flows with other Thames regions and regions outside London from which there are many referrals to the centres of excellence? If the sample does not include a Thames region, however, it is rather difficult to see how it can be said to be representative. I believe that this particular illustration makes clear that the National Health Service is a national service, and that therefore no district or region can be fully isolated from the others. Likewise, no single element of the reform can be taken separately. Together they represent an organic, interdependent attempt at change.
I must say that I was rather taken by the suggestion that the proposals in this amendment are rather like trying out an experiment on right-hand driving in just a small part of the country. It sounds acceptable in theory, but it ignores the fact that we have a national road network.
I should like to respond to some of the criticisms which stated that we were not sufficiently prepared for the changes with which we propose to start this evolutionary process. As I said earlier, we propose to commence this on 1st April 1991. It was suggested, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that health authorities have no experience of contracting. In my earlier remarks I recognised the fact that the introduction of the NHS contract system, which we believe must happen on a national basis so as to be in any way a useful experience, would nevertheless take place in what might be a somewhat crude form initially, with block contracts which would in subsequent years be worked upon and refined.
In any event, the suggestion that there is absolutely no existing experience is quite wrong. In my earlier remarks I referred to "the waiting-list initiative". Moreover, a report from the National Association of Health Authorities has illustrated that most authorities—some 62 per cent.—have some experience in this field. In saying that, I recognise that there is a great deal to learn and that, as I said, contracts may start in a relatively simple form and develop in sophistication. However, there is undoubtedly an existing base on which to build.
I have spoken about the experience contained within the National Health Service Management Executive, the interest in National Health Service trust status and GP fundholding. At local level, health managers and professionals are closely involved in all aspects of the planning process and independent organisations—such as the King's Fund, the National Association of Health Authorities and the Institute of Health Service Management—are involved in, and generally supportive of, the implementation process. Therefore much is already taking place. There is also the fact that we shall be making the process evolutionary as from 1st April 1991.
Lord Winstanley: Before the Minister continues, perhaps she will explain one point with which I have been wrestling. She talked about contracts and when they would come into force. She said that they would be contracts between providers, purchasers and so on. She also said that initially these would have to be "somewhat crude" and then she referred to "block contracts". Does that mean that the costing of certain

487
services, which is a very difficult operation, will be carried out centrally or will it be the authority, which will either be a provider or a purchaser of the service, which will carry out that function? The question of who is to carry out the costing is one which is worrying me. It is also worrying the noble Lords, Lord Carr and Lord Nugent. Will the department carry out that function?
Baroness Hooper: The experience for the initial contracting arrangements will, of necessity, have to be based upon current referral patterns and arrangements. It will be on that basis that the initial year's contracts will be entered into in those areas where there is no more sophisticated arrangement already in place. In some areas, because there has been a certain amount of experience, the resource management inititative is in being and there is already a basis of experience on which to build.
I emphasise that the main work is not being done at national level but by managers and health professionals in districts and hospitals in the field. We are attempting to provide an environment in which their work can develop and be nurtured. I believe that we have the right recipe here to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked me for some further information about how we plan to assess and test the reforms. I am happy to be able to reassure her that the National Health Service management executive intends to work with five or six districts to examine how all the inter-related components of the White Paper proposals are being implemented as a whole, not just the proposals contained in the Bill. Lessons from their experience will be disseminated throughout the National Health Service in the run-up to 1991 and thereafter. That is an extension of the work of management executives which is already extensive within many health authorities in the form of demonstration projects to explore the practical implications of a number of individual aspects of the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to capital charging being imposed without evaluation. I think that capital charging gives a good illustration of our particularly sensitive approach to implementation. A scheme has been run in shadow form in the current financial year to allow difficulties to be identified and ironed out. Moreover, after discussion with the National Health Service the Government have adopted a flexible timetable so that the introduction of the scheme can reflect practical factors such as differences in land values. Similar pragmatism underlines our entire approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of funding for GP practices. A GP practice may run out of funds. We think that that would be unlikely in view of the large number of practices applying; and the few that we are intending to start with will clearly be the strongest candidates. Nevertheless, should that contingency occur, the intention is that the practices will be helped by the region. Certainly no patients will be put at risk. The practices will be helped to manage their budgets more effectively in the future.
488
Self-governing hospitals will be required to plan their use of resources from the outset. Therefore there will be less risk of their running out of funds. It would be an improvement on the present system with little or no planning in advance, and crisis management at the end of each financial year which we have all experienced and which we all agree is deplorable.
I have spoken at some length because, like Members of the Committee, I believe that these issues are of great importance. I have tried to respond to all the concerns that have been expressed and to explain how I believe the Government's approach meets them. I welcome the view of my noble friend Lord Carr that the programme suggested by the amendment would not be helpful. I undertook to flesh out the general points that I made in my earlier intervention during the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
We shall introduce these reforms as fast as we can, in the light of experience. To that extent I cannot give a specific time limit to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, on how long it will take between the start of the first wave of candidates and their assessment and the introduction of the second wave of candidates. I remind him and all Members of the Committee that it will not just be the Government standing by and assessing within the National Health Service the way in which these so-called pilot projects progress. It will also be all the second wave candidates who after all will be volunteers and not obliged to enter into this. I think that the noble Lord should not have too strong concerns on that front.
I believe that the Government's position, as I have tried to explain it, is close to that outlined by many of my noble friends who spoke in the debate, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord Hunter. I hope that my explanation helps to show how the provisions in the Bill underpin our approach. My right honourable friend and I will read the debate with great care to see whether anything more is needed. As I have tried to emphasise all along, the whole process is intended to be and will be evolutionary. However I cannot accept the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. There is one point about which everyone wishes to know and which in my view has not quite been answered. It is whether there will be a substantial examination of the hospital and general practice experiments which the noble Baroness told us this afternoon would be limited. Will there be substantial examination of them before further developments are initiated?
Baroness Hooper: I believe that I responded to that point, however I apologise if I did not do so adequately. Yes, I think that the observation, consideration and evaluation of the first wave of candidates will be substantial.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this lengthy and constructive debate. I am also grateful to my

489
noble friend the Minister who has tried hard to meet our concerns. However I regret that I am not reassured by my noble friend.
In summing up the debate perhaps I may indicate those points on which I agree with Members of the Committee and then identify four outstanding problem areas as I see them and as I believe they will continue to be viewed by the professions working in the National Health Service.
First, on the two points of agreement, I agree with my noble friends Lady Young and Lord McColl that the National Health Service needs change and improvement. Perhaps I may emphasise that there is nothing in the amendments that is designed to inhibit or prevent change and the changes that are proposed in the Bill. So we are all in agreement on that.
Secondly, on the concept of evolution, my noble friend the Minister has said repeatedly that these are evolutionary changes. We respect and recognise that but evolution is not incompatible with the concept of evaluation. That is a false dichotomy. Evolution implies slow change with development allowed to occur on the basis of success, and modification being required where problems are identified and failures are found. Therefore that implies a process of evaluation to assess what is happening and also to publicise and put in the public domain the results of what has been found during the evolutionary process. We agree that the whole process is evolutionary, but that is an even stronger case for evaluation.
Regarding the outstanding problems which have emerged while listening to the debate, I must emphasise that the general commitment to evaluation which was given by my noble friend, while welcome, is not adequate. Evaluation as we go along—which I think was my noble friend's phrase—does not meet the requirements of rigorous, systematic evaluation of a representative sample, taking into account all the interlocking variables which need to be considered in any systematic evaluation. Such an evaluation programme also requires a systematic way of setting up that programme. It needs to be clearly specified and cannot really be developed on the run, as seems to be implied by the way it has been spoken about by my noble friend.
Secondly, with regard to the timescale, although the whole implementation of the Bill is designed to be evolutionary it is a fact—this point has been made but I should like to reiterate it—that the Government's schedule still means that the contracting for all services—that is, the internal market—will be introduced in April 1991 without the benefit of a great deal of the information which is not available at the moment. That was a point made a long time ago in my opening speech, and by Sir Henry Yellowlees in his letter to The Times. It is also a cause of great concern to the royal colleges.
If the contracts are initially to be crude and simple—I think those were the words which my noble friend used—they will not be able to take sufficient account of costs. They may lead to misallocation of resources. So why not evaluate and get it right when contracts are eventually—I hope it
490
will be sooner rather than later—introduced nationwide? Concerning the time-scale, perhaps I may point out that we respect the concept of evolution that is not incompatible with evaluation. These are not delaying tactics. It is a question of trying to get it right.
On the effects of an evaluation programme, I should like to respond to the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy when she suggested that evaluation could have a negative effect, an inhibiting effect, on the people who are ready to put themselves forward for an experimental and evaluative stage. In my experience evaluation is not something which deters people who are deeply committed to a concept or to a policy. They are only too keen to have it evaluated, and it does not have a bad effect on morale. Nor does it have an inhibiting effect on other people who would share that commitment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Of all that I said, I did not say that.
Baroness Cox: I shall read Hansard and see what the noble Baroness said. If I have misrepresented her, I apologise, but that is what I think I clearly heard.
I regret very sincerely that the generalised assurances of my noble friend the Minister do not meet—and I do not think they will be seen to meet—the deep concerns which have given rise to the request for evaluation from so many responsible professional people working in the National Health Service.
My noble friend Lord McColl quoted George Bernard Shaw and his reference to professions as conspiracies against the laity. I think we are all aware of that. There have been times in history when the professional bodies have operated politically on grounds of self-interest. I do not think that this occasion is one of them. There is nothing in an evaluation programme which serves the interests of the professions. It only serves the interests of the professions in so far as they are keen to get it right for the people whom they serve. There is no self-interest in this.
Similarly, I should like to emphasise that I do not think that the representations which are being made by the royal colleges, by the professional bodies, have been propagandist. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that there has been some propaganda around and I regret it as much as she does. But these are serious professional concerns being put forward by serious professional bodies in an unprecedented, historic unity of concern and expression of professional anxiety. So I would not say they are propagandist or that they are self-interested.
To conclude, perhaps I may say that the amendments merely put the principle of evaluation into the Bill. They give maximum leeway to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to use his discretion as to how to set up that evaluation programme, and who to include in it. There are no constraints there as there were in the original amendment. My noble friend Lord Carr was worried about putting in a time-scale. I think it can be seen that the amendment has no time-scale. It actually

491
gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State his own discretion in regard to the timescale evaluation. There is no implied delay to meet the point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. It leaves the discretion to my right honourable friend the Secetary of State.
I do not think we could be more reasonable in the way in which the principle of evaluation is being put into the amendment. The amendment has no unacceptable constraints whatever. It contains a principle to which there can be no objection; indeed, one to which the Government themselves are ostensibly committed. The effects of the amendment could only be beneficial, both for the professions and, more importantly, to achieve the objectives of the Bill itself to improve the National Health Service's service to patients, clients and communities.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 64) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 109.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Ampthill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Mersey, V.

Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris, L.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Mulley, L.

Crook, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dainton, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Erroll, E.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Richardson, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Smith, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Underbill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

492

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bathurst, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bauer, L.

Joseph, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Knutsford, V.

Belstead, L.

Layton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Brookes, L.

Manton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterfield, L.

Marsh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caccia, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Colbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Colnwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pender, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Denman, L.

Rees, L.

Derwent, L.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Greenway, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Swinton, E.

Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Tryon, L.

Hertford, M.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Holderness, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Young, B.

Howe, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("(1 A) Each Regional, District or Special Health Authority—

(a) shall, within such period after the day appointed for the coming into force of this section as the Secretary of State may direct, prepare and publish an assessment of the needs of its resident population in respect of health services, which shall include a statement of which services are to be provided within the boundaries of the health authority;

(b) shall keep the assessment prepared by them under paragraph (a) above and any future assessments prepared by them under this section under review; and

(c) shall, at such intervals as the Secretary of State may direct, prepare and publish modifications to the current assessment, or if the case requires a new assessment.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 65 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 68, 75, 76 and 86.
I believe that it will be agreed that the amendments are interconnected and that the arguments that apply to one can be applied to all of the amendments. In dealing with the amendments I shall make some general points and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in the same form.
The purpose of the amendment is to encourage good management within the health service. In particular, it is intended to emphasise a point which arose from the previous amendment and is part of the logic which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, indicated was intrinsic to what she had to say. That is that good management involves both a statement of objectives and relating that statement both to performance and to whether the objectives themselves correspond to what ought to be done.
Under the current NHS legislation, which I do not believe the Government intend to change, the health authorities, and in particular the district health authority, will have to make a statement of performance. I hope that when he replies the noble Lord will reassure me that there is no intention on the part of the Government to move away from the need for a statement of performance. The essential point is that the authority—whether it is the regional, district or special health authority—should also prepare a statement of need for the area for which it is responsible. That would allow one to assess how the performance relates to the need. That is the main purpose of the amendment.
I have put forward the amendment without a great deal of confidence, not as to whether or not the Government will accept the amendment but because I believe that the Government's position on research and evaluation is very casual. It inspires no confidence in anyone who has ever had any research experience. I should not have made the emollient remarks which some noble Lords made about the statements coming from the government side because I do not believe that the Government have taken seriously the question of the examination of the problems we shall be confronting. Far from accepting the view of the Government that evaluating organisations is not as serious a matter as evaluating drugs or treatment, I believe that it is more serious and because it is so difficult it should be done more carefully.
Therefore, underlying my own position is a very serious concern about what the Government are up to. That is why I say that I propose the amendments with a modicum of trepidation. For the kind of managerial approach which I support to work one require:; very much greater support than the Government appear to be willing to provide.
The second aspect of the amendment which concerns me also relates to earlier remarks on research and the provision of appropriate data. The amendment requires health authorities to say whether particular services will be provided locally or elsewhere. Although I should like to go further if I thought it feasible and require a justification for the dectsion, that is not required by the amendment. I do not press the need for such a justification because, unlike the noble Baroness who spoke earlier and other noble Lords who took part in the debate.
I believe that the database is not available for the kind of work that the system requires. Nor in my view is there the slightest possibility that the appropriate database will exist by this time next year. I go further. If we have to rely on the officials and expertise of the Department of Health there is even less hope of anything being done successfully because the department simply does not have the expertise to advise or to evaluate what we have in mind.
I press the amendment because the Bill has the advantage—and I regard it as a very strong advantage—of opening up a great many areas within the National Health Service. I regard that as very important. Perhaps I may add a word on the Government's behalf I am not one of those who defends the existing system uncritically. When I say that the database is not there I regard that as much as an indictment of the existing management within the health service as an indictment of the Government proposals for the future. It is extraordinary that in 1990 most hospitals have little idea in detail of what goes on within them in terms of the information that we should like to have.
That is the background to the amendment. The essence of the amendment is the desire to make a clear statement of need and to use the statement of need as a feedback to a related statement of performance, the two together being essentially the rational way to improve the management of the health service. That is the purpose of the amendments. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I too have my name to the amendment. Following the previous debate in which the Government attempted to calm our anxieties and tell us that everything is being introduced gently and that it is essentially a form of pilot scheme, there is one thing that we know; namely, that regional, district and special health authorities will become purchasers of health care on 1st April 1991.
The amendment attempts—and it is only an attempt—to enable those authorities to know what they need to purchase in order to fulfil their duties to the population that they serve. You cannot look at your financial allocation in a district or region and hope to provide a service which meets most of the needs within that district or region unless you have assessed the needs of that district or region and know how far you can go. You must set your own priorities as to what you can meet this year and how you can develop that.
An assessment offers an opportunity for health authorities to tailor the services to local needs, which differ from district to district. It also enables them, perhaps for the first time, to consider needs rather than demand, which is a different evaluation of what requires to be done within the district. It also enables the department or the new Director of Research and Development—one of the people responsible for looking at the overall picture in the country—to monitor and assess to what extent the different districts are meeting their commitments.

495
The fact that that assessment should be published and should be public knowledge is tremendously important because the Bill does not give sufficient opportunity for local interests and consumer interests to have a say, and that would enable them to monitor the performance of their local health authorities. Under Clause 44, local authorities will have to draw up a plan setting out the community care services that they must provide. It is only right that health authorities should do the same. I support the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says in reply to the amendment, but I would regard it as extremely surprising if any district could conduct its affairs without doing something along the lines spelt out in the amendment.
We must consider the amendments with some care. We must remember that throughout the Bill we are dealing only with those matters which require legislative change. The Bill does not, and probably should not, contain the entire programme of reforms on which the Government have embarked. A great many of those can be carried out under existing legislation and require no change. With the modicum of apprehension with which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he approached the affair, he indicated that the existing powers may well enable those reforms to be implemented but that the Bill was therefore essentially a skeleton measure. One needs constantly to refer to the policy statements in the White Paper and the working documents with which noble Lords have no doubt equipped themselves in order to gain the full picture. That is inevitable.
I found it a difficult argument when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said once or twice, 'But it is not in the Bill". Of course it is not in the Bill. There are many things which are not in the Bill because it is in that sense a minimalist measure to effect the necessary legislative changes to enable the reforms to take place. The danger is that, if we then seek to try to write into the Bill in some prescriptive form the details which may well have been spelt out or will be spelt out in ministerial guidance or in other forms of communication with the National Health Service, we may end up by putting the health service into an undesirable strait-jacket.
It is against that background that one needs to consider this and a number of other amendments. If they are put forward as a means of airing an anxiety and seeking a response from Ministers, that is fine. However, if they are put forward with the serious intention of amending the Bill and therefore of providing a new prescription of precisely how things are to be done, we would perhaps go some way to defeating the overall intentions.
I could not take part in the previous debate because I had been out of London on a social service exercise. However, I listened to a large part of it and was again and again struck by the number of people, including my noble friend Lady Cox, who repeatedly said how much they supported the main thrust of the reforms. That approach is now coming through
496
and goes some way, and will go some way, to offest the unreasonable fears that have been engendered by the black propaganda which has circulated in medical journals and doctors' consulting rooms.
However, at the same time it is important that we do not try to tie the thing down too hard. The group of amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, spoke may well do that. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's response. Any manager will say that before you set out to use your resources you must spell out clearly what you seek to achieve and you must have a means of knowing how far you have gone towards achieving those aims. That is the essence of the management process. I cannot believe that it is any different for a hospital, a district health authority, a regional health authority or a special health authority. I do not want to spell out in the Bill exactly how they must approach matters and how much they must publish. That should effectively be left to those responsible for the management of the health service.
Lord Henley: These amendments go to the heart of the new role of the district health authority, which is to assess the services needed by its resident population and ensure that they are delivered in the most suitable way by the most appropriate provider. The importance of that cannot be underestimated. Neverthless, I hope to persuade the Committee that the amendments are unnecessary. I also hope to calm any anxieties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, suggested that some anxieties might have been calmed on the previous amendment.
The DHA's new role is based firmly on financial responsibility for its resident population. Currently, DHAs are not concerned, financially or otherwise, with services provided to their residents outside their district boundaries. In future they will pay for such services and receive the money for doing so. In other words, DHAs will become fully responsible for all the services used by their residents. They cannot carry out that responsibility, for which they will be accountable, without first assessing the health needs of their residents and how best those needs can be met.
This new district role is certainly challenging. To help with the process of adapting to it, the NHS management executive is working with a number of DHAs on a comprehensive programme to produce assistance and guidance which will stimulate the development process in all DHAs. An important aspect of that work is the provision of information which will both enable DHAs to be held to account and allow them to demonstrate that they are securing the most appropriate pattern of services for their residents. That is the specific issue raised by the noble Lords' amendments.
Some existing arrangements are relevant and will be built on. In particular each district is already required by Health Circular 88(64) to produce an annual health report to be written by the district director of public health medicine. The report is compulsory but the director of public health has discretion to raise whatever issues he or she feels require attention. Within that context district directors of public health are already assessing their population's health needs in a variety of ways.

497
Secondly, each district is already required to publish annually its plans for service provision. That will continue and future reports will inevitably have a broader focus in line with the district's new responsibilities. Nevertheless the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that district health authorities make widely available details of the services that they have secured for their residents and where they are located. I am happy therefore to give an undertaking that every DHA will publish a list of he services for which it has contracted, whether from its own directly managed units or from other providers. This is in line with the requirement, announced in the recent guidance document Operating Contracts, that all contracts for health services should be publicly available.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also sought reassurance that DHAs will make statements of performance. I have just given the undertaking that they will publish a list of services for which they have contracted. Certainly the director of public health, as I mentioned, will continue to produce annual health reports and districts will publish plans for service provision. As I said, in future, DHAs will publish details of contracts that they have concluded and will provide statistics on activity and performance indicators. I assume that that is what the noble Lord asked for when he requested statements of performance.
I turn now to Amendment No. 76. There seems to be no value in particular in imposing a statutory requirement on health authorities to produce plans for one part only of their responsibilities. It would make the current flexible system, which works very well, unnecessarily formal and restricted. The NHS management executive is currently considering what the future shape and content of the plans which health authorities submit to the centre should be. But I can assure the Committee that the planning process will continue largely as now, although there will necessarily be changes to the content of plans following on from the changes to the health service which this Bill contains. I cannot therefore support Amendment No. 76 either.
I hope that the Committee will accept that the Government recognise the importance of the points addressed in the amendments and that adequate steps are being taken to meet its concerns. Nothing would be gained by imposing legislative requirements which could only inhibit the development work that is already in hand. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his intervention. I thought long and hard about preisely the point that he made; namely, that essentially the districts which bear in mind good management principles would behave in exactly the way that I describe in my amendments. Given that the intention of the Bill, as stated strongly and clearly by the Secretary of State, is to devolve as much as can be devolved, I shall take his point. Indeed, I thought about it.
498
My problem is that in the new environment, which is a competitive and somewhat market oriented environment—there can be no doubt about that because that is what the Secretary of State claims—one has to ask whether it would be in the interests of management to reveal all the relevant information that would be of interest also to what one might call the consumer. The reason for laying down certain rules and criteria, as it were, is precisely because one could argue fairly rationally that it would not be in the interests of the district in the new environment to reveal under-performance or failure of performance.
It seems to me that in his reply the noble Lord went quite a long way toward reassuring me on many of the relevant matters. I shall certainly carefully read his remarks. I got lost at one point, however. I am sure that it is my fault and not that of the noble Lord. Amendment No. 68 includes the words:
"shall set out its assessment of the state of health of its inhabitants … and their need for health care".
I was not very clear whether the noble Lord was reassuring me that that would definitely happen. It is an extremely important matter.
I take his other points, which I strongly welcome and for which I thank him. However, before I take the matter further and take a decision on whether to divide the Committee, perhaps I may ask him whether I missed anything or was he reassuring me on that point also.
Lord Henley: My first undertaking was that the DHAs would publish a list of services, which the noble Lord welcomed. I also reassured him that the directors of public health will continue to produce annual health reports and districts will continue to publish plans for service provision. Does that satisfy him?
Lord Peston: Obviously I do not want to bore noble Lords more than I usually do, but it will satisfy me if I could be reassured that within a district one would be seeing regular information on the health of inhabitants within the district rather than information just about the nation. In other words, the point I wish to make is that one does not want aggregate data; one is interested in data which are specific to the district. I understand that that is what the noble Lord said.
Lord Henley: I tried to reassure the noble Lord that the existing arrangements whereby each district director of health produces an annual report would continue to be built on.
Lord Peston: In that case, perhaps I may double my word of thanks to the noble Lord. I was particularly reassured by his remarks on services. I am certainly reassured by what he has just said. Therefore, although I was originally of a mind to divide the Committee, he has totally taken the wind out of my sails and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be a primary function of a District Health Authority to ensure there is continuity of care for patients discharged from hospital accommodation into the community.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we come to the crucially important question of continuity of care. We become used to a complete system of care if we are fortunate enough to be served by a good GP and local, district and regional hospitals. It is largely a local system and where it works well it is a seamless robe of care. Later in the Bill, after Clause 40, we shall be dealing with many aspects of community care, but this amendment emphasises the importance of an extended programme of care which provides continuity of care for patients when they are discharged from hospital into the community.
The development of the internal market could lead to problems. There may be questions of travel when a contract would be placed at a hospital some distance from the patient's home. The development of the internal market and so on might risk breaking the link in the local system of care that I have described. There may be a risk of the self-governing hospitals reducing the after-care for patients when they are discharged. Again, the existing links may be at risk.
Self-governing hospitals have to produce objective and verifiable financial information. They will not be able to do so unless they are required to show an integrated community health structure since the outcome and cost-effectiveness of the service must be monitored once the patient is returned to the community. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that it is a primary function of a district health authority to provide continuing care for patients discharged from hospital, whether or not it is a self-governing trust. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on this point. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I also wish to support this amendment. In the National Health Service we can pride ourselves that over the years we have developed a closer link between community services and the hospital services.
The amendment does not run the risk of some of our earlier amendments. It does not lay down any hard and fast rules. It lays down the philosophy of how the health service ought to work. I do not believe that any government could object to the amendment. It does not tie any authority to doing anything in particular except to fulfil the basic philosophy that it is essential for patient care that health services and community services work hand in hand.
I believe that such care has been one of the major successes of our National Health Service in the past. However, with the new proposals for community care and the extended programme, one becomes somewhat nervous in relation to district health authorities who contract out or buy services outside their own districts. It should still remain their responsibility to make certain that those patients are
500
given the correct community care when they return to their homes. I consider this to be a very important amendment because it states the philosophy behind the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have also put my name to the amendment. I have pleasure in supporting it. I know only too well the frustrations of both patients and doctors when patients are ready to go home and cannot do so because the community is not ready to receive them.
Many hospitals have their acute beds blocked because the patients' homes have not been adapted or they do not have adequate help to look after them when they go home. If patients block acute beds or have to be transferred to a hospital near their home (if they have been to a specialising unit for some long-term condition), that will be very expensive for the health authority. It can also be demoralising and set back the rehabilitation process.
With the money following the patient, who will pay the bill if someone is in hospital many days longer than he should be because a local or housing authority has failed to make available suitable housing? The Government have accepted the principle of Section 7 of the disabled persons Act which requires hospitals to inform local authorities and health authorities of the date of discharge from hospital of people with a mental illness. Will it now accept that principle for all people leaving hospital after a lengthy stay? That would be a great help to overcome those problems.
When speeding up the process of getting patients home, one of the problems is not having enough occupational therapists in hospitals and in the community. They are one of the vital links. However, many of the occupational therapists seem to be drifting away to work in industry and with firms such as Boots. If the Government's words that patients should come first are really being taken seriously, the amendment is the kind of provision that they should take seriously. I hope that they will accept it.
Lord Auckland: There is particular concern regarding the amendment in areas such as Epsom and St. Albans where there are a number of long-stay hospitals for mental patients, and some uncertainty as to the future of those hospitals. In this area successive governments have done a great deal about community care for those who are discharged into the community. With her experience, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, quite rightly said that there is often a lack of services, when people can be employed, for example, in industrial therapy.
I was on the housing committee of the hospital in Epsom for some years. It had a very good unit in that sphere. I am no longer on the committee, and I do not know whether that unit still exists.
The amendment may not apply to every hospital, although there are now a number of general hospitals with psychiatric units attached where the problem will also occur. However, in a number of what one might call conurbations, a number of hospitals, there is concern. I hope that the Minister will direct his attention to that aspect.
Baroiuss Elliot of Harwood: I should very much like to support the amendment. I had some experience of chairmen of health committees for a number of years. The need for after care and community care when patients left hospital, or whatever establishment they were in, was absolutely tremendous. If they required any care within a few weeks or months those people were back again in hospital. It cost far more money for the local health authority to take them back into hospital than to give them proper community care in their own homes to enable them to lead more or less normal lives, and to be with their families. I believe that that is of vital importance.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It would make an enormous difference to patients and to local health authorities as well as to hospitals. The idea that we must have a very close association between community care, the health authority and the hospital is vital. I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated that we were anticipating some of the debates that may take place under Part III of the Bill when we consider the community care proposals. We shall therefore have an opportunity to return to the subject.
On one point I agree with all those who have spoken. The bridge between the health service and the local authority social services is one of the most vital and difficult areas of policy. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who was my predecessor at the department, nodding agreement. He and his predecessor introduced joint funding as one of the ways in which to accomplish that. It fell to me to open many of the institutions during the Worcester experiment launched by Kenneth Robinson, several years before the closure of many of the hospitals and the provision of community care for many of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped people. One of the causes of failure—and there are failures—and why one sees a number of very unfortunate people with mental illness drifting about the streets, is that in the end nobody has been responsible for them.
I have refreshed my mind on the proposals in both the substantive White Papers. Those are Working for Patients with regard to the National Health Service; and Caring for People with regard to community care. I believe that it would be unwise if one were to have an amendment which appears to put the primary duty on the health authorities. I have read the amendment several times. If one puts a statutory duty on one group of people, it becomes all too easy for everyone else to say, "It is not my responsibility. The Act says that it is the health authority that has to do this". Yet if one reads the relevant paragraphs—and I shall bore Members of the Committee for one moment with one | paragraph—I am quite sure that that is a better way of approaching the problem. Paragraph 5.12 of Caring for People states:
"Health authorities will be expected to prepare plans setting out their community care policies and the arrangements they propose for securing community services and community care".
502
The next point is important:
"It will be for health authorities to decide whether these plans would best form part of their overall plans or should be produced separately as a joint exercise with the relevant local authorities".
I hope that on the basis of experience they will be joint plans with local authorities. The whole thrust of the Griffiths Report, which forms Part III of the Bill, is that local authorities will have more specific responsibilities in that regard. Therefore, we shall not have people falling through the wickerwork as they undoubtedly have in recent years with unfortunate results.
The amendment uses the word "function" and not "duty" but the implication is that the health authority will be in the lead. That would not necessarily produce the best result. We know what we want to achieve and the Bill goes a long way towards that. The Government's intentions as spelt out in the White Paper are wholly admirable. I hope that my noble friend will be cautious before accepting the tempting blandishments of my noble friends to insert the provision into the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: I was delighted to see the amendment on the Marshalled List because it gives me an opportunity to fulfil a pledge which I made to the noble Baroness on Second Reading. She will remember that I raised the present difficulties in appointing hospital social workers. I drew attention to the fact that, as a result of the difficulties, some hospitals do not have a social worker in place. That is a disgrace. Indeed, many hospitals do not have sufficient social workers. I then told the noble Baroness that until the difficulty was solved I would raise the matter again and again. This is the first time I have done so.
I stress that the presence of an efficient and effective hospital social worker is essential if the proper arrangements are to be made before the discharge of patients from hospital. I hope that in reply the Minister will say that progress has been made.
In parallel, I wish to mention one other difficulty. The present acute shortage of hospital secretaries, particularly clinical secretaries, means that often it is a long time before a general practitioner receives a full report from a consultant about a patient who has been discharged from a hospital and technically is under his care. We all know about the problems of recruiting hospital secretaries but such provisions will not function unless there are sufficient secretaries and social workers. The problem will not be solved on 1st April 1991; it must be attended to now. I hope that I shall receive an answer from the Minister, just as I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will receive a good answer to the Yorkshire googly which she bowled to the Minister a few minutes ago.
Baroness Cox: I support the spirit of the amendment. Its intention is to ensure that when patients are discharged from hospital their health and clinical needs are met. That is most important. However, there is concern that because community care has moved firmly into the hands of local

503
authorities and social service departments some of the staff are not clinically trained. There is a need to ensure that when patients are transferred from hospital into the community their clinical needs as well as their social needs are met. I support the concept of continuity of care and the need to ensure that both health and social needs are met as patients are moved into the community. I support the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Rea: As a GP representative on a working group which has been trying to draw up the district plans for discharge from hospital, I support the amendment. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I agree that there must be joint planning between local authority and hospital. But how does the local authority know when a patient will arrive? The initiative must be taken by the hospital in order to alert the local authority and the general practitioners about when the patient is being discharged. It must take the first step, and therefore the district health authority should have a duty to do that.
Lord Colwyn: I support the amendment. The provision of continuing care following a period in hospital should be one of the primary functions of a district health authority. Of critical concern are the elderly and people with mental illness who often have a need for continued nursing and medical care for extensive periods of time. At present local authorities do not have, nor is it their primary function to have, the requisite nursing and medical staff to provide such care.
The level of care needed by our most dependent citizens must be the responsibility of the district and regional health authorities. It can be offered by the National Health Service or by independent health care agencies working under contracts to a district or regional health authority and offering the same type and level of service to those groups as does the NHS.
I am aware that health authorities are already divesting themselves of their continuing care responsibilities. Their actions will leave a major gap through which those most vulnerable people will fall. In its present form the Bill does not appear satisfactorily to close the gap. It will leave the elderly and mentally ill hostage to budget constraints and therefore it may become of the first incentive for both health and local authorities to avoid responsibility for financing and providing care.
I know of many local authorities and independent health care providers who share my concerns. Among them is Community Health Services, a company in which I must declare an interest because I have met its representatives and I am aware of the services it provides. There are also other companies which under contract to and at no capital cost to the NHS provide services to the elderly and people with a mental illness.
I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment or give an undertaking that the apparent deficiency in the Bill is fully covered elsewhere; perhaps in Part III, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendment because it is vital to ensure continuing care such as physiotherapy and speech therapy. I agree with my noble friend's comments about patients being stuck in specialist units. That is a matter which concerns the Spinal Injuries Association because there is a lack of suitable accomodation. For example, Eden Hall Hospital in Scotland has three patients who together have spent 500 unnecessary days in hospital, which must be expensive. Stanmore Hospital is a small spinal injuries unit with only 20 patients. Nine of those patients must at present stay with relatives or go to other hospitals. They cannot receive the specialist care they need because their homes are not suitable.
Lord Butterfield: I wish to join the Committee's deliberations only briefly. A most important person in ensuring the continuity of care when patients are discharged from hospital is the house officer. Those who have had responsibility for hospital beds, particularly those who have had responsibility for the teaching and training of people during their pre-registration year, know that there is a kind of house officer who pays enormous attention to the exciting process of admitting the patient to hospital. He organises all the investigations, considers all the diagnoses and tells elderly consultants such as myself about the latest treatment for the patient.
However, the young men and women who deserve promotion are those who impress one by the care with which they discharge their patients from one's care either to home, into Part III accommodation, or whatever. The greatest are those who know enough about the whole process of the care of people to realise the importance of writing in their own hand a note to the general practitioner explaining what has happened to the patient, his present treatment and the expectations for the ongoing care.
The amendment touches a most important part of the future of our service. The notes of every house officer who qualifies and joins a hospital should include the fact that it is necessary to ensure continuity of the care of patients they discharge from hospital. Those people find the social worker. If they are good they ring up or send a note to the general practitioner and make sure that relatives know what has happened. I know that sometimes patients leave hospital without knowing quite what has happened to them and the general practitioner does not know what has happened, which is terrible. Therefore, it is no surprise that such patients are readmitted to hospital, at great additional cost to the taxpayer. This is a very important amendment, I hope that in some way it will be stitched into the ethos of our health service.
Lord Henley: This amendment relates to continuity of care. It is a very important amendment and concept, but I hope that I can persuade the Committee that it is unnecessary. As the Committee will know, district health authorities are now subject to the requirement which the amendment seeks to impose. In passing, I should say that National Health Service trusts will operate under contracts to ensure continuity of care following the discharge of the patient.

505
District health authorities are already subject to the requirement. Health Circular (89)5 and its accompanying booklet on The Discharge of Patients from Hospital gave guidance on the arrangements to be made on discharge to ensure the appropriate continuity of care. It reminded health authorities of the need to set up and monitor procedures for the discharge of patients to ensure that proper arrangements are made for their return home and any appropriate after care.
Operating Contracts emphasised the need for discharge policies and for ensuring continuity of care by saying that providers should consider offering specifications of the admission and discharge procedures which they will follow. DHAs will wish to ensure, through their contracts, that the achievement of good practice in this area is monitored, particularly where the same patient may come under different contracts for hospital and community services.
The separation of the DHA's role as purchaser will allow it to focus on securing contracts which cover the full range of the health needs of its residents and developing close links with local authorities. Local authorities will assess patients' needs for community care provision and decide what services to provide on the same basis as people already in the community. There will be an opportunity later to discuss these arrangements in detail in Committee.
Local authorities will also have to prepare plans for community care services. Those plans will be prepared in collaboration with the NHS, which should ensure that continuity is provided for. Those will need to take account of planned programmes of hospital discharge. Perhaps I should comment on a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She asked what would be the position as regards money fallowing the patient; for example, if the patient was kept over long in hospital because a local authority had not made adequate provision in the form of housing or whatever community care was necessary. At present the health service pays and that will continue to be the case. However, one would hope that greater co-operation between health authorities and local authorities should prevent that in future
Local authorities will also have to prepare plans for community care services. These will need to take account of planned programmes of hospital discharge. If further funds are needed, health authorities can pass money to local authorities through joint finance arrangements. The Government have announced a specific grant to boost community services for people with a mental illness (including those leaving hospital). The legislativie cover needed is incorporated into the Bill.
I hope that, given this reassurance, the Committee will accept that the amendment is unnecessary. It is not by so general a provision in statute that continuity of care will be secured, but through the detailed specification of contracts and collaboration with local authorities at the local level. This is already provided for either within existing circulars or in the provisions of this Bill.
I also noted the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, that doctors should have a
506
copy of a code of conduct. No doubt if they would like to see a copy of Circular 89(5) that could be made available. Given those reassurances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say a few words on hospital social workers?
Lord Henley: My noble friend Lady Hooper will write to the noble Lord on that point but I shall not comment on it myself.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Yesterday evening somebody telephoned me and told me that it would take the social services one year to process a patient. I thought that to process a patient sounded awful. Does that mean that a patient must wait in hospital for a year before the social services can carry out that "processing", which sounds like rather a lot of peas in a tin?
Lord Henley: I agree with the noble Baroness and would prefer that people should not use the word "processing", which, as the noble Baroness said, sounds like peas in a tin or a pod. I cannot comment on the particular case to which the noble Baroness referred. No doubt my noble friend would be prepared to look into that. However, I was trying to say that one hopes that, with the new co-operation between the local authorities and health authorities, that sort of problem will not arise.
Lord Carter: There is support on all sides of the Committee for the spirit of this amendment. We have touched on a very important aspect of the Bill. As I said on moving the amendment, it overlaps to -some extent with Part III of the Bill but we thought it important to consider it now when discussing functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, with all the authority of a former Secretary of State, made the crucial point about the primary function of a health authority and pointed out that, according to the White Paper, it would be for the health authority to make the decision. However, there is concern and we shall return to this matter when we come to Part III of the Bill and consider the possibility of people in community care being shifted from a health authority budget to a local authority budget, or vice versa, depending on the state of the respective budgets.
A number of very important points have been made. I am not sure that the provisions in Part III meet the anxieties expressed in our debate. I am grateful for the Minister's remarks, but I am not completely satisfied with them and I am not sure that they relate to the real world of budgets under pressure. However, I shall read what the Minister said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: This may be a convenient moment to take a break in the Committee's proceedings. I suggest that we reconvene at 8.45 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.47 to 8.45 p.m.]
Baroness Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) Each District Health Authority shall ensure that the following services are provided within the district—

(a) accident and emergency (A & E) departments;

(b) immediate admissions to hospital from an A & E department, including a significant proportion of general surgery;

(c) other immediate admissions, such as most general medicine and many hospital geriatric and psychiatric services;

(d) out-patient and other support services which are needed in support of the first three categories, either on site or immediately available;

(e) public health, community based services and other hospital services which need to be provided on a local basis, either as a matter of policy, for example, services for elderly, or mentally ill people, or on grounds of practicability, for example, district nursing and health visiting;

(f) paediatric services; and

(g) maternity services.").

The noble Baroness said: Unfortunately the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, cannot be here this evening and asked me to speak on her behalf in moving this amendment. I move Amendment No. 67, which I gather has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 70-72, 78, 83 and 84A in the names of other noble Lords. Clearly they will be speaking to their own amendments.
Amendment No. 67 concerns Clause 3 of the Bill, which sets out the primary function and duties of health authorities. Unlike the National Health Service White Paper, Working for Patients, it gives no details of the types of service the district health authorities will be required to provide. There is therefore no guarantee that any of the important services identified in the amendment will be provided locally.
This amendment is necessary because, although the White Paper indicates that the district health authority should ensure the provision of services identified in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e), that does not represent a legal requirement for them to do so. Moreover, the White Paper does not even mention paediatric or maternity services, so there is no reassurance that the district health authorities will be expected to provide those important services within their own areas.
In supporting the amendment I should like to deal briefly with the maternity and paediatric services as examples of the need for the amendment, because they were not even identified in the White Paper. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is of the greatest importance to ensure that DHAs develop comprehensive and integrated maternity services for without that requirement there is a real danger that those services could become fragmented and/or inaccessible to some mothers.
For example, the Bill in its present state allows DHAs to purchase part or all of their maternity care from outside the district. That means that one group of professionals may provide care during delivery while another team provides antenatal and postnatal care in the local community. I suggest that that is a recipe for fragmented and disjointed care.
It could also mean the end of highly successful integrated schemes such as the so-called "domino"
508
schemes, whereby a mother develops a good relationship with and confidence in a team of midwives during the months of antenatal care. Those midwives accompany her to hospital and care for her during delivery. If all goes well they will accompany her home again as soon as she and the baby are ready. The same midwives continue to look after the mother and baby at home during the early postnatal days. That system of maternity care achieves continuity of care and the psychological support associated with it, together with the use of hospital resources for delivery, with everything to hand in the event of an unforeseen emergency as well as minimum time away from home surroundings and other family members. That excellent type of scheme could be jeopardised if a DHA or self-governing hospital were to contract services in ways which compartmentalise or fragment such care.
I make the same point very briefly with regard to paediatric services, which were also omitted from the White Paper recommendations. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is of great importance that hospital facilities are available locally to facilitate easy access for treatment and visiting by parents. The psychological importance of maintaining close contact with parents is now known to be of enormous significance. I cannot believe that the Government wish to see that jeopardised. Hence, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the services listed are available locally and to reassure professionals and the public that those crucial services will not become fragmented or inaccesssible. I beg to move.
Lord Hunter of Newington: How does one provide a good service for patients? What are the vital and important ingredients for the future? We are talking about the future. Some of these should be provided in the enlarged general practice, the secondary care centre recommended so long ago by Lord Dawson of Penn in the first interim report of the emerging service in 1921. If one therefore is to expand what patients do, their treatment, investigation and management in general practice, obviously the dividing line between general practitioner services and district authority services begins to change.
Whatever we have in the future must make allowances. The dividing line may become blurred. The Committee should remember that experience in Canada has shown that to do this is cheaper than sending patients to hospital for investigation and treatment.
The second overwhelming need is the provision of a range of specialist and emergency departments at hospitals. Thirdly, and increasingly overwhelming, is the necessity to provide community-based services for the elderly and the handicapped. This means that a relationship must be developed between the health service and the local authority organisations, whatever they might be, which is capable of coping with that.
It is for those reasons that I wonder whether the Government, in this mood of evolution which we have been hearing about tonight, will consider an earlier rather then later amalgamation of local government services and the family practitioner

509
services. There would then be two services to cope with what is a complicated situation—the health authority services and the community service organsiations. This problem must be solved so that patients do not suffer.
Lord Winstanley: This is an important and helpful amendment and I was delighted to attach my name to it. The noble Baroness will perhaps recollect that on Second Reading I said that I wholly accepted that it would be quite wrong to expect every hospital to do everything. I said that I fully understood that with certain highly specialised and expensive services it is right and proper that they should be concentrated in those hospitals. That is what has happened.
However, what are to be the so-called poor services, or designated services as they are now called? It always seems to me that what they are to be has been shrouded in mystery. I am delighted that the amendment spells out what I regard as essential items. I shall not quote them, as that has already been done, but I regard each and every one as essential and it is possible that others should be added; but that can be done in due course.
There are problems and I have already said that I accept that it is not possible to have certain costly, capital intensive services, such as heart transplant units, ill every hospital. It so happens that when I was in active general practice I dealt closely with Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester. It is a splendid and very important hospital. As some noble Lords may know, it is now the fourth heart transplant centre in Britain. A statement was made to that effect by the Government and it has received special funding to run an effective and important heart transplant unit.
The unit is very successful. It receives a considerable amount of money which is subscribed from outside sources, which is right and proper, to ensure that the heart care unit and the heart transplant unit function properly. However, there is one aspect that has distressed me. It appears to me that at the same time the rest of the hospital is beginning to languish and provide almost nothing. The noble Baroness will probably know that many of the services at that hospital have been discontinued and transferred to Withington Hospital.
The hospital is architectually in a deplorable state. Speaking to officials at the hospital only a fortnight ago I was told that they are not allowed to have any repairs carried out until the next financial year because the money has run out. Everywhere one looks one sees buildings beginning to decay and fall into dilapidation while the specially designated part—the heart transplant unit—is in splendid condition.
I give that as an example of the dislocation that occurs when specialist activity is concentrated in one hospital while the remaining activities tend to become neglected and are allowed to become almost non-existent. It is important that we have these services specified. We have all received a document from the BMA and I note that it states:
"The BMA fears that competitive provision of services could lead to some services being no longer available within a district,
510
which would mean a move away from the concept of the district general hospital. Equally, it could lead to the unnecessary duplication of 'profitable' services at different hospitals within a district".
Neither of those developments would be desirable. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness is a helpful move towards solving this problem.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise to my noble friend Lady Cox as I was not here for her opening speech. I found the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, intriguing. He describes a situation which can arise under the present system. It is one of the real drawbacks where the producers become obsessed or fixated by one particular speciality. If a powerful personality heads that department the other services are starved because the purchaser has no clout. Who is the purchaser at the moment; the taxpayer and the patient?
Under the new scheme the district will have to ensure that services are provided and contract for them. It will then be for the providers to decide how best to do it. We come back to the divorce of the two functions which lies at the heart of the reforms in the Bill and which seem to me to be fundamentally right. I am glad that this now seems to be receiving general support.
This is an interesting amendment. Most of it comes from paragraph 4.15 of Working for Patients, with the addition at the end of paediatric and maternity services. I found it surprising that there was no reference in the White Paper to maternity services. It is an area where there is a considerable amount of new thinking on what is best. I believe that the first baby should always be delivered in a hospital because one can never know what can go wrong. It is not a good idea to have a home birth until the mother has had perhaps one or two children and then the doctors can be confident that there will be no complications. I am certain that my wife would endorse the proposition that it is much nicer to have a baby at home.
However, if one is to go into hospital that hospital must have the full back-up facilities in case something goes wrong. If not, situations can arise which contribute to the statistics of neo-natal mortality which have figured in so many of our debates over so long a period. We want to get the peri-natal mortality down to as low a figure as is possible. That means sometimes being able to deal with high-tech medicine at very short notice in a case where one did not have the slightest reason to suspect that anything could go wrong.
Can that be provided in every district general hospital? I doubt it. Of course the district has to make provision for proper maternity services. That is what the Bill is about, but I hope it will not be argued that every district general hospital must automatically provide maternity services because that might not be the right answer for a particular locality.
I do not think one can generalise about paediatric services. There are some general ones which include ordinary surgery and so forth, which should form part of any district general hospital. When one is dealing with the special problems of child diseases

511
that is a matter for specialisation. When a health authority has been seeking to reorganise its services in order to provide highly specialised services in a few special regional centres, one knows how difficult it is when enormous public opposition is aroused. That happened in the North-East Thames Health Authority area two or three years ago when it established what seemed a sensible and far-reaching plan about cancer services. The district general hospitals would continue to manage the ordinary cancer diagnoses and some of the standard treatments, but it was far better that the highly specialised chemotherapy and other treatments of that kind, including radiological services, should be concentrated in a relatively few specialised units though they might be some distance away from people's homes.
It is essentially a case of horses for courses. For its residents the district health authority has to make sure that the provision exists somehow and somewhere. It seems to me that the core services to which, as the White Paper says, patients need guaranteed local access should be those which one would expect to find in every district general hospital. I suspect that that would not include all paediatric services. Nowadays it would certainly not include maternity services because there are reasonable maternity services at a reasonable distance. Most mums are in hospital for two or three days before they return home. Therefore it is not a great hardship if they are two or three miles away and they know that if something went seriously wrong the baby would have a very good chance of survival.
9 p.m.
Lord Ennals: What the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has said is the basis of my fear; namely, that with the new commercialism the approach may well be that if the service is to pay then there will be concentration on that service. One recognises that no district hospital will be able to provide all the services. If what the noble Lord said is to become policy then one may see more and more people having to travel further and further for the treatment that they expect to get in their own district.
I speak to Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72. My noble friend and I added to the list a comprehensive health service for women, for elderly people and for children, about whom we have already been speaking. I should have thought that those provisions were absolutely essential. When one considers the needs of the elderly, if what the noble Lord has said is true they will have to move further away from their homes. They will not simply be moving further away from their homes but further away from their families and the friends who are likely to visit them when in hospital.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The core services include many hospital geriatric and psychiatric services. Presumably they will cover the great bulk of services for elderly people.
Lord Ennals: The noble Lord takes me to my next point. He said these provisions are included in the
512
core services, but there is nothing in the Bill about core services. That is why the noble Baroness and others have tabled the amendments which I warmly support. I hope that when we hear from the Minister he will tell us why the Government have changed their mind, because they clearly did so.
The White Paper refers, at paragraph 4.15 to "guaranteed local access", to a set of services described as "core". I do not mind whether we describe them as core or designated. Clearly at that stage it was intended that there should be a set of services which the public would know they could rely on using. Now there are no services that the public know they can rely on. The noble Lord asked about that, but there is nothing on the face of the Bill dealing with the matter. That is the whole purpose of the amendment. The additional amendments are intended to add the needs of the elderly, women and children.
If the noble Lord is going to reject the amendments, as I suspect he is, I hope he will say why the Government changed their mind and left all this uncertainty. I believe that there will be a great deal of uncertainty among people as to what will happen, not just in the first year, but in the second and third years, when NHS trusts become more and more significant, as one supposes the Government intend that they should. The fear of the public is that they will not be able to get at their local hospitals the service that they got at those hospitals before the Government started this reorganisation.
Lord Auckland: It may well be an assumption of any government of any political party, faced with an enormous reorganisation such as this in relation to the National Health Service, that it is taken for granted that certain services are to be provided under legislation. We are told by the Government, and I think it is fair comment, that not all of this Bill is coming into force in April 1991. It is to be a phased Bill.
I take the point that perhaps some of the additions in this amendment may be superfluous. However, I certainly do not think that paragraph (a) is superfluous. At the present time there is grave concern about the provision of accident and emergency services in many of our hospitals, and not only in the rural areas. For example, where I live in Surrey there is the M.25 motorway, which has a large number of accidents on it. However, with no disrespect to the hospitals concerned, because they cope admirably, there is a paucity of emergency services, particularly as regards a major accident and especially should it take place in the early part of the morning.
Members of the Committee will also have read about the appalling number of accidents on the A.9 main road in Scotland. There are only two major hospitals north of Edinburgh, at Perth and Inverness. Though Scotland has its own provisions in this Bill, that is an example of rural areas and the problems that they have. Therefore, I believe that paragraph (a) of the amendment is very much justified in this Bill. I leave it to the judgment of other Members of the Committee who know much more about

513
hospitals than I to decide about the rest. I hope that my noble friend will give serious consideration to the proposals, and particularly to the provision of casualty departments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have two amendments in this group. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 78 and 84. Before the next stage of the Bill we shall have to reorganise the groupings, as some of the amendments are rather similar.
At present the Secretary of State has a duty to provide services—
Lord Henley: Does the noble Baroness mean Amendment No. 84A rather than Amendment No. 84?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I apologise. I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 78 and 84A. I knew there would be a muddle.
At present the Secretary of State has a duty to provide services to meet all reasonable requirements. However, this would not ensure guaranteed local access should the district health authority decide not to continue with a particular service. It is therefore essential to have Amendment No. 78. To avoid duplication of services, it is not necessary to provide every form of treatment within each district. The regional and supra-regional services offer highly specialised care such as open heart surgery, brain surgery, bone marrow transplants, the care of spinal injuries and many other specialties. There are also certain circumstances where it is unnecessary to provide a service within the district itself as the service in the neighbouring district is easily accessible. The amendment caters for these exceptions to services being provided locally. However, there is concern that financial pressures could lead to a distortion of priorities within hospitals. There is also concern that some districts try to do too much without specialist knowledge. That can be very dangerous.
Children need highly integrated and flexible services. This question was raised in the report which the Social Services Committee published last summer on the Government's plans for the future of the National Health Service. One of the report's recommendations was that changes in the treatment and funding patterns of small client groups with complex service needs, such as severely disabled children, should be closely monitored to provide early warning of problems with the new arrangements and to assist in the evaluation by the Department of Health of the new system as a whole. The treatment of a child with cystic fibrosis could cost up to £40,000. A wide range of services is needed. They need to be integrated. A girl suffering from spina bifida may need many different care services to help her. At present, those are co-ordinated by one agency, but if services are fragmented the child may not get the care she needs. Health authorities might be reluctant to provide expensive long-term treatment for children, and organisations representing the interests of these children fear that families might have to move from area to area to get the right facilities.
514
When healthy patients are asked if they would be prepared to travel for their treatment, the answer is often yes. However, GPs find the position totally different when dealing with sick patients and their relatives. We have a fund in Yorkshire. We have had to give some parents money to visit their children who have had to travel long distances for treatment.
If sent away from home, patients are often concerned about how their relatives will be able to visit them. Surgical procedures may well require readmission into hospital or out-patient visits. Would the patient have to be referred once again to the hospital far away? How about follow-up treatment, such as physiotherapy? Would the patient receive this locally? If so, will the health service worker have easy access to the patient's notes? I do not think that we have yet discussed patients' notes. The position is bad enough at present with patients being transferred from one hospital to another local hospital. This point ought to be considered.
I turn to Amendment No. 84A. While it is obviously desirable that most medical services should be provided locally, there are times when services need to be provided outside the district. These regional and supra-regional services are for highly specialised care such as open heart surgery and heart transplants, bone marrow transplants, burns, head injuries, brain surgery and spinal injuries. There are sound clinical reasons for concentrating such services at specialised regional or supra-regional centres.
GPs often refer their patients directly to regional services, although this may also be done through a consultant at a district general hospital. For example, a GP in North Wales would frequently refer patients to cardiology services in Manchester, Liverpool, London or Birmingham, or to radiotherapy services in Merseyside.
On Second Reading I asked what the position would be about spinal injury units. Most of these are supra-regional units. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"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".—[Official Report, 3/4/90; col. 1385.]
I am an interested party. I happen to be the president of the Spinal Injuries Association. I speak for many members who need further clarification on the matter. They are very fearful that this legislation is being rushed through without proper planning and thought about the results should the legislation go badly wrong. It is a very worrying situation when people's lives depend on what Members of this Chamber may or may not do to the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and I would not be here today if it had not been for a supra-regional unit which we attended. We need clarification on these points. First, will this protection to which the Minister referred last for ever or will it be a short-term measure pending the time when the regions take on full responsibility? The latter is quite unacceptable as there is no reassurance that the service will continue. For

515
example, if a region finds its spinal injury unit unprofitable will it then close it down? Secondly, what proportion of funds is it expected will need to be found by the regions and what protection will there be against a region deciding that it cannot afford to run a spinal injury unit or send its patients out to other units?
Tied in with this is the question of budgeting. It is most difficult to budget for spinal cord injured people. For example, a health authority may have several spinal cord injured people in one year and none for several years afterwards. How will that situation be accommodated under the Government's proposals? Will district health authorities be entitled to take a management fee for managing spinal injury units or any other specialty? The spinal unit at Stanmore has been told that its health authority will want a 10 per cent. management fee. Where will that additional funding come from? Will patients have to pay as cutbacks are made within the units? These are very important questions for which we must have answers.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: Perhaps I may say a word or two about these constant references to commercialism and how terrible it is that patients may have to travel miles to reach other hospitals. I emphasise, once again, the fact that local GPs in a district will sit down with the district health authority officials, helped by experts such as epidemiologists, to decide what are the needs of the community and how best they can be met within the district, as indeed they have been for years.
I cannot understand why anyone can possibly object to this new arrangement. It has not been done before, but surely no one can seriously think that it is a bad thing for all the local GPs in a district to sit down and discuss with the officials of the district health authority how best to meet the real needs of the patients in that district. That is what this is all about. It seems to me to be a very good idea. The district patients are much more likely to get a better deal than they have ever had before. I cannot understand why we are continually plagued with these comments about commercialism.
Lord Winstanley: It seems to me that the noble Lord—perhaps he will accept this fact—is speaking to us as a Londoner. Would he make precisely the same remarks if he practised in Cornwall, in the Lake District or in Scotland? Is it not a totally different problem? I accept what he said with regard to London, but it does not apply to rural areas.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the noble Lord for that comment. Let us take Cornwall—Truro. The local GPs all come into Truro from time to time. They can have a jamboree, sit down and discuss at a day conference with the district health authority how best the people of Cornwall can be served by their health authority. The hospital in Truro is extremely good. All the clinicians work very hard indeed and provide a marvellous service for the people in that community. It may well be that there
516
are not enough clinicians in the hospital. The conclusion from the discussions between the general practitioners and the officials of the district health authority may be that there are not enough clinicians and services at Truro hospital; therefore arrangements will have to be made to expand them to give the best possible service to the people in the district.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment to clarify one of the points at issue. I do not think that the issue is commercialism; it is that, when considering what is best for people in the locality, full weight should be given to their convenience. It is not obvious where in the decision-making mechanism any weight is given to the convenience of people in the locality. Those are not sums that enter into the accounting systems with which the GPs and the local officials will be concerned. That is precisely the point at issue.
From the point of view of the provider if may be cheapest to say, "You can go 100 miles down the road". However, that is not necessarily the cheapest solution for the receiver. None of us can discover where in the proposed legislation any weight whatever is given to the convenience not only of the patients but of those of us who are concerned with the welfare of the patients and who also feel that our convenience might be taken into account. The issue is not commercialism; it is a lack of the appropriat and correct mechanism. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was concerned about with the groups she mentioned.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: Perhaps I may come back to that question. The noble Lord may be forgetting the altruism of the people who at present provide the services in the National Health Service. They work all hours of the night and day to provide the best possible service for people in the community. They will continue to do so. It is monstrous to suggest that we must have all these regulations to make sure that they continue doing what they have been doing.
Lord Peston: I was foolish to join in this debate. It seems to me that the noble Lord has put his finger on the precise issue. Many of us fervently believe in the National Health Service and are totally committed to the altruism of the providers. What we fail to see in the Bill—I say this in clear terms—is any back-up for that altruism. The Bill seems to wish to replace altruism by market mechanisms. Some economists believe that altruism is a bad basis for decisions and market mechanisms are good. Many of us who support the National Health Service do not take that view. The noble Lord has put his finger on one of the central issues that concerns us. Altruism will cease to be the leitmotif of the National Health Service. Perhaps that is too strong, I should put it differently. There is danger that altruism will cease to be the guiding theme of the National Health Service.
Lord Rea: The noble Lord, Lord McColl, paints a cosy picture of how the health authorities will sit down with the local GPs and have a chat to decide

517
what is best for the population. However, the new management arrangements in the Bill seem to preclude what discussions there are now between general practioners and the health authorities. I am not quite sure where in the Bill we see provision for these nice meetings which are to take place.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As my name is attached to Amendment No. 84A, together with that of my noble friend, perhaps I may support what she said about special units. I refer particularly to the spinal injury units and their crucial importance to people with spinal injuries. She asked a great many important questions but perhaps I may ask one more. As the Spinal Injuries Association made clear in the letter to Mrs. Virginia Bottomley earlier this month, there is a need for new spinal injury units. Under the government proposals, who will be responsible for building the new units? If it is the regions and it is unprofitable, do we assume that there will be no more new units?
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may respond on Amendraent No. 67 moved by my noble friend Lady Cox, after what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, described as a "foolish" intervention. I do not necessarily agree with that.
Lord Peston: If I may correct the noble Lord, I said it was foolish of me to intervene. I thought my intervention was really very good.
Lord Henley: I would agree with the noble Lord that it was foolish for him to intervene.
Turning first to Amendments Nos. 67 and 78, these amendments overlook the fundamental point that eacth district health authority will have a clear responsibility to ensure access to a comprehensive range of services for its resident population. I would expect many of those services to continue to be available in all or most districts.
But the decision on where services are best provided to meet the requirements of a district's population must be made by each DHA on the basis of its assessment of those requirements and local circumstances. The local decision should not be pre-empted by statute and certainly should not be determined solely by reference to administrative boundaries. In far-flung rural districts people living near the boundaries will often be more concerned about services in a neighbouring district. In London and other urban areas district boundaries have little influence on the services used by a DHA's population.
The key point is local access, which will be an essential consideration in placing contracts for; services. All DHAs will need to keep in mind the requirement for speedy diagnosis and urgent treatment in many cases. Convenience for patients and relatives is also important. But such factors can only be considered in the local context.
Perhaps I may deal with a point made by my noble friend Lady Cox, who seemed to be suggesting that the domino schemes were in jeopardy. I cannot agree that the proposals for contracting will put initiatives such as domino schemes in jeopardy; rather the
518
reverse. Such schemes contribute to high quality and co-ordinated care, and I fully expect that the DHAs will wish to contract with providers that can offer such facilities. Contractual specification will ensure that such standards can be explicitly required and performance can be monitored.
A point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, on collaboration between general practitioners and hospitals. I agree with him on the importance of collaboration between family practitioners and hospital services. Proposals in the Bill will encourage that. The Bill does not propose structural change and it does not suggest, for example, a merger of FHSAs and DHAs, but the White Paper suggests that this could be feasible in the long term in some cases.
Turning now to the term "core service" which was mentioned by my noble friend and by the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Ennals, I feel that that term has been greatly misunderstood. There has been a widespread misapprehension that to be defined as what we now call a designated service was an indication of a service's importance, whereas the term refers only to questions of access.
Problems for a DHA's residents can arise only where a locally needed service is supplied by one provider. If that provider is directly managed by the DHA or by an adjacent DHA, there is a management route by which the continuation of local services can be secured. If the provider is an NHS trust, the Secretary of State has taken reserve powers in the Bill to allow him to intervene to safeguard the services. I refer the noble Lord to the Schedule 2, paragraph 6(1). It is only these services that are designated services.
The object of the reforms is to give DHAs the flexibility to develop the pattern of services that best meets their residents' health needs. While many services may be best provided within a district boundary, others might, as now, be best provided outside.
Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, and moved by my noble friend suffers from the defect that at present aspects of the services listed are not provided in every district. There are very good reasons for that: often it is important to husband the available medical expertise. Amendment No. 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, attempts to remedy this defect by referring to the pattern of services existing at the time directions are made. The effect of that amendment would be to feeeze health services into that configuration. Circumstances will certainly change over time in many areas, and DHAs must be free to respond to them in the overall best interests of their residents by changing the way in which they secure services. Moreover, few people, I am sure, believe that the pattern of services is now incapable of improvement. DHAs will frequently want to change the existing pattern for the better.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I can assure the Committee that the Government are committed to the provision of a comprehensive range of services for women, elderly people and

519
children. However, the amendments, which seek to write certain services into the primary functions of health authorities, are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our proposals. I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.
First, there is no question but that it will be the duty of district health authorities to promote comprehensive health services for women, elderly people and children, as the amendments propose. The Government wish to go further than that and include the rest of their local population as well. That includes myself and other noble Lords who are not women, elderly or children. I am sure that Members of the Committee would like the Bill to cover myself and other noble Lords who do not fall into those categories. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to say, elderly Peers are very important. The amendments are therefore unnecessary and restrictive.
Secondly, the Secretary of State already has a clear duty to provide a comprehensive range of health services under Section 1 of the 1977 Act, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will remember. That duty will be delegated to health authorities through the definition of their primary functions. District health authorities will have a central task of assessing the health needs of their resident population and arranging the placement of contracts for services accordingly. This will give them a more sharply focused role than at present and the Department of Health is supporting a good deal of developmental work to allow them to meet that challenge.
I turn now to Amendment No. 83 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and Amendment No. 84A in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham of Ilton and Lady Darcy (de Knayth). Both amendments raise issues of the continuity of care and the future funding of regional or supra-regional services.
The Government are fully seized of the need to ensure continuity of care for individual patients. Its importance is not limited to regional and supra-regional specialties or to patients with chronic life-long illness. All patients want to be able to continue to see the consultant who is familiar with their case and in whom they have confidence. The need to recognise that basic point is underlined in the recent guidance on contracts. That makes it clear that district health authorities and providers will need to ensure that the provision of services is not disrupted by contractual change such as the non-renewal of a contract. If necessary a separate contract will need to be arranged for the on-going treatment of existing cases.
However, I do not believe that regional and supra-regional specialist units are likely to find that districts no longer want to use their services. District health authorities must ensure that their residents have access to a comprehensive range of services. It will always be better, as I know the noble Baroness will admit, for certain services to be provided on a regional or multi-district basis, whether for reasons of volume or because particular skills or equipment are needed which it would be unnecessary or
520
impracticable to provide in every district or because a new method of treatment needs to be developed in a carefully controlled environment.
Factors such as these will weigh just as heavily once the proposals in the Bill are implemented. If a district was tempted to ignore them and go its way the regional health authority would be quick to intervene.
There is, however, a further factor in favour of regional and supra-regional specialties which is strengthened by the Bill; namely, patient choice. There is no doubt that specialist units offer the higher quality services that people want and that is the best guarantee of their future success. District health authorities will have to respond to the wishes of patients and their general practitioners by placing contracts with them.
I know that there is concern in some quarters about the mechanics of contracting when specialist units may have dealings with a large number of districts. We have been careful to avoid prescribing a particular approach so that those directly involved can agree the method most suited to the needs of each unit. In some cases that might mean contracts with regions rather than individual districts, at least initially. However, I should emphasise that it is those units which provide services across district boundaries which will benefit especially from contractual funding. Instead of depending on a single authority for their resources they will be able to obtain money from all who use their services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised a number of detailed points about the future funding of supra-regional services. I cannot provide detailed answers to all those points at this stage because we are still considering important issues and we need to consult further to ensure that we get it right. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that the existence of services which are currently funded supra-nationally is not in doubt. I believe that I gave that reassurance on Second Reading. The Government's sole concern is to ensure that they continue to be available and continue to thrive.
In short, regional and supra-regional speciality units are likely to be in a stronger position under the proposals in this Bill than they are now. They certainly do not need the additional legislative safeguards contained in these amendments. Having spoken at some length on the amendments, I hope that my noble friend Lady Cox will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment in my name and those of other noble Lords and I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply.
I believe that the case still stands for ensuring local access to local services as designated in Amendment No. 67. I have considerable sympathy for some of the other groups of people identified in amendments proposed by other noble Lords. Like other noble Lords, I also recognise that there is a case for some expensive specialist services which can only be provided at regional or supra-regional level, but in

521
general there is no substitute for locally designated services with ease of access for local communities and for ensuring their provision in the Bill, not just in the White Paper.
However, I was comforted to hear my noble friend. He used the words "local access" and appeared to be committed to them. I was also reassured by what he said about the domino scheme and maternity services. I shall read carefully what he said and consider its implications. I may wish to come back at Report stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("(1A) In carrying out its primary functions including those provided under section 4 below, a Regional, District or Special Health Authority or a Family Health Services Authority must ensure that the quality of such goods or services that it provides, attains such standards of quality as may be determined by the Secretary of State for those particular goods and services and must publish an annual report giving details of its attainments in monitoring and improving quality standards.").
The noble Lord said: I am moving Amendment No. 69, but the grouping to which I am speaking—the muddle, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, might put it—includes Amendments Nos. 80, 85, 85B, 86B, 88A, 91,93, 93A and 94B. I believe that Amendment No. 87 is also included, but I am not certain whether that is right. I understand that the last four amendments are certain Scottish variants of the original English themes.
In seeking to speak to the amendments, I have looked for some kind of unifying factor. I suppose that the unifying factor is quality of service and how that is protected within what I take to be one of the fundamental principles of the Bill; namely, the NHS contract system and how that will proceed. Having said that I think that is the unifying factor, I believe that I would find it easier to speak to the different amendments one at a time and thus hope to make some progress.
Perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 69, which refers to the ensuring of the quality of the goods and services that are provided. I ought to have made one other point; namely, that all the amendments at this stage are intended to probe the Government's mind in the hope of getting some reasssurance. With this amendment we are clearly talking about the prudential use of government funds. It may be that under all sorts of regulations this amendment is unnecessary. Since the regional, district and special health authorities and FHSAs are using government funds, they are probably obliged under some rule or other to meet the conditions of this amendment anyway. I hope to receive from the Minister who replies to this amendment some assurance that that is the case.
I should also add, in case the noble Lord proposes to mention the point, that I am aware of what I might call the Lord Jenkin of Roding point about the Bill generally. After all, we are dealing with principles of good management and one assumption that we might make is that the relevant managers would engage in good management because they are
522
managers. That is at least a possibility that I bear in mind.
The point of Amendment No. 69 is simply to obtain some reassurance that within the context of the use of public money—and one ought to remember that it is all public money—those who use such moneys are obliged to do so correctly and prudentially. I should like some reassurance on that point.
I turn to Amendment No. 80, which is on the same general theme. It refers to at least minimum standards being laid down. Again, it is partly a matter of the form of words. I am less worried about the Secretary of State laying down minimum standards than I am concerned that there should exist some procedure by which standards can be queried, if one of the authorities about which we are talking is thought by interested people—particularly patients but also doctors—to be failing below those standards. I am not very clear as to how that will work. The purpose of the amendment is to enable some light to be thrown on that matter.
In my view Amendment No. 85 is more important and relates to some of our discussion on the previous group of amendments and to worries expressed by other people. Our fear about the Government's proposed reforms is that the decision-makers will concentrate exclusively or overwhelmingly on cost and not pay sufficient attention to benefit. I am not one of those economists who feel that it is wrong for people who take decisions in the public sector, first, to become acquainted with the costs of what they do and, secondly, to take account of those costs. It has never seemed to me that the public sector—and I do not refer to just the health service but to the public sector generally—should somehow be excused from a proper consideration of the cost of what it does.
To repeat a remark that I made earlier about hospitals—and certainly I make it about universities as well—I believe that we have gone on far too long managing systems the full detail of which in cost terms we have little or no idea about. I do not object to the Government's notion—it is not especially the Government's notion; all sensible thinkers are aware of it—that costs ought to be taken correctly into account. There are at least one or two consultants present in the Chamber. I am not one of those who believe that a consultant in a hospital should be able to buy any particular toy that takes his fancy at that time. I have never understood the argument that because Consultant x has one, Consultant y has to have one too. I do not believe that money does not matter—quite the contrary.
Having said that, the key point is that cost is not everything. What is relevant is benefit relative to cost. Perhaps I may dare to put on for a brief moment my economist's hat, after which I shall not return to the point. We need to know the marginal costs. We need to relate them to the marginal benefits of particular activities. That is the point of an efficient system.
On Amendment No. 85, one's concern is that within the budgetary constrained decision situation—if I may use that horrible jargon—the emphasis will be too much on costs and too little on

523
benefits, and that therefore decision-making will cease to be efficient. It will be less efficient than it otherwise would be. That is why we had to put that amendment down.
Amendment No. 85B again has its corresponding Scottish version. It refers to national codes of practice and such matters, together with the need to meet the specific requirements by the acquirer. The provision in Amendment No. 85B is obvious. I do not envisage it as controversial but I wait to hear the Minister's comments on that.
Amendment No. 86B seems perfectly sensible. It relates more generally to a question that has been raised before. The contracts in the sense in which we are using the expression in the Bill are not contracts in the commercial law sense. As I understand it, they are not negotiable contracts in law. Nonetheless, if they are contracts, one certainly believes that the contracting party—the person who agrees to deliver—is under some obligation to deliver. It is not yet clear to me—by the end of the Bill with any luck the noble Baroness will have enlightened me as she has done on other Bills in the past—how the provision will work. Because they are not enforceable contracts, I cannot understand the mechanism. One might argue, "You contracted to do this for me. I pledged this money. I now tell you you have not done it", to which there may be the replies, "Yes we have" and "No you have not". There seems no mechanism that ensures delivery on fair terms. I am not pressing the amendment per se but using it as a basis for argument. I seek some enlightenment on those matters.
Amendment No. 87 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock and the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I hope that one of my two colleagues will speak to that amendment. It comes within the standard of performance and quality of performance set of questions that I raised.
Amendment No. 88A is essentially one route to provide for that—I emphasise one route—which the Government might like to consider. It may be embarrassing to some noble Lords, but I am not a great believer in advisory committees, having sat on many of them. It has never been obvious to me what good one was doing other than to be able to say that one was on such-and-such a committee. On the other hand, I have occasionally sat on committees that seemed useful for a while. It is not the idea of a committee that I am in love with. The amendment provides one suggestion on how we might approach the problem of maintaining quality and meeting standards. It shows that that would be a feasible route. But I am more interested in what the Government have to say. I make the assertion that they will not accept the amendment. I do not feel strong enough at this hour to anticipate that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment. However, on the basis of the problem that the amendment and others address, I am more interested to know the Government's views on how these difficulties will be overcome.
That is the class of amendments. I do not need to speak specifically on the Scottish versions of them. I cannot think of any Scottish aspect of the question that is especially pertinent to the discussion.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: As Amendment No. 88A comes within this group of amendments, perhaps I may speak briefly on it. Perhaps I feel stronger than the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am an optimist. I hope that the Minister may surprise us by responding sympathetically to the amendment. It reflects the intention expressed by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We were hoping to see a government amendment on the same lines for consideration during the passage of the Bill through this Chamber.
In speaking briefly to Amendment No. 88A I wish to describe the background to it, the need for it, the state of play with regard to relevant discussions and initiatives that have already taken place and its implications. The amendment introduces a new clause to set up an advisory committee with the power to establish minimum standards of care to be exercised through the Secretary of State. The committee will also have the power to assess hospital and other relevant establishments in order to assure their compliance with the minimum standards.
We believe that the provisions are necessary to ensure a safety net for the quality of care, the theme running through all the amendments. At present standards vary greatly between one part of the country and another. Indeed, such variation is one of the reasons given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the reforms to the National Health Service.
There is no guarantee in the Bill as it stands that the proposed contract system will prevent such variations in standards and quality of care in the future. The Bill provides that standards of quality shall be arrived at in negotiations between purchasers and providers as they draw up contracts. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that different standards will still be set in different parts of the country. The only way to avoid unacceptable variations is to set a baseline for standards and to stipulate that no contract shall be let with standards below that baseline. Such a system would also prevent potential abusers of monopoly power in areas where providers are few and far between. In other words, this is the only way we can ensure a safety net for the quality of care.
Another important aspect of the new clause is that it provides for monitoring by giving the chairman of the advisory committee the ability to make assessments of hospitals. I argue that the power is essential. There is little point in having a power to set standards if there are no mechanisms for inspection to ensure that they are being upheld.
There are clear precedents for such a provision. The closest analogy is Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Education. In addition, when privatising the national utilities the Government have taken care to establish mechanisms for the protection of consumers. I hasten to add that I am aware that the Bill does not seek to privatise the NHS. It opens up new ways of providing services with the introduction of an internal market. Surely, therefore, it is appropriate to establish a regulatory mechanism so that the interests of the consumer, the patient, the

525
client can be protected and—this is very important—can be seen to be protected.
I dare to believe that the Government are already considering such mechanisms. For example, I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met representatives of the royal colleges and the statutory bodies in order to discuss the possibility of setting up a multi-professional advisory group to establish, maintain and improve standards of clinical care. I also understand that during debates in another place reference was made to the Government's intention to bring forward proposals to that effect. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be seen as being helpful to the Government in embodying their intentions.
I wish to ask the Minister three questions, two of which are possibly hypothetical. First, do the Government intend to bring forward a similar amendment? Secondly, if that is the case, what arrangements may be made to resource such a body? Thirdly, if the Government are considering such an initiative what powers would be given to such a body in respect of visiting and monitoring functions and its ability to initiate action as opposed to offering advice only on request?
I sincerely hope that my noble friend will tell the Committee that the Government are already committed to the important principle of quality assurance and that they are taking the necessary steps to implement it in law in the form of measures such as those outlined in the amendment. If so, I shall be delighted to regard the amendment as redundant.
Lord Kilmarnock: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 87. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was right to refer to the group of amendments as dealing with quality of service, and the amendment falls fairly and squarely under that heading.
Amendment No. 87 introduces the concept of a national accreditation board. I shall not go into great detail but I wish to preface my remarks by asserting that there is widespread concern in the Committee about the maintenance and improvement of the quality of service which will exist in the NHS when the Bill becomes an Act. I believe that that sentiment is shared by many who support the basic principle of the Bill as well as those who are opposed to its underlying philosophy. It stands to reason that standards can slide on several grounds. An entrepreneurial hospital may cut corners to increase its throughput. The cash limited purchaser may well be tempted to seek the most economical contract and a languishing hospital may lose clients and the cash which they bring with them and not be able to maintain standards due to lack of funds, leading to the two-tier system which some people fear.
In the Bill there is nothing to allay those fears. There is no commitment to quality control. There are contracts but they are not legally binding and are not praper contracts in the legal sense. With quasi contracts of that nature standards can slip and, if core services are stipulated, they may well become the bare bones of such services.
526
There are various ways of plugging that gap in the Bill. One is reflected in the new clause spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. That proposes an advisory committee on standards which would make recommendations to the Secretary of State and which could initiate inspections of the working practice of any hospital on its own initiative.
I believe that I am right in saying that in another place the Labour Party wanted something with more teeth and tabled an amendment proposing a quality control commission. In this Chamber the noble Lord, Lord Young, who is sitting close to me, has tabled an amendment which would set up for the health service something analogous to the HMI of the education service—an interesting and original suggestion, at which I am sure we shall all wish to look carefully when the time comes. If I detect no disposition on the part of the Government to take seriously this whole area of concern, I shall look sympathetically at his amendment and may well support it.
The amendment which I move with the support of the noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Peston, states in subsection (1):
"There shall be a National Accreditation Board … whose duty shall be to provide recognition to health service bodies which are acquiring or providing goods or services under an NHS contract and which have voluntarily sought to be measured against high performance standards set by the Board and are in 'substantial compliance' with them".
A national accreditation board would thus become the custodian of a national quality assurance programme.
Such a programme or variants to it are already in operation in the United States, Canada and Australia. Indeed, something largely based on the Australian model has already been put into motion by the King's Fund Centre in this country and is attracting support on an increasing scale. As I have suggested, it relies heavily on the voluntary principle. It is very cheap to administer and the version which we propose this evening would eventually be self-financing.
I shall leave to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, some of the details of how the accreditation system works and what it covers, because he is better qualified than I to speak to that. Because we are in Committee and we are discussing this as a probing amendment, I want before going any further to face two difficulties in my Amendment No. 87. First, the analogous schemes are independent of the government in all the countries which I have mentioned. Those who advocate an accreditation system believe profoundly in its essentially voluntary nature. We have preserved that in subsection (1), in which enrolment in the scheme on the part of health service bodies is voluntary.
The King's Fund scheme has, with its own and charitable funding, surveyed nine acute hospitals and has had inquiries from 50 more. Among those it expects to carry out a survey, or an organisational audit as it prefers to call it, on a further 18 hospitals in 1991 and a further 25 in 1992, as well as revisiting the original nine pilot projects. I gather that the royal

527
colleges are prepared to participate in that on a voluntary basis.
Admirable though all that is, I do not see how something in the region of or exceeding the 600 annual surveys carried out, for example, in Canada could be reached without initial support from public funds. Also, if we are talking of a nationally agreed set of standards, which is essential, clearly they must be accepted by the Government. That is why, though the amendment leaves it to the health service bodies voluntarily to seek accreditation, it obliges the Secretary of State to set up and at least initially finance the running costs of the accreditation board.
That brings me to my next difficulty. We had a shorter version and a longer version of the new clause. We decided on the shorter version, which is on the Marshalled List, as being a sufficient vehicle for a probing amendment. However, on reflection it gives excessive patronage to the Secretary of State over the composition of the board, whose strength should lie in a considerable degree of arm's length independence. Therefore, depending on the reply of the noble Baroness and any other opinions expressed in Committee this evening, we may wish to bring forward at the next stage the expanded version.
528
In that version the board is composed of 17 members—as specified in this amendment and this new clause—but the Secretary of State only has the power of direct appointment of four members. The others are directly nominated by the various health service organisations: the conference of the royal colleges, the Royal College of Nursing, the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine, the Institute of Health Services Management, the National Association of Health Authorities, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, the National Consumer Council and the Patients' Association. That version would give the Secretary of State some presence on the body, but would not give him the dominating role.
Whether or not that is a reasonable composition or an acceptable idea, I am convinced that the Committee will require something on quality to be written into the Bill. I strongly believe that we must insist on that before the Bill leaves the Committee. At this stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, all the amendments are of a probing nature. It very much depends on what the noble Baroness says this evening as to how we decide to proceed at the next stage. I therefore look forward to hearing her response to the debate.
10 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In supporting the principles underlying this amendment may I say that this group of amendments is related to quality assurance within the National Health Service. It is somewhat paradoxical that, whereas there are well-eslablished professional regulatory bodies that seek to ensure a proper standard of professional behaviour on the part of professionals employed within the health service, as yet we have no specific mechanism for inspecting the quality of services and care provided by hospitals in the NHS.
Three; possible approaches are available. One is to increase or extend the role of the present health advisory service which at the moment simply examines the services for the elderly and for mental health. A second approach, as suggested, might be a national inspectorate in some way comparable to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. The third would be the accreditation system to which Amendment No. 87 refers. I believe that that is the kind of principle and method to be preferred.
The benefits of that method are that it could provide the development, distribution and updating of national standards and the provision of a yardstick against which to measure organisational performance. It could provide a framework for co-ordinated quality assurance activities and an effective method by which to monitor organisational quality within the contracts to be provided and agreed between health authorities and providers. It could also provide the means of demonstrating to the public that services are of a specified quality.
Accreditation cannot deal directly with the clinical components of quality which contracts will seek to address. However, it can ensure that the necessary structures and processes exist in relation to professional staff and their activities which are likely to result in the provision of high-quality care. It can ensure that purchasers of organisational issues are addressed on a regular and systematic basis.
The noble Baroness will no doubt tell us that the Secreta:7 of State is considering the establishment of a quality assurance mechanism which is in some way comparable. If that is the case one would hope that it would be an independent body managed by a group of individuals—perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord K.ilmarnock, said, nominated by the royal colleges and similar bodies—who could have the authorty to carry out the necessary inspections and to apply a common set of criteria allowing purchasers to make intelligent and informed choices. It would also give an assurance to other purchasers of services, the customers and general practitioners, that a hospital has met an acceptable level of performance. Hence, in supporting this amendment and its principle, I trust that the quality assurance proposals that the Secretary of State is considering will meet the concerns expressed by all those who have proposed these amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 88A. A bad hospital might sell cheap contracts to fill its beds.
530
Amendment No. 88A is important. Good standards are essential for good results and satisfaction all round. By now the Government should have got the message that there must be safeguards included in the Bill. I hope they will accept the amendment.
Lord Butterfield: Perhaps I may make one observation to the Minister before she replies. I am sure that this will not be resented in any quarter. It is a fact that since 1517 the College of Physicians, and subsequently the other colleges, have jealously guarded the standards of professional behaviour in the various professions. I hope that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and by my noble friend about bringing in colleges will be borne strongly in mind by the Secretary of State when he considers these matters, if only to ensure that we do not have a head-on collision between this Chamber and the people who for a long time have been concerned with the maintenance of standards in the health service throughout the country.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, and I know that she is longing to do so, it is important not to confuse the control of a profession's professional behaviour by the profession itself and the concept that you can only assure standards in the work done by contract by having some sort of central control. My noble friend Lady Cox—a great devolutionist, I should have thought—believes that the National Health Service can only raise standards by having a central body, and other noble Lords have reflected that opinion during the debate.
If one is issuing contracts the whole aim is for the individual hospital which is issuing the contract to obtain the highest possible standard locally precisely by specifying high standards and obtaining the highest standards available. Those standards may well be higher than we have ever had in the health service and miles above the average. A central body will simply arrive at the lowest common denominator as the minimum. That is lowering standards, not raising them. The perception of noble Lords is limited by the present set up, which is not satisfactory. It is important to see the possibility of this specification for contracts, which in other spheres is proving so successful in raising standards.
Lord Young of Dartington: I refer briefly to Amendment No. 87. I do not intend to speak now about my Amendment No. 107, which I hope will be called when we reach Clause 20, but the two amendments are closely connected. If my amendment were not to succeed, I should certainly be in favour of this amendment because it would be better to have the national accreditation board which is proposed rather than nothing at all.
The great disadvantage of it is obvious and attention was drawn to that by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, when he emphasised the word "voluntarily" in his wording. If the board were set up it would be in relation to a voluntary system which would give it a weakness from which it would be very difficult to recover fully despite what we

531
have heard about the way these provisions work in Canada and the United States of America and despite the excellent preliminary work that the King's Fund has done.
If hospitals knew that they were well up on the scoring that is proposed by the King's Fund and knew that their standards of performance were reasonably high, they would be the ones that would go for accreditation. They would add the accreditation label to what was already a good standard of performance. Other authorities which knew that they were unlikely to reach the required standard would surely not put themselves forward as voluntary participants in this scheme since they would know that they would be unlikely to succeed. I do not know how this really important objection is to be easily overcome.
That does not mean to say that the scheme is not worth doing because the work of the accreditation board, by stressing high standards, and even though the worst hospitals were left out, would at least keep the issue of standards very much before people in the National Health Service. In its report on the accreditation proposals the King's Fund goes into very great detail. In some ways there is a quite alarming number of standards which are supposed to be conformed to. For example, under the heading of nursing one of the standards is:
"There is evidence that the delivery of nursing care is in accordance with agreed standards for nursing practice".
Those are rather vague words. There are many vague words in the standards as set out in the King's Fund report. Is there not a danger that when hundreds and maybe thousands of standards are set out in this way the whole performance of a hospital, taken generally and as a whole, could somehow be put away into obscurity? A good score could be obtained on standards such as 6-2, 7-6, 15-9, and so forth. However, if the hospital were considered as a whole it might or might not be good. It might or might not be using to good effect the resources which it had available on behalf of its patients.
At an appropriate stage I intend to propose an inspectorate. It would not need to be caught up in an elaboration of individual standards such as would be the case if the King's Fund proposals in anything like their present form were adopted by the accreditation board which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is proposing. I have doubts, but they are not such that if the circumstances were different I would not support these provisions as they are a step forward.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I wish to emphasise something which may have been overlooked by the Committee. If they wish to have junior staff all the hospitals in this country are inspected regularly by members of the medical profession. That is done on a quite large scale. The inspection teams have teeth. Not only do they inspect the actual training posts but they go into the question of sleeping facilities for junior staff, food, library facilities and other matters.
532
Much more important is that the Royal College of Surgeons has managed to achieve the remarkable state of affairs whereby in every district in this country all the deaths and complications that occur as a result of surgery are discussed in great detail, usually once a week. That is a good quality assurance and it could be extended to other walks of life. Perhaps the press would like to discuss every week how many of its stories are actually true. Perhaps politicians might also meet weekly to discuss how accurate their statements had been in the previous week. A good deal is going on already on which we can build.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The issues under discussion in this large grouping of amendments are relevant to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's discussion with the royal colleges and other bodies on the possibility of establishing a statutory multiprofessional advisory group on the standards of clinical care for National Health Service patients. In this, we recognise the historical role of the royal colleges in maintaining standards, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred. I hope the Committee will understand that in responding to the debate I would not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions in any way.
I have said on a number of occasions that the search for improved quality lies at the heart of our proposals for the National Health Service. I realise that this aim also lies behind the amendments. But I do not believe that prescribing minimum standards for providers of services, as proposed in the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ennals, Lord Peston and Lord Carmichael, is the way to achieve it. I agree strongly with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. Such a prescriptive approach would be unable to take account of the varying local factors that go to make up a quality service. I fear that minimum standards would quickly become the norm, inhibiting higher quality providers from seeking to improve their standards still further.
Furthermore, I can confirm that the first part of Amendment No. 69 would add nothing to the existing powers of direction of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State which are quite sufficient to require health authorities to meet any quality standards that he may lay down. However, I do not think that the way forward is to prescribe standards centrally for every single service. Improvements in standards will come from the specification of quality in contracts and other developments such as clinical audit.
Amendment No. 88A, which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Cox, would require the Secretary of State to establish a National Advisory Committee on Standards to advise him on matters relating to quality. I have sympathy with those who consider that, particularly at a time of change, we need to monitor the effect of our proposals on the standards of care that patients receive. That is why my right honourable friend is discussing with the

533
royal colleges and interested parties the establishment of a body to advise him on standards. I hop; that that gives some comfort to my noble friend Lady Cox. We have made clear that the possibility of a statutory base for such a group will be carefully considered in the course of those discussions. Furthermore, discussions will focus on the powers of the body. The level of resources will obviously depend on what the powers are, but clearly any body so set up would need to be properly funded. I hope that that answers the questions raised by my noble friend.
The key to improved quality in the health service lies in the work of, and relationships between, local health authorities. Work undertaken at national level can supplement this but not replace it. Our reforms will give greater choice to patients and greater freedom to health authorities to find local solutions to local needs. Districts will consider the specific health care needs of their resident population and arrange for the provision of specific services which best meet them. GPs who are best placed to know patients' needs and preferences will be closely involved in the process. NHS contracts will be awarded to those providers of services who offer the most effective and highest quality services. I believe that contracts will offer a more effective means of improving standards on the ground rather than prescriptive requirements made from the centre.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked specifically how these contracts would be enforced. Although National Health Service contracts will not be legally enforceable in the courts—because, after all, the parties, the providers and the suppliers, are within the same body and therefore it would not be appropriate—they will still be an effective means of holding providers to account. Hospitals will be expected to deliver the standards of service required by purchasers. District health authorities will monitor providers' performance very carefully to ensure that it is in line with contract specifications. Contracts will also specify remedies for non-performance, giving providers every incentive to maintain quality standards. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord McColl for drawing our attention to the role of inspectors in monitoring those standards.
Some of the amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Peston, would set out in the Bill a detailed specification of what is to be included in contracts; for example, quality measures and monitoring arrangements for providers' performance. There is no question but that the quality of standards will be included in contracts. The requirement on health authorities to place contracts in line with GP referral patterns is itself sufficient evidence that contracts will not go automatically to the lowest bidder. Equally, our guidance on contracts has made clear that contracts should include arrangements for monitoring standards and the information the provider will be expected to supply.
In the context of Amendment No. 80, Members of the Committee may be interested to learn that the midwifery committee of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has
534
recently commented upon the guidance which has been issued. It is entitled Operating Contracts. The board was especially interested in the quality specifications for maternity services contained in the specimen contract documentation provided by Maidstone Health Authority. It also commented that many of the statements in the specimen are admirable. I commend the specimen contracts to the Committee as examples of what can already be achieved in the way of specifying quality as part of the ongoing introduction of these proposals. However, I do not believe that such details need be spelt out in primary legislation.
The development of quality measures will be an evolutionary process. As experience grows, specifications of standards will, I feel sure, become more sophisticated. Clinical audit is another key element of our drive to maximise quality of care. This is an area where the medical profession is indeed supported by the Department of Health in developing arrangements which will be effective throughout the National Health Service.
Our reforms aim to create a health service which works for patients. Our package of reforms will create the right conditions for further improvements in standards of care for National Health Service patients. I do not believe that detailed prescription in the Bill of quality standards, the contents of contracts or the central mechanisms of quality measurements is necessary. I recognise that in introducing this grouping the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that these were probing amendments. I hope that the assurances which I have been able to give him are satisfactory.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Baroness sits down and before we move on from this topic, can she say a few words about how the Government view the national accreditation proposals which I and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, put forward? She did not mention them in her reply. As they are the least bureaucratic and the most economical of all those which have been proposed, it would be interesting to have the preliminary view of the Government on the matter before we decide what to do at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Baroness Hooper: I was interested to note the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and I shall read carefully what he has said. The same general response that I have given in relation to all the amendments applies here.
Lord Peston: I should like to thank all Members of the Committee who have contributed to this interesting little debate. If I understand the noble Baroness correctly she said that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State is meeting the royal colleges and some developments on the quality accreditation and the professional side may emerge from that. I shall wait to hear the results from that meeting; possibly amendments may flow from it.
I am a little confused about the enforcement of the contract. The noble Baroness said that there

535
would be an effective means of holding providers to account. I cannot quite yet see that but I shall look for another way of understanding the problem with a view to learning more about it.
I always listen carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, as well as to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. Essentially the statement of the noble Baroness was that when looking at this, if one lays down standards, the standards achieved will be the minimum laid down. I do not wish to be my usual acerbic self but I ask both noble Baronesses to recall our debates on the education Bill where they took exactly the opposite view.
It may well be that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, if the Committee will forgive the quotation. However, those of us who perhaps have small minds think that consistency is relevant. The Government ought to make up their mind: either the approach in the education Bill is correct or the approach of, "Let's devolve and let a thousand flowers bloom" is correct. One cannot pick and choose one's philosophy depending on which day of the week it is. Having scored that point, perhaps I may add that I do not regard the subject as over and done with. However, I think that we have gone as far as we can tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 69A:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) This section and section 4 below shall not come into force until each Regional, District or Special Health Authority or Family Health Service Authority is satisfied that the neecessary financial and other information is available to carry out the requirements under the specified sections.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is self-explanatory and I shall not waste the Committee's time by reading it. It still deals with contracts and in many ways it takes us back to the lengthy and important discussion we had on the earlier amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which was taken to a vote. This amendment focuses on anxieties which were expressed in the debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley—and I am delighted to see him in his place,—and also by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.
On 1st April 1991 we shall have an internal market in health. My recollection is that the internal market in health was one of Dr. Owen's bright ideas and perhaps that explains a lot. We shall have an internal market but as yet we know nothing about prices. Nor do we know in what way the different authorities will price their various procedures or whether they possess the expertise or the mechanisms necessary in order to evaluate and cost the procedures. It is an elaborate business.
I do not wish to go over again the earlier debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, but when I raised the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, she more or less said that in the first
536
instance the contracts would be provisional and the costing might well be done centrally by the department. I think those were her words, but perhaps not.
I was interested in what the Royal College of Nursing said about the matter in a briefing paper which many noble Lords will have received. It stated that:
"the rapid timetable envisaged for the operation of an internal market will leave the National Health Service ill-prepared. If providers have inadequate information from which to cost their services, they will either overcharge, causing financial problems for the purchasing DHA, or undercharge, leading themselves to financial ruin. In the case of a provider overcharging, then the eventual loser must be the tax payer, as the provider of DHA budgets. In the case of provider undercharging, the eventual loser may well be the patient, as the unit strives to restrict costs to stay within budget. Either of these scenarios could develop, not as a result of inefficiency in patient care, but simply because of a failure to be able to cost procedures fully".
I am worried about the business of costing these procedures. The Royal College of Nursing is not alone in this matter. The Social Services Select Committee went so far as to state in its eighth report, at paragraph 7.25:
"We recommend that the Government do not attempt a full separation of purchasing from providing health care until the necessary infrastructure in terms of systems, equipment and staff is in place".
What is going to be the position? I do not know whether we shall get an answer to this now, but all my amendment does is ensure that none of those things come about until one is satisfied that the various authorities have the necessary information to make the appropriate decisions. It seems to me that there is no chance at all that they will have the necessary information. If the internal market starts on 1st April 1991, undoubtedly it will have to be under the control of the department centrally, which I do not think is the object of the exercise.
I do not want to be discourteous, but in his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who put some very important questions earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he could not give her the answers because he did not yet know them; these were matters still being discussed. It is not very reassuring to hear that the Government do not yet quite know what they are doing or trying to do in certain of these matters.
Let me say immediately before any noble Lord intervenes that I am very glad to learn that the Government's mind is not finally closed on these matters. I hope that perhaps when I get a reply we shall hear that they have not finally made up their mind about whether it is within the bounds of possibility that the internal market can actually start to operate effectively on 1st April 1991. I am not against the market, but I do not think it could come in on that date. I believe that that is too quick. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I should like to support the amendment. In an earlier speech I said that I saw no chance that by April 1991 the health authorities would be ready to do this. I note that the royal colleges and the other colleges in their statement reached the same conclusion. The Department of

537
Health's own advisers recognise that there is an immense amount of work to be done before the information systems, which are the key to the internal market, are able to cope with the changes proposed. The statement also said that the depar;ment's study team was not aware of any work which had been carried out on the risks which may affect either purchaser or supplier organisation arising out of the lack of timely, accurate information with which to manage their business.
We may be in the worst possible situation if they plunge into doing something that is totally inadequate, leading to total confusion. I should like to hear from the Minister just how satisfied she is that it is going to be possible for the market effectively to begin on 1st April and, if not, what the consequence is. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for tabling the amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I must reiterate the warnings I have given on this very point, that to embark upon this market principle—a principle which I wholly support and want to see implemented as quickly as possible—without adequate preparation could do the utmost damage to the whole principle. I must repeat what I think I said earlier. A few weeks ago I had a long conversation with the chairman of a district authority who believes in the principle—he is already preparing for it—but who sees the greatest danger to it if he is forced to introduce it before he is ready, and as at the moment he cannot see how he can be ready by next April. All he said was "Don't let us have this deadline date hanging over our heads. Let us get ready as soon as possible. If we can be ready by 1st February let us start on 1st February, but don't make us start on 1st April if we are not ready".
Baroness Hooper: The Government have made clear their intention that all hospital and community health services should be funded through contracts from April 1991. This timetable was discussed with National Health Service managers, who considered it to be feasible. The Government are therefore confident that management capacity in the NHS is equal to the task. We believe that it is important that the benefits of contracting are seen as soon as possible throughout the service so that we can begin this evolutionary system of developing the service and making it more sophisticated.
From 1991, all units will need adequate systems in order to manage their own finances, activities and the contracts which they agree with district health authorities. The sophistication of those systems will depend on how complex and advanced the contracts are. It will be possible for block contracts to be based initially largely on existing information and systems, which I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, are currently available to district health authorities. More advanced hospitals are likely to offer purchasers contracts with a higher degree of specification. They may need more sophisticated systems to manage these. It is important that the basis of such systems across individual hospitals should be able to respond flexibly to their own needs.
538
After 1991 we expect that the stimulus of contracting will lead to an increased rate of improvement in financial and management information systems.
However, it will continue to be a management responsibility for district health authorities to satisfy themselves that their directly-managed units possess adequate systems to generate financial and management information. Before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State agreed to a unit becoming a National Health Service trust he would also need to be satisfied that its information systems were adequate. That is one of the points which will be considered when the NHS trust applications are considered.
The Department of Health also has a duty to stimulate and encourage improvements in financial and management systems. I should like, as one example of such work, to cite the NHS review proposals to speed up the roll-out of the resource management initiative.
With reference to that initiative perhaps I may remind the Committee that the aim of resource management is to allow total individual patient care to be planned and delivered cost-effectively. Doctors and nurses are involved in the management process and are provided with detailed information about patients' treatment costs and so on. Resource management has already been introduced into a number of sites and is to be introduced into all 260 large acute hospitals by 1993, beginning in 1989-90 with 20 sites. Resource management will provide those who deliver care with the information to make decisions. In terms of funding, £33 million was spent this year on resource management and assorted computer systems and a further £78 million is to be spent in 1990-91.
In addition, consultative documents covering the impact of the National Health Service review on information and IT were published on 11th January, with a deadline for comments of 31st March. Among other issues, the information needs of providers are considered. There is therefore a considerable amount of action taking place. For those reasons, we believe that the amendment would be unduly restrictive and I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Winstanley: I listened with great care to the noble Baroness's reply and I note that she has looked into the matter very thoroughly. She has thought about it. It is clear that her fellow Ministers in the department have thought about it and, after taking advice, she has decided that this timetable can be met. I wish that I could believe her. I am afraid that time will show that she is wrong and I am right.
I am not at all sure what course I should take now. I shall certainly not press the amendment now, but the matter is of the greatest importance and, in some form or another, it is essential that I should return to it at a later stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 69B:
Page 3, line 20, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with Community Health Councils and such other bodies as seem to it to be appropriate").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that I can deal with this amendment very rapidly. It concerns patients. As a doctor, you deal with them as rapidly as possible.
The amendment ensures that local opinion is consulted before certain steps are taken. The obvious people to express local opinion are the community health councils and,
"such other bodies as seem to [the health authority] to be appropriate".
It is a simple amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Amendment No. 69B would place a duty on health authorities to consult community health councils and others before entering into contracts as providers of services to residents of other districts.
In considering Amendment No. 68, which, as the Committee will remember, we discussed with Amendment No. 65 before adjourning for dinner, the Committee examined the need for health authorities to consult in their role as purchasers. Purchasing health care on behalf of the resident population will be the key function of the district health authority. It will be essential that the DHA keeps its local community fully informed of its plans to acquire services through contracts and listens to the views of community health councils, other interested bodies and, of course, GPs and patients themselves. To that end, the Government have made it quite clear that there will be consultation, although that does not need statutory requirements and must not encumber the day-to-day management of contracts. I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, who appears to say that what I have asked for will be done but that there need be no statutory requirement. I have always taken the view that patients play an important part in their illnesses. It is important to seek patients' views occasionally before we make fundamental changes to the medical arrangements in their area. I have always believed that the ideal body to represent the patient—you cannot speak to every patient—is the community health council. I am delighted to hear that those councils will be consulted on these matters. We shall await the outcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 69C to 72 not moved.]
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) Each Authority shall identify within its financial allocations specific identifiable funds to be utilised on the authority of the Postgraduate Deans or other appropriate officers concerned with the provisions of teaching services to medical and dental practitioners, nurses and other health care professionals, for the support of postgraduate, vocational and continuing education programmes.
540
(2B) Each authority shall provide that appropriate financial allocations identified under the Service Increment for Teaching (SIFT) shall be made available to all authorities responsible for the provision of undergraduate teaching to medical and dental students and for the support of research activities, and that the Service Increment for Teaching shall be renamed the Service Increment for Teaching Research (SIFTR).").
The noble Lord said: This is essentially a probing amendment. Until the late 1940s, the Medical Act required that a medical practitioner should at the moment of graduation be expert in the practice of medicine, surgery and midwifery. It soon became apparent that the increasing range of knowledge required of those graduating in medicine and the increasing responsibility which was likely to be imposed upon them in their medical practice was such that a pre-registration year before doctors could become fully registered was introduced in 1950.
Since that time, medicine has continued to develop apace. The demands have increased and the range of knowledge is greater to such an extent that postgraduate and continuing education are now an essential part of all medical practice. Indeed there is a legal requirement now that any doctor wishing to become a principal in general practice should undertake a three-year vocational training programme before being able to practise independently in the National Health Service as a principal GP. Similarly, postgraduate and vocational training and continuing education are available to doctors as they are to other health care professionals in the service.
Since the National Health Service Act was passed in 1946 it has been the legal and financial responsibility of the National Health Service to provide the funds necessary for the support of postgraduate and continuing education for all health care professionals. An unfortunate development in the past few years has been that some health authorities, because of constraints on finance, have significantly and progressively reduced the funds available for such postgraduate and continuing medical education and for the education of other health care professionals.
It is upon such postgraduate and continuing education that the quality of medical practice and services depends. Without question the needs of patients require that such facilities, including facilities for courses, study leave and other special vocational and continuing education opportunities, should be available to health care professionals. The purpose of this amendment is to require that funds be separately identified and protected to support that major responsibility of the National Health Service.
The second part of the amendment, subsection (2B), relates to the service increment for teaching or SIFT, which is made available to those health authorities which are concerned with the teaching of medical and dental students. Just as in the universities there is a dual support system whereby the universities provide the infrastructure and environment for carrying out research, so in the National Health Service hospitals it has always been the convention that the environment, infrastructure and facilities necessary to carry out that research which nourishes the health service and which is

541
responsible for increasing improvement in patient care should equally be provided.
Therefore, the second part of the amendment suggests that that fact should be acknowledged formally in this Bill by calling this service increment for teaching not just SIFT but the service increment for teaching and research. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: I should like to support this amendment. As a practising medical practitioner under the National Health Service, I take advantage of the postgraduate courses which are available. There will be a new system whereby under the new contract for general practitioners they have to pay for the courses that they attend and they will be given money if they go to a sufficient number of courses. That is an incentive under the new GP contract. That still does not mean that health authorities do not have to put in a considerable amount of funds to provide the range of courses that are necessary for all grades of medical personnel, nurses and dentists, some of whom do not have the arrangement of paying and being reimbursed.
The second part of the amendment, subsection (2B), concerns something which your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee, in its report on priorities in medical research, said should occur; namely, that SIFT should become SIFTR. I believe that it should be service increment for teaching and research and the name should have an "and" in it. If I read it correctly, there is a small mistake in the printed amendment which could be put right. This amendment is an attempt to improve and somewhat stiffen the terms which will ensure that these absolutely necessary activities take place and are properly funded by district health authorities.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I should like to support this amendment most sincerely. I think it is a tragedy that it has come up for discussion at this hour of the night because I believe that it is one of the most important amendments for the future of the health service. In the health service we depend on the quality of the teaching and the quality of the research that goes on in our hospitals, and that is particularly applicable to the future.
I pray the indulgence of the Committee, despite the very late hour, because I wish to raise a subject that is related to the amendment but is not within its wording. I gave the Minister warning that I would raise it. Because it is a subject that is very close to my heart I am even more sorry that the hour is so late.
There is an additional problem relating to teaching and research in the NHS. Apart from the money provided under SIFT and the increased support, although small, that we have been promised under SIFTR, no account has been taken of the money provided by charitable funds at present carrying out research within the NHS. The MRC is now, I believe, funded to the tune of about £170 million a year. The Association of Medical Research Charities provides at least £150 million a year towards medical research. It is probably greater now.
542
Most of these medical charities support a growing number of clinical units in the NHS. That support was intended to be used to support clinical academic staff, clinical research fellows and research techniques together with the running expenses. However—and here I must declare an interest as a member of the Council of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund—mainly through the inability of district health authorities to find adequate finance, medical charities have found themselves having to pay for clinical secretaries, nurses, porters, the upkeep and maintenance of ward blocks, and even patient hotel costs and drug bills just to ensure the continuation of their clinical research.
Increasingly, the medical charities are becoming concerned about the considerable amount of research money that is being used to pay for basic patient care which in my view should properly be the responsibility of the district health authority. The Imperial Cancer Research Fund carried out a survey which indicated that at a minimal estimate at our unit at Bart's Hospital 35 per cent. of ICRF expenditure, and at Guy's 41 per cent. of expenditure, were spent on providing patient care. It is clear therefore that large amounts of charitable moneys were being used to take care of NHS patients.
We are all aware that the cost of treating a patient in a centre of excellence such as a teaching hospital or SHA is higher than in an ordinary district hospital. There is therefore a deep concern that under the new contracting system tertiary referrals—which are essential to teaching and research—will diminish to the detriment of advances in medical science.
Under the new arrangements, the costing of treating a patient in a district general hospital should shortly be available for the purposes of contracting for services by the district health authority. As most clinical research units are sited in teaching hospitals—although by no means all—SIFTR would be expected to meet the additional costs for undergraduate teaching as well as the cost of basic minimum research which all academic staff must undertake. The additional costs arising from research funded by charities have so far not been dealt with under the Bill.
In view of the large percentage of money spent by the research authorities on clinical support it would seem necessary that a sum of money over and above SIFTR should be made available both to teaching hospitals and to non-teaching hospitals where research takes place. It could be a fixed percentage of the external funding by which clinical research would be supported from central funds. That would ensure that central money for clinical research is where it is needed. In other words, central funding will in effect follow soft money funding.
Most, if not all, grant income from the MRC and major charities is awarded in competition by a process which is peer reviewed. Thus following the direction of soft money won in competition will direct clinical supplementation to units which need it. This could overcome the problem inherent in the present SIFT increment for research which relies on medical student numbers for its direction. There is no guarantee that the mere presence of medical

543
students will engender creative clinical research or that such research is directly proportional to student numbers.
Institutions, among them district general hospitals, which cannot boast the presence of undergraduate medical students make a considerable contribution to clinical research. While the France Committee has alluded to the problem, no mechanism outside the SIFT increment for research has yet been proposed.
The above formula would readily accommodate this problem. There is no question of the extra money being an open-ended commitment. The amount of money available for clinical research from the MRC and charities is finite and major increases in the funds are certainly not envisaged. If one assumes that 30 per cent. of research funds are at present spent on clinical support, this amounts to the sum of roughly £90 million. On the assumption that the research charities and the MRC spend in the region of 50 per cent. of their money within NHS institutions, it would need central funding to the tune of about £45 million.
I have raised the subject in the hope that the Minister will be able to explain the Government's thoughts on the subject. It is not exactly part of the amendment, but I should like an answer because something must be done about the problem. If the answer is satisfactory I shall be happy; if it is not I shall reserve the right to raise the matter again on Report.
Lord Butterfileld: I hope that the problem broached by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, will be resolved. In another life I acted as vice-chancellor, first, at Nottingham and then at Cambridge. There was heavy pressure on the medical side to ask for overheads from any organisation which wished to introduce its research programme into the universities or medical schools.
It amounts to a strategic decision in the department whether it says to the public, "If you want this research into your illnesses carried on in the appropriate research environment you must recognise that for every pound you put in the tin something like 30p must go towards the overheads of the research". Alternatively, will the Government come to an accommodation so that there is not that stain on their charitable impulses?
As a man who has served on various authorities, I wish to explain briefly to the Committee why there have been the dreadful problems mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, about postgraduate training. One of the problems about cash limits and uncertain settlements of wages is that during the year authorities are always looking for what I might call the soft option. Regrettably, postgraduate education is a fairly easy soft option because everyone knows the salaries of the young men and women and of the consultants. They say, "Oh, Dr. Rea, Lord Rea will be able to pay for his postgraduate education". In a way one wonders whether, in the interests of the future, we shall have to indulge in some dreadful top slicing. I should like the noble
544
Baroness to know that there is one persor in this Committee who knows how complicated it is to get postgraduate fees and payments from local authorities which face the problem of being cash limited, particularly when there is inflation.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The Government fully accept—and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been at pains to underline—their duty to provide a healthy atmosphere for medical research, and the education and training of all its staff. Discussion of training tends to centre on doctors and dentists, but our commitment to high quality training for nurses and other professions should not be doubted either. For example, we are providing substantial new funding for the ambitious Project 2000 programme.
If I may turn to medical and dental education, it seems to me quite unjustifiably alarmist to suppose that the changes to the NHS proposed in this Bill pose a threat. We should not expect any sudden reluctance among hospitals to support education. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, the excellent reputation of many of the larger hospitals:s based on their teaching and research. As I said at Second Reading, it will help them to win NHS contracts. They are very unlikely to wish to forfeit this when they must rely on that reputation to secure the continued referrals they need. GPs' referral preferences will play the key role in deciding the shape of districts' contracts.
Let me underline that the Government are fully committed to the provision of high quality postgraduate and continuing education as well as undergraduate teaching. The duties, responsibilities and reserve powers which bite on the latter will also apply to the former. We accept that there is a need to ensure that this important subject is properly covered in the funding systems which we envisage for the reformed NHS. This is something that the Government are actively studying at the moment, assisted by a group of interested professionals led by the Chief Medical Officer.
One conclusion we have reached already is that there should be a clearly defined budget for postgraduate and continuing education, as suggested by the amendment. Further work will be undertaken to define the constituent parts of this budget—for example, should it cover both medical and non-medical education?—and to examine haw best it should be managed. The solution proposed in the amendment is certainly one that will be considered.
No amendment to primary legislation would be needed to operate such a budget. The powers under Section 97 of the NHS Act are sufficient to allow such funds to be allocated and protected. I hope that I have indicated that, while the Government will consider seriously the points made today, it is not right to be so prescriptive in legislation at present.
Turning to the second part of the amendment, hospitals are protected from the costs of medcal and dental education through the service increment for teaching. This was increased from 1st April this year, to meet 100 per cent. instead of the previous 75 per

545
cent. of the average excess costs of teaching hospitals. That means that all excess costs, including those attributable to research, will be covered. The increase in SIFT this year of over £34 million brings the total to over £350 million.
The steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education which met under the chairmanship of the permanent secretary at the department also made some useful recommendations on the distribution of SIFT and wider funding issues, which the Government have accepted. We shall soon be considering their final report.
The amendment is also too specific to serve the real needs of research. For example, we are about to start consultation with research interests on a scheme to support research in non-teaching hospitals. The amendment would not allow a separate scheme for those hospitals.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for raising the subject of the medical charities, because it gives me the opportunity to recognise once again the important and valuable work done by these organisations. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield said, that certain charities proposed that the Government should fund the providers of services in proportion to the sums that they receive from charitable organisations for research, to cover the service costs of that research.
We are considering that proposal in the context of our review of SIFT, a scheme to support research in the non-teaching hospitals to which I have just referred. The proposal is attractive, but problems could arise because National Health Service costs vary so greatly. Providing fixed sums based on the amount of research funding received might unfairly penalise some providers. I should also point out that if a medical research charity considers that it will further its own objectives by contributing to or paying for National Health Service costs, that is clearly a matter for its own decision.
To answer a specific query raised by the noble Baroness about tertiary referrals, guidance has made clear that the decision to make a tertiary referral will remain that of the clinician responsible for the patient's care. It will be made solely on clinical grounds and not on grounds of cost. I hope that the noble Baroness finds that reassuring.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in moving the amendment said that it was a probing amendment. I hope I made clear that we agree with much of what was said regarding the objectives of the amendment and that we are actively addressing the concerns raised in those two areas.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In the light of the clear and unequivocal reassurances given by the noble Baroness, perhaps I may make two points. We accept the Government's commitment to the funding of postgraduate teaching, continuing education and research for all professional staff in the health service. However, I was concerned, as was my noble friend Lord Butterfield, that health authorities have tended to reduce the funds available for that purpose quite disproportionately in many circumstances. I was very pleased, therefore, to hear the noble
546
Baroness say that serious consideration is being given to a proposal whereby funds will be allocated specifically for that purpose.
With regard to SIFT and research, most hospitals throughout this country are in some respects teaching hospitals. Many of them, other than the old traditional teaching hospitals, now share in SIFT because they take medical students for training. It therefore follows that it would be reasonable to consider this increment—the increment for teaching and research—not only in teaching but also in many non-teaching hospitals.
Nevertheless, in the light of the assurances that we heard, which I found very reassuring, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 to 76 not moved.]
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) In carrying out its primary functions a District Health Authority shall provide a district wide incontinence service and shall identify a continence advisor and a consultant to take a special interest in incontinence.")
The noble Baroness said: Before I explain this amendment I should like to thank the Members of the Committee who put their names to it; the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is a nurse and who knows from a nursing point of view how important correct advice and equipment such as pads and inco-pads and various devices are to people suffering the immense problems of incontinence; the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is a general practitioner and who knows from a doctor's experience how dangerous wrong treatment or neglect of the problem of incontinence can be to patients; also the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who as my kinsman knows only too well what it is like when a severely disabled person suffers from Montezuma's revenge in Mexico, dysentery in Mauritius and salmonella poisoning caught in your Lordships' House.
To deal with these problems of extreme diarrhoea is not easy. Without the proper aids it would be even worse. Fifteen years ago I founded, with some colleagues, the Spinal Injuries Association. We have thousands of members in this country and abroad. All our members are paraplegics or tetraplegics—people with paralysis due to damage of the spinal cord. All suffer from the problems of incontinence which they manage to control in various ways. They will die an early death if their urinary problems are not looked after. They sustain pressure sores if they do not look after themselves in the correct way. They need help to do this by having the correct aids for their individual needs.
The wording of the amendment on incontinence is taken from the Department of Health notice of November 1988 on the development of services for people with physical and sensory disabilities which was sent to all health authorities. It states:
"Provision of a district-wide incontinence service. Good practice would include a continence adviser acting as a focal point, provision for regular and adequate supply of incontinence

547
aids and reasonable access to a urodynamic clinic. Authorities should identify a consultant and physiotherapist to take a special interest in incontinence".
It is becoming increasingly evident that, far from improving the service, cut-backs are beoming increasingly the norm in many districts. This amendment would put into legislation what is already in a directive and we see this as necessary to prevent a continuous decline in the provision of incontinence services.
Cut-backs in the incontinence service are detrimental to good community care provision. For many people access to good advice and the provision of appropriate pads is central to their ability to retain their confidence and remain in their own homes in the community.
In some parts of the country problems have arisen where people are being restricted to one type of pad which is often not appropriate for a person's needs. There are examples of people trying to wash and re-use pads. People in nursing homes are increasingly being asked to pay for incontinence pads, despite the fact that circular HRC(74)16 clearly states that such aids should be included in the fees. There is also increasing evidence that people in residential homes are being rationed or offered inappropriate pads.
The cause of pressure sores, which can come from lack of care in this matter, costs the country millions of pounds a year in hospital treatment. That is obvious to the people who understand the problem. A little investment in the correct methods of care for the individual saves a great deal of hardship and expense which can arise if the subject is neglected. In this difficult subject of incontinence there is a great need to improve the service for patients, giving individual choice. There is a real risk that the matter might be shoved from health to social services, fall through the middle and be lost altogether.
This amendment has the support of Age Concern England, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, the Association of Continence Advisers, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Spastics Society and the Spinal Injuries Association. I hope that the Committee will also support it. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I briefly but equally strongly support this amendment for three main reasons. First, incontinence is a serious social problem requiring skilled assistance if physical problems such as pressure sores and infection are to be avoided and if psycho-social problems such as loss of self-esteem, embarrassment, withdrawal and isolation are to be averted. Many people who suffer the affliction of incontinence are, however, enabled to lead lives where the physical and social complications are avoided. They will testify to the importance of necessary professional support and also appropriate resources.
The second reason for supporting this amendment wholeheartedly is the likelihood that the numbers of people with incontinence problems are going to
548
increase significantly in the years ahead, especially, for example, among growing numbers of elderly people more prone to illnesses such as strokes and among younger people with chronic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis or who now survive serious accidents which may well have proved fatal in earlier years.
My third reason for my belief that there is a need to ensure an incontinence service with specially trained and identifiable staff is the change in arrangements for community care. Many people with incontinence will be living in the community. The primary responsibility for their care will now reside with local authorities and social service departments. Their staff are not clinically trained to help people with such problems. It would be much easier for them to make satisfactory arrangements if there is a clearly identifiable service with trained staff whom they can contact direct.
I cannot emphasise too strongly the need 'or this specialist service to be available in every district. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said, the situation at present is far from adequate. For example, the system for the provision of incontinence aids is unequal and haphazard. In many places it is downright unsatisfactory. As the noble Baroness also said, many organisations have expressed concern over these matters. She has named many of them. Perhaps I may quote the way they have expressed their concern collectively. They say:
"We support initiatives encouraging people to stay in their own homes but fear that without adequate continence advice and provision, the policy of community care which enables them to stay in their homes may fail".
This amendment will help to avoid such a tragic outcome to a well-intentioned policy. I beg to support the amendment.
Lord Rea: I support this amendment. I work in a district which a few years ago did not have a consultant in urodynamics and did not have a continence adviser who is a specially trained nurse. When a clinic began to operate it was very much appreciated by many of my patients. It is not the people with spinal injuries who make up the greatest number; it is very often older people or those who have suffered strokes. The clinic has made a tremendous difference to the lives and the dignity of the lives of a number of people in my practice.
It is quite difficult for a GP to deal with the problem of an incontinent person and it needs a specially trained nurse to do so. There is great benefit in having a specialist with the correct equipment and training to investigate the multiplicity of the causes of incontinence and to take appropriate action. The supply of incontinence pads is variable. There are embarrassing failures of supply. That is very sad in central London. Mostly, we do not have that problem, but when it happens it is very noticeable, embarrassing and undignified for many people.
The Earl of Swinton: Once in a blue noon I actually support something that my noble kinswoman moves. In even more of a blue moon I actually go through the same voting Lobby as she

549
does. I have had my leg pulled mercilessly today when some of my noble friends saw that I had my name to this amendment. I believe that it is a most important matter. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be very sympathetic towards it.
I can add little to what my noble friend Lady Cox, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, or my noble kinsperson have said. She mentioned a slightly embarrassing experience which we had many years ago when we went on holiday to Mauritius. We were staying at an hotel which was really a group of rondevels, and very little else. She picked up some terrible tummy bug. All I can say is, thank God, I had hired a car. I had to sleep for four nights in that car. The smell and everything else was so awful. She did not have the right aids because she had not taken them out there.
This is a purely practical matter and I am not ashamed of getting up and saying it. I am sure that I am not embarrassing my noble kinswoman by saying it. This is important. It is not a laughing matter. If I have been in the least flippant I apologise. I hope that my noble friend will have listened to the views expressed from all sides of the Committee and will not, because it is late at night, sweep the matter under the table. I thank God, am continent—at least I think I am. I think that I can stick the rest of the debate. But for those who are not, I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.
Lord Ennals: It is certainly not a laughing matter. For 13 years my quadriplegic incontinent mother-in-law stayed in our household. I shall say no more.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I strongly support the amendment and certainly declare an interest as a paraplegic. I know how essential it is to have good continence advice and no cut-backs in the supplies of, for example, pads, whether in the form of rationing or restriction to one type which may not be the most suitable.
My noble friend has already mentioned some of the problems identified by the voluntary organisations and the Association of Continence Advisers. I should like to mention two more. In some circumstances people are being told that their attendance allowance should be used to pay for incontinence pads. That is totally unacceptable. The Government should make it clear that that is not the purpose of the attendance allowance.
Furthermore, continence advisers do not at present undergo any specialist training. There is a two-week training course for nurses once they become advisers but the organisations think that this is far from sufficient and they would like to see their role upgraded. It may be a little difficult for the continent fully to appreciate the enormity of the problem. A hiccup in the incontinence supplies makes one almost as twitchy as if the ravens were seen to be preparing to leave the Tower.
I had a taste of the experience a couple of years ago. I stress that it was not a wilful reduction by the authority. As it was changing premises it ran down
550
the supply prior to the move. This resulted in a great many of us queueing up for a very few incontinence pads for the Christmas to New Year fortnight. It was not a pleasant experience. I was lucky enough to be able to track down some extra pads and afford to buy them from the chemist. Otherwise I would have been faced, like the others, with the choice either of drinking less—in the Christmas to New Year period, the Committee will appreciate—and running the risk of the possibility of a urinary tract infection, or changing less often, which is not good for the skin or for any potential pressure sores, or drying them off on the radiator and re-using them.
Much of disabled life takes place at a fairly basic level. It is something that one has to get on with because it is inevitable. But it is the situation that is not only detrimental but degrading, and avoidably degrading, which is unacceptable. That is why I hope the Minister will be able to say something very positive to this amendment. I support it wholeheartedly.
Baroness Blatch: If we have smiled a little during the course of this debate I hope that I can assure the noble Baroness, her noble kinsman and all Members of the Committee that it does not detract in the slightest from the seriousness of this issue. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important issue which gives me the opportunity to offer reassurance and to emphasise that the Government recognise the importance of the issues she has raised.
The Department of Health has already provided guidance to health authorities along the lines of the amendment. Health notice (88)26, which is available in the Library, states that in planning services authorities should consider the provision of a district-wide incontinence service and gives advice on good practice. But the Government believe that in this as in other areas of health care provision district health authorities should be left free to determine the pattern and level of service in their districts in the light of local needs and circumstances.
The position will not change as a result of this Bill except that in future district health authorities will have a much clearer responsibility for their resident populations and resources will be allocated to them in line with this.
It is important to point out that one of the advantages of the new system over the old system is that inadequacies in the service, given that authorities have to publish plans to meet the needs of the community, will be much more exposed. That is an important aspect of the new reforms. I am sure that all health authorities will ensure that adequate resources are made available for incontinence services within their different priorities and budgets.
There is no disagreement between us about the importance of incontinence, but it would be wrong to pre-empt local decision-making in the manner of this amendment. I hope that I have given adequate assurances to the noble Baroness on the issue and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I

551
should like to tell the Committee that tomorrow morning—that is, in a few hours' time—a meeting on this subject will be held in this place for the various organisations I mentioned. We feel that it is important to have such a provision written into the Bill. I say that because when a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament people look upon it as legislation and they forget everything else. They forget about White Papers and Green Papers and also, with the hurly-burly and the rush which ensue, they forget about the circulars issued by the department.
With the cutting down of the number of members of the authority, I am absolutely certain that the percentage of men will be increased and that of women will be decreased. This will happen because of the business emphasis on the whole matter. We may feel it necessary to bring the issue back at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77A to 78 not moved.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(4A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give to each health authority and each Family Health Services Authority such directions under section 17 of the principal Act as it appears to him necessary for the purpose of securing that:—

(a) patients shall have access to free and confidential advice independent of any health authority or Family Health Services Authority and to support whilst processing a complaint;

(b) patients shall have access to a complaints investigation service independent of any health authority or Family Health Services Authority;

(c) all employees of health service bodies as defined in section 4(2) of this Act and all medical practitioners who are providing general medical services in accordance with arrangements under section 29 of the principal Act shall cooperate fully with such a complaints investigation service in an investigation of any complaint;

(d) patients who have complained shall receive from such a complaints investigation service a full explanation of the outcome of any investigation within such time limits as the Secretary of State shall determine.

(e) such steps are taken for publishing the arrangements made under this Section as the Secretary of State shall require and that the arrangements shall be known as "the unified complaints system for health service users".

(4B) Nothing in subsection (4A) above shall preclude an investigation under Part V of the principal Act in respect of any matter.
(4C) Nothing in subsection (4A) above shall preclude any award of compensation made to a patient under law or by any other procedure.
(4D) Nothing in subsection (4A) above shall preclude any disciplinary action being taken against an employee of a health services body as defined in section 4(2) of this Act or against any medical practitioner who is providing general medical services in accordance with arrangements under section 29 of the principal Act").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 94C, which is the Scottish equivalent. This is a probing amendment and at this time of night I shall seek to be brief It is a matter to which we may wish to return on Report. It deals with what I believe to be a very unsatisfactory system whereby patients' complaints are investigated.
The system is at present very bureaucratic, cumbersome and long-winded. The patients often do not know how to complain. Moreover, rather naturally, the NHS does not encourage people to do so. There are currently at least seven possible channels for complaints and it is often unclear which route is appropriate.
The procedure is also very slow and it is usual for complaints to drag on for months or even years. It is most ineffective. The outcome of the different procedures are unclear and often very unsatisfactory. Complainants are usually seeking an explanation, an apology and an assurance that the incident will not be repeated. The existing procedure has clearly failed to meet these requirements.
The amendment seeks to ask the department to put in place a procedure which would require that patients have access to independent advice and support while processing their complaint; that complaints would be investigated by an independent complaints investigation service; that NHS employees and contractors would co-operate with investigations; that patients would receive a full explanation of the outcome of an investigation; that complaints would be investigated within a reasonable time; and that the system should be publicised so that patients know what are their rights, rather than simply suffering without knowing what they can do about the problem.
As I said, this is a probing amendment and I hope to hear something from the Minister because I believe that this is an issue which ought to be covered by legislation. Unless we do so now, it may be many years before another opportunity arises. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment calls for a unified complaints system for health service users. The National Health Service is not, however, a homogeneous body. It has two separate wings in the hospital and family practitioner services, each with its own structure and employment conditions, making the imposition of a single complaints procedure impracticable.
We are, though, fully aware of the importance of good complaints procedures, both from the point of view of the users of the service and as a means of monitoring the effectiveness of the services provided. In the past two years both the hospital and the family practitioner complaints procedures have been revised with these ends in mind. Or both occasions there was widespread consultation with interested bodies, including consumer organisations. We are satisfied therefore that our current procedures reflect a broad consensus of the views that have been received and considered by the department.
There are approximately 30,000 written complaints made each year about the hospital service alone. That figure is gratifyingly low when set against the huge number of patients who use the service. Nevertheless, to establish an independent body with the resources to investigate that number of complaints, plus those made in the family

553
practitioner services, would be a large task indeed. It would also remove from the local management of the service an element of their responsibilities which it is important for them to retain. Local accountability for the services provided, together with a quick and sympathetic investigation of any complaints made, must be better for both user and provider than the creation of a remote, and of necessity large, organisation such as is suggested here. I urge the Committee to reject Amendment No. 79.
I understand the noble Lord to have included Amendment No. 94C in his remarks. On that amendment, I absolutely agree with him that quality and patient satisfaction are very important aspects of the National Health Service contract system. We expect the contract system to play a part in the improvement in the quality of NHS services which is one of the key aims of the White Paper Working for Patients.
However, I have two difficulties with the amendment. First, the monitoring of patient satisfaction might not be meaningful for all NHS contracts. For example, if one health board contracted with another health board to carry out a series of laboratory tests, the patient might be completely unaware of the process and be in no position to comment on whether or not it was satisfactory. I fear that the amendment raises for me the spectre of bureaucracy: an infinity of surveys of patient satisfaction under every NHS contract which would deluge with information the people involved in making the contracts and the GPs who had referred the patients for treatment.
I would expect health boards and other purchasers to take steps to find out what patients and their GPs think about treatment which is given under contracts which involve direct patient care. The Government are very keen on monitoring patient satisfaction and they commissioned the first all-Scotland survey of patient satisfaction which reported a year or so ago. But these surveys need to be done selectively if they are to provide information of a kind which can be acted on. I do not think that this is best achieved by a requirement in the Bill for monitoring to be carried out for each NHS contract.
Secondly, perhaps I may turn to complaints on contracts. While we see NHS contracts as a way of positively improving services and therefore removing the motivation behind many complaints, I do not think that the NHS contract system should be used as an additional complaints vehicle. There are well-established arrangements for complaints by patients. Complaints procedures are already established by statute under the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985 and Schedule 9 to this Bill applies that Act to NHS trusts. The Government are taking steps to strengthen the system of local health councils and again Schedule 9 to the Bill allows local health councils to visit and inspect NHS trust hospitals. there is, moreover, the health service commissioner, or ombudsman, who has been shown to furnish a very effective way of pursuing patients' complaints where clinical judgment is not involved. In short, I do not think that the complaints procedures need to be improved and it would in any
554
case divert NHS contracts from their main purpose if they were to serve also as a channel for complaint.
So, important though I agree patient satisfaction and complaints to be, I hope that the noble Lord will agree, on reflection, that it is not necessary to press for this amendment to be included in the Bill.
Lord Ennals: I do not agree with the noble Baroness's conclusion. I shall read her speech carefully but she must know that there is a great deal still to do. The problem has affected successive administrations. It was a problem when I was Secretary of State and is still a problem. The noble Baroness referred to local health councils: presumably she meant community health councils.
Baroness Blatch: I meant the Scottish version.
Lord Ennals: Certainly in England the community health councils are very dissatisfied with the present situation, and they are the best people, as we shall discuss on the later amendment, to represent the interests of the community.
I have had discussions with them concerning this amendment and in the light of what the noble Baroness has said I shall have further discussions with the community health councils. But I believe that this should be written into the Bill, and I include complaints about contracts. So, although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now, I intend to pursue the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 81:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
("Community Health Councils Authority
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulation set up an independent establishing authority for Community Health Councils in England and Wales, whose duty will be to represent the public's interests in the health service, and to provide resources to manage, monitor and assist Community Health Councils in the performance of their functions. The Secretary of State shall by regulation transfer the existing responsibilities of Regional Health Authorities with respect to Community Health Councils to the new independent establishing authority, and provide for the expenses of that body.
(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulation provide Community Health Councils with the power to:

(a) Nominate one representative in each district to attend meetings of the relevant District Health Authority as an observer;

(b) Nominate one representative to attend meetings of each NHS Trust Board within the relevant district as an observer, if such Trusts exist; and

(c) Nominate one representative between them in each region to attend meetings of the relevant Regional Health Authority as an observer.

(3) The Secretary of State shall by regulation extend the existing rights of Community Health Councils with regard to entering and inspecting premises controlled by a relevant district health authority, to include all private hospitals and nursing homes within the relevant district with which any health authority has entered into a contract to treat patients.").
The noble Lord said: At this time there is not the opportunity for as long a debate as I believe the future of community health councils deserves. Both

555
in and out of office, I have always held the view that CHCs had a very important role to play. I greatly valued the degree of commitment of their members, including the voluntary organisations which they seek to represent in part. I think they have been very sensitive to the needs of patients and the communities they represent. Their role in the new-style NHS is going to be far more important than it has been up to now.
In our debates last Thursday we were repeatedly reminded that those slimmed down authorities would not necessarily include representatives of any particular group which we cared to propose. Thus the role of community health councils as the eyes and ears of the community who rely on the NHS is crucially important. I hope that the Government will recognise that. Yet the Bill makes no provision at all for CHCs. It was the Labour Government which in 1974 took action to create community health councils and provide funding, and which later extended their powers.
I know that there were assurances by the noble Lord during the course of our debates earlier today, and I am hopeful that the Government will feel that this amendment is one that should be supported. It seeks to improve the involvement of user representatives in the health service by setting up an independent establishing body for CHCs, by allowing CHCs to take part in RHA and NHS trust meetings as well as district health authority meetings, and by allowing CHCs to inspect private hospitals where NHS patients are treated.
This somewhat extends the role of the CHCs, but I believe that, for the reasons that I have given and because of the much less representative nature of the new health authorities, we need to see much more powerful community health councils as the eyes and ears of the consumers. I believe that the creation of a market system will lead to more complex, shorter term and more unstable relationships between hospitals and health authorities, which may require closer monitoring. NHS trusts need hold only one public meeting a year, and CHCs are effectively excluded from their decision-making process.
There was a Department of Health document reported in the Guardian on 17th April which clearly stated that trusts would not need to consult CHCs about service changes in the same way that district health authorities currently do. I hope that that is not the department's view, and I hope that in response the Minister will give some indication of the role that the Government see for CHCs so that, in the light of that reply, I can determine how best to proceed at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The first subsection of the amendment is unnecessary because regional health authorities already perform the functions which the amendment seeks to transfer to the new body. The effect of the amendment would be to establish another national quango whose purpose would apparently be to separate regional health authorities from their responsibilities for funding and overseeing the work of community health councils.
556
Section 20 of the National Health Service Act 1977 charges the Secretary of State with setting up CHCs, and by Regulation 2 of the Community Health Councils Regulations 1985 the Secretary of State puts on regional health authorities the duty to exercise their functions under that section. The amendment would leave the Secretary of State as prime mover under the 1977 Act and the body it proposes would be only as independent as regional health authorities are now.
The remaining two subsections of the amendment extend the statutory powers of community health councils. The Government have already stated to the Select Committee on Social Services that they see no need for change in the role of CHCs. These subsections would change that role by giving them a locus in the affairs of National Health Service trusts and regional health authorities which they do not now have and which the Government do not agree they should have.
With only three exceptions, there is in England one community health council for each district health authority district. There are three districts which have two CHCs. Under CHC regulations the relationship of a community health council is with its district health authority. That is an arrangement which has worked well since CHCs began in 1974 and the Government intend that it should continue when district health authorities become purchasers of health services rather than providers. Community health councils will, as now, relay their concerns to their district health authorities. It will then be for the district health authority to alert regional health authorities and NHS trusts as necessary to the concerns of community health councils along with those of other consumer groups which it has consulted.
Meetings of district health authorities and regional health authorities are open to the public under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. In view of the access community health councils have to regional health authorities via their district health authorities there is no need for admission to regional health authority meetings to be extended beyond that allowed by the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act as the amendment intends. CHCs already have the right, by arrangement, to send observers to district health authority meetings in addition to the rights allowed by the 1960 Act. I do not see the need to capture in statute an arrangement that is working perfectly well on a non-statutory basis.
CHC regulations give a community health council the right to enter and inspect premises controlled by its district health authority. This has proved to be a valued and important part of CHC work. Many community health councils have, in addition, come to amicable arrangements with owners or managers which allow them to inspect private hospitals or nursing homes which treat NHS patients. Again, I do not see the need for a law to intervene in an arrangement that is working well.
The amendment has parts that are unnecessary and parts which extend the law into areas in which it is demonstrably not necessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I find it totally unsatisfactory. She does not seem to realise—or indeed she realises—that the Government are taking us into a new type of health service with new types of authorities. We debated that on the last day of the Committee stage. In those circumstances it is clear that community health councils must have a stronger role than they have at present. If that is to be done I believe that it must be on the face of the Bill.
Regarding the first subsection, the noble Baroness said that the regional health authority has that responsibility—but what is that new regional health authority like? It in no way resembles a community health council. It is a management body and the community health care councils are set up to be sensitive to the needs of the community, as they have effectively been.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but I shall return with another amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [NHS contracts]:
11.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert ("No contract shall be let for hospital care for children unless it provides for accommodation for a parent to stay in the hospital with the child.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 82A and 88B. This group of amendments deals with the importance of parents being able to visit their children in hospital and to stay there with them when they visit. I am sure that every noble Lord will agree with the importance of that. There has been a welcome change in recent years in hospital policy in that regard, but, for those parents with children in hospital, we know that it often means having to go backwards and forwards, sometimes several times a day.
Before the Social Security Act which was introduced in 1988, parents on supplementary benefit received a grant for their travel costs. Parents who are now on income support may apply for a community care grant from the Social Fund. This is certainly not the time of night to discuss the problems of the Social Fund. Parents on family credit cannot apply for a grant from the Social Fund. With the advent of the internal market, there is now the near certainty of longer journeys to hospitals outside the district.
The National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital has sent us a brief, attached to which is a long list of examples of harrowing cases of parents who have been refused help with the cost of visiting children in hospital. We should remember that every one of those cases is a family under intense pressure.
Perhaps I may give one example from my own experience when one of our children had to spend a long time in hospital. One gets to know the other parents very well. I clearly remember one mother
558
whose child was dying of cancer. In order to be able to visit the child each day, she took a job as a village postwoman on a bicycle. She had no car. She used to start work at 4 a.m. every day so that she could finish by early afternoon. There was then a two-hour journey from a rural area by inadequate public transport. However, she was there with her child every day from tea-time until 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening. She then had to make the long journey home and be up again at 4 a.m. to start work. Her husband was a farm worker, a stockman, and was able to visit only on alternate weekends.
Amendment No. 82A is designed to help parents in that situation who have difficulty in finding the cost of travelling to hospital. Amendments Nos. 82 and 88B, which deals with Scotland, are concerned with the important question of providing accommodation for parents to enable them to stay with a sick child in hospital. More and more hospitals are providing that kind of accommodation, often as a result of the work of the leagues of hospital friends. We believe that the requirement to provide such accommodation should be clearly stated in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I shall begin by speaking to Amendments Nos. 82 and 88B on accommodation. It has long been Government policy that hospitals should have facilities to enable parents to stay with children. Nothing in Working for Patients or this Bill changes that policy. However, the purpose of the Bill is to create the framework for contracting for health services, not to lay down the detail of achieving it. District health authorities and hospital boards in Scotland need to be able to respond flexibly to local circumstances and needs.
Guidance has made clear that all contracts should contain quality specifications and monitoring arrangements. District health authorities should bear in mind national policy on issues such as this when negotiating contracts, which can provide a benchmark against which to compare local practice.
One of the specimen contracts in the guidance document Operation Contracts refers to the guidelines drawn up by the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital. No doubt other authorities will consider doing likewise. Whether they do so or not, however, all hospitals will have strong incentives to ensure that they have adequate facilities in order to win and keep contracts with DHAs and hospital boards. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and unduly restrictive and I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing it.
On the matter of visiting costs (Amendment No. 82A), which is again another very important issue in this debate, the hospital travelling expense scheme will continue in operation. It provides for the travelling expenses of children under 16 to be refunded by the hospital regardless of means. In addition, where an escort is medically necessary, his or her expenses can be repaid on production of evidence of low income. Help with hospital visiting expenses may be available from the Social Fund to families in receipt of income support. In addition, some hospitals give discretionary help with visiting expenses from trust funds.

559
Acceptance of this amendment would involve the extension of the patients' travelling expense scheme to cover parents visiting their children in hospital. This could only be achieved by the diversion of funds at present used for the care and treatment of patients. It would impose an additional burden on administrative staff whose role in deciding which parents could afford their travelling expenses would duplicate that of the social security office staff engaged in administering the Social Fund.
We recognise and encourage the contribution that parents can make to the care and recovery of children in hospital. We provide financial support to the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital, which must take much of the credit for the major increase in facilities for parents to remain overnight with their children in hospital. But we do not consider that further statutory provision for assisting with the travelling expenses of hospital visitors can be justified in the light of the demands upon the resources available for development in the NHS.
The noble Lord referred to more travelling. I think that he suggested that new arrangements could result in more travelling.
Lord Carter: Yes, and I mentioned the internal market.
Baroness Blatch: In the future, as now, the majority of patients will receive treatment locally. Under the new arrangements, when there is the opportunity to obtain a better quality of treatment, for example because it can be provided more quickly, a patient will be given the choice by his or her doctor of going to a hospital some distance away. A district health authority's objective will be to place contracts in line with GPs' preferences. That will ensure that patients do not travel for treatment unless it means better treatment.
I hope that I have given some assurance to the noble Lord and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I shall withdraw the amendment but I found the answer rather disappointing. It seems that the accommodation is to be left to the workings of the internal market. Visiting costs, it seems, are to be left to a combination of the Social Fund and charity. It is a little disappointing. We all agree on the importance of this matter. We are not very happy with the way in which the Government propose to deal with it. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82A and 83 not moved.]
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
("Notwithstanding this section, any person may, on referral from a doctor, or, in accordance with the normal referral pattern of the service or goods required, on referral from any other source such as consultant, clinical medical officer or health visitor, or by a representative of the educational services, social services or community nursing, or by specialists in other
560
districts, or through self referral, obtain goods or services at any National Health Service hospital, or other establishment or facility, or any National Health Service Trust, whether or not there is any National Health Service contract in existence which would cover the provision of such goods or services.").
The noble Lord said: This simple little amendment is a probing amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to probe, but this amendment has already been debated. In the light of that, does he wish to pursue the matter?
Lord Morris: The noble Lord will realise that the arrangement of the groupings, as the note quite clearly states, in only informal and not binding. In so far as Amendment No. 78 was not moved, I am by no means constrained by these groupings.
This amendment is a modest little probing amendment designed to do one simple thing; namely, to seek from my noble friend an affirmation of the undertakings given in another place by her, and my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health in response to an adjournment debate in which his extremely concerned and, if I may say so, eloquent response gave great comfort to those anxious about the provision of health services in the area of speech therapy.
I shall give the reason why I believe that this amendment is necessary, although I am somewhat concerned by the drafting and the extremely broad-brush approach. It may come as a surprise to my noble friend Lady Hooper but administrations change. They may change in the future. I wish to make absolutely sure that I have not lost an opportunity either to establish within the statute, or indeed by regulation, some means whereby the provision of these services is entrenched in law. I refer in particular to the current system of open referral. In this field, it is of the utmost importance that referrals are made at the earliest possible stage with regard to children and not least to stroke patients.
I do not wish to delay the Committee any longer. However, I should like to quote the very moving words of the Member for Argyll & Bute in another place in the course of an adjournment debate. She said, in my view meaningfully:
"A speech and language problem is not visible to the world outside. Dysphasia is not supported by a zimmer; a stammer is not held in a sling; a laryngectomy is not in a plaster cast". [Official Report, Commons, 12/3/90; col. 133.]
I would add that when a child is at a critical stage, achieving the greatest intellectual development in the whole of his life—namely, the acquisition of language skills—if a problem with regard to speech is not identified early on he will suffer very considerably throughout the whole of the learning process.
I know that my noble friend is very sensitive to the subject. I seek only an affirmation of the undertaking given by her honourable friend and indeed any assistance to provide such services to the nation as a whole.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister rises, perhaps I may ask this question. Who will be the provider of speech therapy? For instance, with children it could well happen at school. But with a person who has had a stroke who neeeds speech therapy after he leaves hospital, will it be the health department or the social services? There is so much confusion about this issue. It is a matter about which I wish to know because we are confused on so many issues.
Baroness Hooper: The Bill's proposals are designed to assist GPs and other health care professionals to obtain the best available services for their patients. We believe that contracts will be particularly helpful in this respect because they will allow resources to move more freely to the hospitals that are most popular with GPs and their patients and will give all providers an incentive to improve. They specify the standards of care that can be expected.
My noble friend Lord Morris has expressed concern about speech therapists in particular. I can assure him that the same principle applies here as applies to GPs. We have no plans to change such professionals' right to refer. Districts will so far as possible place contracts which secure the patterns of referral preferred by the referrers—speech therapists and other professional groups—themselves. All referrers should be made aware of the contracts that have been placed and of the arrangements for referring outside contracts.
I beleve that the system, with the improved arrangements for planning and arranging services that it brings, provides the basis for more effective and better integrated work by all health care professionals. I trust that this reaffirms adequately the assurance given by my honourable friend in another place to which my noble friend referred.
In answer to my noble friend Lady Masham, health authorities will continue to be responsible for speech therapy, I hope that my reply has helped my noble friend Lord Morris.
Lord Morris: I am grateful to my noble friend for that response. I admire her stamina and the hard work that she has put into the Bill. However, the hour is late and I must consider carefully what she saic. This is not the right time to develop the argument and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 85 not moved.]
12 midnight
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
("2A) No health service body shall enter into an NHS contract without first consulting any relevant local advisory committees recognised under section 19 of the principal Act.").
The noble Baroness said: I am sorry to break the chain of amendments which are not moved. The amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 74, which was not moved, but I wish to move it as a
562
probing amendment in order that the reply will appear on the record.
Its aim is to require health care purchasers and providers to consult local district advisory committees during the process of drawing up contracts. It follows assurances given in another place that such consultation would occur and it probes to discover how the Government intend to ensure that this commitment will be honoured.
It may be helpful to the Committee if I quickly outline the background to the amendment. The purpose of local advisory committees was defined when they were originally set up in 1974 as follows:
"to help authorities and officers to reach decisions on the provision of health services in the full knowledge of expert opinion and advice".
Under the new dispensation, the role of the advisory committees should be seen as vital in providing a professional input into the contracting system. The provisions of this amendment represent the only statutory safeguard which professional carers would have to express their professional views about proposed contracts.
I appreciate that the Government have, understandably perhaps, been wary of proposals prescribing too specifically the nature of contracts, seeing these as too restrictive. This amendment respects that concern, providing for a general duty to consult rather than a prescriptive requirement. It also has the advantage of using existing mechanisms and does not involve establishing new bureaucracies.
In short, the amendment is very simple but its implications are profoundly important, remedying problems stemming from the "missing link" in the Bill's provisions; that is, the link between the contract system and professional advice.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place that he believes that the existing procedures of consultation will continue under the new dispensation. This amendment would provide that assurance. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will welcome it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I have a good deal of sympathy with the point underlying the amendment. It is that the planning and provision of patient services need to be informed by the judgment and expertise of health care professionals. It cannot too often be emphasised that the principal object of the Government's reforms is to help doctors, nurses and other professionals to provide higher standards of service to patients.
However, I am not convinced that the formal consultation arrangements proposed in the amendment are the best way forward. They could prove to be most cumbersome and actually hinder the provision of improved services for patients. For example, on occasions a DHA may need to place contracts quickly in order to take advantage of an unexpected opportunity to reduce waiting times in a particular speciality. While the DHA is consulting all the different advisory committees the opportunity may well be lost.
Then again, DHAs will at times need to negotiate one-off contracts to suit the needs of an individual

563
patient who, for particular medical or social reasons, must go to a different hospital from those normally used by the district's residents. I am sure that the Committee will not wish to require the DHA to consult the various advisory committees before a contract is arranged in such a case. Health authorities certainly require professional advice in order to ensure that they obtain the right services and quality of care for their residents. Hospitals too must involve professionals in deciding what services to offer. However, professional advice needs to be available in a way which is flexible and does not create barriers.
There is a further point on the advisory committees. Their statutory right to be recognised is not changed by the Bill. However, their future role needs to be considered carefully in the light of the new purchaser/provider relationships. Advisory committees tend to be composed of professionals working in provider organisations. Care needs to be taken to avoid any conflicts of interest arising from the provision of advice to the DHAs either as purchasers or in relation to services provided by their directly managed units.
This is an important issue which we have already begun to discuss with professional bodies at a national level. I hope that, considering the role of advisory committees, the Committee will agree that the right approach is through discussion with the professionals themselves and not through statutory provisions. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cox: I thank my noble friend for that reply. This is a probing amendment. We are all speaking extremely rapidly and it is difficult for me to take in all the implications of my noble friend's helpful reply. I shall read it with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85B to 86B not moved]
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause:
("Application of Local Government Act 1972 to Health Authorities
.—(1) Sections 100A and 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities) shall apply to a Health Authority established in accordance with section 8 of the principal Act as they apply to a principal council within the meaning of Part VA of that Act, but the references in sections 100B, 100C and 100D to the proper officer in relation to a principal council shall be construed as references to the person appointed for the purpose by the Health Authority.
(2) In section 100H of that Act (supplemental provisions and offences)—

(a) any references to any provision of Part VA of that Act or to any right conferred by that Part includes a reference to any such provision as it applies by virtue of this section or, as the case may be, to any right conferred by that Part as it so applies,

564

(b) in subsection (3) as it so applies the reference to a principal council shall be construed as a reference to a Health Authority, and

(c) subsection (5) shall apply to any meeting of a Health Authority.

(3) The power conferred on the Secretary of State by section 100I(2) of that Act to vary Schedule 12A to that Act (exempt information) shall include power to vary that schedule as it applies by virtue of this section.
(4) In that Schedule, as it so applies—
(a) Part I shall have effect with the insertion after paragraph 6 of the following paragraphs—
"6A. Information relating to the physical or mental health of any particular person.
6B. Information relating to—

(a) any particular person who is or was formerly included in a list of persons undertaking to provide services under Part II of the principal Act or is an applicant for inclusion in such a list; or

(b) any particular employee of such a person.";

(b) paragraph 1 of Part II shall have the effect with the insertion after the words "paragraph 1 to 5" of the words "or 6B"; and
(c) any reference to "the authority" shall be construed as a reference to the Health Authority.
(5) In this section references to a Health Authority include references to a committee or sub-committee of such a Health Authority.
(6) In the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (which makes similar provision to that made by sections 100A and 100B of the Act of 1972), paragraph 1(0 of the schedule shall be deleted.
(7) A Health Authority shall maintain a register stating—

(a) the name and address of every member of the Authority, and

(b) the name and address of every member of each committee or sub-committee of the authority for the time being.

(8) A Health Authority shall maintain a list—

(a) specifying those powers of the council which, for the time being are exercisable from time to time by officers of the authority in pursuance of arrangements made under this Act or any other enactment for their discharge by those officers; and

(b) stating the title of the officer by whom each of the powers so specified is for the time being so exercisable;

but this subsection does not require a power to be specified in the list if the arrangements for its discharge by the officer are made for a specified period not exceeding six months.
(9) A written summary or rights—

(a) to attend meetings of a Health Authority; and

(b) to inspect and copy, and be furnished with documents relating to such an Authority,

which are for the time being conferred by virtue of section I above shall be kept at the offices of each such Authority.
(10) The register maintained under subsection (7) above, the list maintained under subsection (8) above and the summary kept under subsection (9) above shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours and without payment at the offices of each Health Authority and any person may, on payment of such reasonable fee as the Authority may determine—

(a) make copies of or extracts from any such register, list or summary kept by it; and

(b) require the Authority to supply him with a photographic copy of or extracts from any such register, list or summary.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this proposed new clause is to improve, update and replace the provision of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 which requires various local

565
government bodies including health authorities to open their meetings to the public.
The new clause would apply to regional and district authorities in England and Wales but it is not intended to affect special health authorities or the new family health service authorities. The clause as drafted follows in the footsteps of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and subsequent open government legislation which updates part of the 1960 Act.
The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 was introduced in another place as a Private Member's Bill by my honourable friend Mr. Robin Squire and in this Chamber by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. It provides for public access tc the committees and sub-committees of local authorities and to the agendas of those meetings, the background papers considered and the minutes of meetings. The 1985 Act did that by adding new Sections 100A to 100K to the Local Government Act 1972. Two later Acts, which both began life as Private Member's Bills in another place, have selectively applied those new sections to health service joint consultative committees and community health councils. The first of those Bills was introduced by my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the second by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. Those Acts apply the relevant provisions of Sections 100A to 100K of the 1972 Act to the bodies in question. That is what my amendment seeks to do in relation to health authorities.
I hope that the Committee will support the principle of this amendment. For my part, I should welcome criticism, which will give me and those advising me the opportunity to make improvements to the drafting and content of the amendment should it be necessary to bring it back for further consideration at a better time of day on Report.
I should make clear to the Committee that the impetus for change comes from the community rights project. Its role in opening up local governments to public scrutiny to provide greater accountability and better administration is well known to the Committee. The recent Acts which I mentioned are testimony to its concern in this field and I owe to its members much of the advice I received, as well as the drafting of the clause.
I shall briefly go through the subsections. I apologise that an amendment which is meant to deal with open government should appear in the form of a very obscure set of subsections. That results from the way that legislation has taken place in the past, by reference, which seems to be the only way to achieve any reasonable result in this case.
Subsection (1) provides that meetings of health authorities are to be open to the public except to the extent that the public may legitimately be excluded when confidential information is to be considered. The ager da of meetings, the reports to be considered, the background papers to the reports and the minutes of the meetings are all to be open, again subject to legitimate exclusion.
Subsection (2) mainly consists of the technicalities needed to legislate by reference to the 1972 Act, but subsection (2)(c) provides that any defamatory
566
publication, as a result of the clause, shall be privileged unless malice is proved. Subsections (3) and (4) give the Secretary of State power by order to vary various classes of confidential information which may justify the exclusion of the public in any case. They provide the additional specific exclusions seen as necessary in the case of health authorities.
Subsection (5) applies the clause to committees and sub-committees of health authorities. In regard to the remaining subsections, it may be sufficient if I say that they follow the recent statutory precedents to which I referred and for the most part require health authorities to make available to the public various kinds of information about the authorities themselves and the rights of the public to have information. It is information which in my opinion any reasonable authority should make available as a matter of course to anyone inquiring.
The new clause follows recent research by the community rights project into the habits of health authorities regarding their openness to the public. There was a 94 per cent. response to a survey carried out during the past year, and that fact of itself seems to suggest that there is a willingness on the part of health authorities to be open. Unfortunately, habits of secretiveness are easily formed and only abandoned with difficulty.
The survey disclosed that 30 per cent. of the authorities responding go into closed session without observing the requirements of the 1960 Act, 88 per cent. take decisions in committees, which are always closed to the public, while 44 per cent. do not even make their committee minutes available to the full meeting of the authority. The results of the survey suggested to the community rights project that authorities are too often not heeding the guidance of the Department of Health that there should always be a presumption in favour of open and public discussion.
There seems to me to be an additional reason for change now. The new slimmed health authorities, stripped of local authority representation, stripped of operational function and given the sole task of planning and purchasing services for the benefit of patients, must in my opinion inevitably tend towards the paternalistic approach to those whom they serve. It has always been my experience that paternalism is the enemy of openness.
The new health authorities will be working in partnership or at least in conjunction with local authorities. But it is the local authorities which will have the responsibility for care within the community. We had a vivid example this evening in the debate on Amendment No. 66 in relation to the discharge of patients by district health authorities into the community. There was a clear example of the kinds of problems that arise as between the health authority and the local authority in that sort of case. I suggest that it would be unfortunately anomalous for health authorities not to come within the new regime of openness which applies to local authorities and other bodies carrying responsibilities as part of the overall health service.
The Committee will know that I do not normally speak on health matters in this Chamber and I

567
apologise if ignorance of the finer points of health administration shows only too clearly; but I would say that this amendment stands apart from health care and administration. It says nothing substantive about the operation of the National Health Service. It carries no resource implications. It is an amendment which should be supported. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have a great interest in this matter, having, as my noble friend said, taken related Bills through this Chamber, and I therefore support the amendment. However, the Government should look carefully at this amendment. It is clear that there is unnecessary secrecy on the part of health boards throughout the country, with unnecessary exclusion of the public.
I realise that the hour is late and that we should not spend a great deal of time discussing the matter, but I hope that the Minister will pay considerable attention to what my noble friend said.
Lord Tordoff: I rise to support the amendment. I thought the phrase "the presumption of openness" was the important part of what the noble Lord said. It is easy to hide behind regulations of one sort or another and eventually it is not good for the health service, the patients or anybody else, to be more restrictive than is absolutely necessary in the interests of confidentiality for the individual person. There are obviously occasions when that is necessary but in general terms we should come down on the side of openness. I believe that the amendment does that and I certainly support it from these Benches.
Baroness Blatch: The Committee will be aware that this issue was debated in some detail during consideration of the Health and Medicines Act in 1988. The Government's position remains essentially the same. The vast majority of regional and district health authorities conduct their business in as open a manner as possible. They are already required by law to do so. All regional and district health authority meetings are at present, and will continue to be, subject to the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meeting) Act 1960. This requires health authorities to give public notice of the time and place of their meetings, to supply copies of the agenda to any newspaper that requests it, to provide them with reasonable reporting facilities and to open their meetings to the public unless the authority resolves they should be excluded because of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted.
Our guidance to health authorities on interpreting the 1960 Act, contained in circular HC(81)6, emphasises that there is a presumption in favour of open and public discussion wherever possible. Most health authorities in fact go beyond simply fulfilling the legal requirements. They understand the importance of involving the public in the running of the health service. Most major decisions are the subject of consultation documents and public meetings are held by health authorities about plans for local services. Community health councils in fact
568
have substantial powers to receive information from health authorities. This helps to ensure that health authorities carry out their business in as open a manner as possible.
My noble friend's amendment would place an additional administrative and financial burden on health authorities at a time when they will need to concentrate on implementing the reforms we are introducing. These reforms will in fact considerably increase the responsiveness of the health service to the public.
Under the proposed new clause, health authorities would have to give reasons for closing a meeting to the public. This is not an unreasonable proposition but it is already a requirement under the 1960 Act. Other provisions proposed would place an additional burden on health authorities. For example, they would be required to produce a list specifying those powers of the authority which are exercisable from time to time by officers (other than temporarily) and a written summary of rights under specified enactments to attend meetings and to inspect and copy documents. Copies of background papers and reports would have to be open for inspection by members of the public in advance; copies of minutes, agendas and reports would have to be available for public inspection for six years after the meeting and background papers for four years; and all these provisions would apply to committees and sub-committees of authorities as well as to the main meeting.
A number of the measures proposed, such as producing lists of the names and addresses of authority members and members of committees and sub-committees, are already common practice in health authorities. Other provisions, while very relevant for local authorities, will simply not be appropriate for health authorities and may well mean that they have to take on extra staff and incur extra costs, using resources that would otherwise be spent on patient services. Local health authorities are very different types of bodies from local councils. They are wholly funded by central government and are accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State.
Following the reforms set out in this Bill, health authorities will essentially be not representative, but managerial bodies. As far as possible we wish them to be free to decide themselves how best to conduct their business without burdening them with excessive red tape. Sufficient safeguards already exist, and will continue to be provided, in the health authority membership and procedure regulations, as well as the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960.
I know that my noble friend Lady Carnegy is concerned about secrecy. She hinted to me earlier that she was also concerned about a breach of the regulations. If any regional or district health authority is conducting its business in contravention of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, that is totally unacceptable. I would be grateful if any noble Lord would inform me of any health authority that is acting in that way, and I will promise to look into the matter as a matter of urgency. The

569
Government regard it as a matter of the utmost importance that the 1960 Act is adhered to, and that regional and district health authorities do conduct their business in as open a manner as is reasonable.
Having said that, if the current law is being broken—and rest assured we shall take an extremely serious view if it is—I do not see how the application of a new piece of legislation would help. I promise the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Carnegy, that I shall read very carefully what they have said. I hope that in the meantime they feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: Although my name is down to the amendment, I did not speak at an earlier point because I wanted to hear what the noble Baroness had to say. I was extremely disappointed with her reply. It seemed that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, had put the matter as clearly as he possibly could. His commitment to openness is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and by me, but, from listening to the noble Baroness, it does not appear to be shared by the Government.
I have no wish to press the matter at this time, but were it earlier in the day I would feel strongly enough to wish to divide the Committee on the basis of the reply given by the noble Baroness. I am not encouraging the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to do that now. However, I give warning that this is a matter which I do not think we can allow to rest on the basis of the Minister's reply. I shall certainly not tolerate that.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to make one comment. There is a very real commitment on the part of the Government to openness in all matters concerning the health authorities. In the course of my reply I spelt out a rather cumbersome and expensive system. It is a matter of striking a balance between getting the maximum amount of openness and not putting on health authorities an unnecessary financial burden. I have given a promise that I will read very carefully what has been said. In the meantime I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Feston: I am sorry to delay matters. I was very pleased with the remark that the Minister made about locking at the matter again. Those of us who have fought for many years for openness find it particularly unattractive when we are told that it cannot be afforded, which was essentially her answer. My view is that there are few things that we need more than openness on these matters. That is what I understood those who spoke to the amendment to be saying. I wish to place on record that once she has thought about it further she will find that we have also done so.
Lord Coleraine: I have noted with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said in reply to my noble friend on the question of expense. Let me deal with the question of expense as a result of my legal experience on the Courts and Legal Services Bill. There we discussed matters such as level playing fields. We felt that if one branch of the profession
570
was required to operate in a certain way then the other branch should do so in the same way on the basis of the level playing field. For the life of me I cannot see why, if local authorities are bound to incur the expense of openness, health authorities should not do likewise.
I am grateful to my noble friend for detailing at some length the various technical points she took in relation to the subsections of my amendment. Between now and Report stage I shall read what she said. I hope then to bring back a better amendment.
My noble friend said that because health authorities were management bodies rather than representative bodies that was a reason why they should not be open. If one looks at health authorities as management bodies and local authorities as representative bodies, the people whom they both serve—the public—would feel that on the whole they have better access to openness from local authorities, even without the provisions of the 1985 Act, than they will get from the health authorities, which are management bodies and are therefore inherently not open to be frank with the people whom they serve. I shall come back with this issue at Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88A not moved.]
Clause 29 [NHS contracts]:
[Amendments Nos. 88B and 88C not moved.]
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 88D:
Page 28, line, 43, at end insert—
("(ba) the Scottish Dental Practice Board;").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 88E. I tabled these amendments in order to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench one simple question. Clause 29(2) lists the various bodies in the Scottish health service which can make National Health Service contracts. It has been drawn to my attention that Clause 4(2) on page 4 of the Bill—the equivalent provision for England—includes in its list the Scottish Dental Practice Board, the Dental Practice Board and the Public Health Laboratory Service Board. Those bodies are omitted from the list in Clause 29. I wonder whether this is a deliberate omission or an inadvertent one. My amendments would add them. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment. I accept what she said about the desirability of bringing the Scottish clause about NHS contracts into line with the English ones. It is in practice unlikely that these three bodies will be involved in the contract system in Scotland but we should keep open that possibility. Therefore I have pleasure in accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 88E:
Page 29, line 3, at end insert—
("(ea) the Dental Practice Board;
(eb) the Public Health Laboratory Service Board;")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 89 to 94C not moved.]
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at half-past midnight.

  VICTORIA TOWER: RESTORATION
  VICTORIA TOWER: RESTORATION
  LAMBETH BOROUGH COUNCIL: CHARGE CAP
  LAMBETH BOROUGH COUNCIL: CHARGE CAP