Sitting of 7 June 1990

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

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 14 June.

    MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 14 June.
    Mr. Speaker: As all the private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 June.

    EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 14 June.

    HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 June.

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Questions proposed [10 May],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 14 June.

    PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Personal Equity Plans
    Mr. French: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his proposals to change PEPs.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The improvements in PEPs, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement, have been widely welcomed.
    Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the financial institutions that at one time had deep reservations about the effectiveness of PEPs now welcome them as a most essential, important and attractive component of the savings market? Does he foresee, in respect of either PEPs or TESSAs, the possibility of a similar conversion on the part of the Labour party?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the institutions have put their whole weight behind PEPs, and that is why they are now going extremely well. I am afraid that confused messages are coming from the Opposition about such matters. Some Opposition Members say that they are in favour and some say that they are against. I do not foresee any conversion and certainly there is no uniformity of view among the Opposition.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the encouragement to small savers since the Government came to office has meant that they have increased in number from 2·75 million to 11 million today?
    Mr. Lilley: I am not sure how my hon. Friend defines small savers, but he is perfectly correct that there has been a big increase in their number. As regards personal equity plans, in the first quarter of this year the number of new plans issued was a quarter higher than in the whole of 1988. That is excellent news.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the basic rate of income tax has been reduced since 1979; and what are his future plans for the rates of income tax.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): The basic rate of income tax has been reduced from 33 per cent. in 1979 to 25 per cent. in 1990. Moreover, the borrowing requirement, which was a deferred tax liability, has given way in the past three years to a Budget surplus. It is our objective to reduce the basic rate of tax to 20p in the pound, but only as soon as it is prudent and sensible to do so.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that every time the Government have reduced the basic rate of income tax, the Labour Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have bitterly opposed the reduction? Is not it the case that had Labour still been in power we would still have a basic rate of 33p in the pound? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, were he to adopt the policies and

    771
    commitments in the Labour party's policy review document, the basic rate of income tax would have to be massively increased for everyone? Has not the Labour party always been the high-tax party and will not it always be?
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend makes his point entirely clearly. I am not sure that is wholly true to say that the Liberal Democrats have invariably opposed the tax decreases. I think that there was an occasion when they chose not to do so. My hon. Friend is being generous when he suggests that if a Labour Government were in power at the moment we should have a tax rate of 33p in the pound. It might well be noticeably higher. When, in due course, we get round to the detailed costing that Phillips and Drew has already attempted, we may be able to illustrate that it would be higher.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Chancellor explain what he meant when he said that it was not prudent to achieve his objective of an income tax rate of 20p in the pound this year? Is he admitting that he is using the level of income tax as a tool of economic and fiscal management? Will not all Governments have to do that?
    Mr. Major: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that of course I am, as we have done and as I shall continue to do.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Is not it right that the Government have greatly increased personal allowances, so taking out of tax many people at the bottom of the income scale? Does not that give the lie to Opposition parties, which suggest that they are the only people who care about those on lower incomes?
    Mr. Major: That is entirely true. By almost any measure—there are a variety that one can use—there has been a considerable increase in personal allowances at the bottom end of the tax scale. That is desirable. It is a deliberate act of policy and, of course, it has kept many people out of tax who otherwise would have been in the tax net.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: This question seems to have been tabled as a direct attack on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I hope that the Chancellor will repudiate it. He will recall the Chief Secretary saying on BBC's "On the Record" on 13 May that the prospect of tax cuts at the moment does not look very good, that these things are always uncertain, but there is very little room for manoeuvre. Will the Chancellor explain to the House why, after 10 years of Conservative Government—a Government who have declared that a further reduction in income tax is their main objective—there is now very little room for manoeuvre? Will he confirm to the House that it is highly unlikely that there ever will be enough room for manoeuvre to enable 24 out of 25 taxpayers to pay income tax at a basic rate of 20p in the pound?
    Mr. Major: Whatever else may happen in this Session of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman just won the palm for brass-necked cheek in his comments of the past few moments. There is no dislocation whatever between the comments of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and those that I made at the Dispatch Box a few moments ago. One significant difference that is reflected in what the hon. Gentleman chooses to call the tax burden is that this Government tax honestly for their expenditure and do not
    772
    tax for some, borrow for the rest and leave later generations to repay. When the borrowing requirement of the hon. Gentleman's party is taken into account, the tax burden in 1979 was sharply higher than it is today.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have shown in the past that reductions in income tax stimulate economic growth and lead to an increase in overall revenue? Will my right hon. Friend take that very much into account when making his tax plans for the future?
    Mr. Major: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is ever close to my mind that that virtuous relationship exists. As he may know, the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers will pay 30½ per cent. of total income tax this year compared with 24 per cent. in 1978–79 when the top rate of tax could have been as high as 98 per cent.

    European Monetary System
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress on the Madrid conditions for joining the exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the Madrid conditions concerning the United Kingdom entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system have yet to be fulfilled.
    Mr. Bell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects that the conditions for the pound sterling's participation in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system will be fulfilled.
    Mr. Major: A good deal of progress has been made in a number of conditions for membership of the exchange rate mechanism, but they have not yet all been met.
    Dr. Moonie: Will the Chancellor tell us which condition is likely to be satisfied first: a satisfactory reduction in our underlying rate of inflation or the achievement of a level playing field through the abandonment of subsidies by our European competitors?
    Mr. Major: Significant progress has been made in recent months on a number of the external elements that we require before joining the exchange rate mechanism. We have made our position on domestic inflation perfectly clear and I stand by that.
    Mr. Wallace: At a recent press conference the Chancellor seemed to suggest that our underlying rate of inflation was much closer to Community averages than a proper statistical approach would reveal. Was he using that figure to try to persuade the Prime Minister that we really should be joining the exchange rate mechanism, and on those grounds should Opposition Members keep quiet about the statistical flaws in his figures?
    Mr. Major: It is always a distinct help to the Government if Opposition Members keep quiet, whichever part of the Opposition they may represent. In the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I was drawing attention to the fact that the British rate of inflation appears misleadingly unreasonable compared with those of our European partners simply because we contain within our inflation rate that which other countries

    773
    do not, and it was in response to a question about that matter that I made the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Bell: When we enter the exchange rate mechanism, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to do in the summer, will he go in on the tight band of 2½ per cent. or on the broader band of 6 per cent? Will he share his views on that with the House?
    Mr. Major: I can neither confirm the date that the hon. Gentleman surreptitiously slipped into his question as an assumption, nor enlighten him on his substantive point.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, regardless of the specific matters spelt out in the Madrid conditions, he will not contemplate the entry of sterling into the exchange rate mechanism until he regards it as fully compatible with the needs of domestic monetary policy and, in particular, that he will not do so at any time when it might mean that interest rates would have to be lowered more or more quickly than is necessary for the proper control of monetary conditions and the reduction of inflation?
    Mr. Major: I am acutely conscious of the point to which my right hon. Friend rightly draws attention. The aim of joining the exchange rate mechanism is to support the policy to reduce inflation, not to damage it, and from that, my right hon. Friend will be aware of our policy.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that entry into the exchange rate mechanism is stage one of the Delors proposals? The Delors proposals are supported by all the Commission's bureaucrats and by all the nation states of Europe, with the exception of ourselves. Paragraph 39 asserts that entry into the first stage shall be taken as acceptance of all subsequent stages.
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend has made assertions about what the purpose of stage one might be and about the extent to which that falls within the Delors plan. The fact that the proposal is supported by what he calls the bureaucrats in Brussels does not in itself make it wrong. We have a series of sound economic reasons for joining the exchange rate mechanism. The Government set out the policy that they would join the exchange rate mechanism when certain conditions were met. That remains the policy and it will be in the interests of this country.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Now that United Kingdom membership of the exchange rate mechanism has become the fig leaf behind which the Labour party has chosen to hide the private and unpleasant parts of its economic policy, would not we be better advised to join sooner rather than later so that those inadequacies can be exposed to the public for all to see?
    Mr. Major: If, as my hon. Friend suggests, the exchange rate mechanism will hide the shortcomings of Labour policies, it will need to be a good deal larger than a fig leaf. It is perfectly clear that the conditions that the Labour party has set out under which it would join the exchange rate mechanism make that pledge——
    Mr. Skinner: Not all of us in the Labour party.
    Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is correct. The conditions set out by the Labour Front Bench, without the support of the Labour Back
    774
    Benches, for joining the exchange rate mechanism are essentially bogus, for the conditions mean that the Labour Front Bench could not enter.
    Mr. John Smith: In the context of possible entry into the exchange rate mechanism, will the Chancellor tell us whether the sufficiency of any reduction in inflation will be assessed according to the retail prices index or according to the so-called "underlying" rate of inflation? May I have a direct answer, please?
    Mr. Major: The direct answer, as I have often said, is that the rate of inflation will be assessed on the proximate rate of inflation, which means——
    Mr. John Smith: The retail prices index or the underlying rate?
    Mr. Major: I am coming precisely to the point. The rate of inflation will be assessed not on the RPI, but o n a comparative basis to the measure in which European nations themselves assess inflation. I have repeatedly made that point clear for a long time.
    Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when there were recent rumours that this country was about to become a full member of the exchange rate mechanism, the immediate effect was that the stock market rose, the exchange value of sterling became firmer and money market interest rates fell? In view of that positive response, which should have warmed my right hon. Friend's heart towards the idea of joining the exchange rate mechanism immediately, will he bear it in mind that if he felt it necessary to take an executive decision, even while the Prime Minister is abroad, to embark on that, he would earn the recognition of a grateful nation?
    Mr. Major: I have had some attractive offers in my time. I am not entirely sure to what extent my hon. Friend's offer ranks among them.
    I have made it entirely clear to the House now and on previous occasions that I have reached the judgment that, when the conditions that we have set out are met, it will be right for us to join the exchange rate mechanism. We must be aware of the point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart), drew attention some time ago, that the balance of advantage in due course is clearly to enter the exchange rate mechanism, and in due course that is what we shall do.

    European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what position was taken by the United Kingdom Government in discussions on the European bank for reconstruction and development, in relation to the environmental consequences of any development undertaken.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): The United Kingdom, like all other potential members of the European bank for reconstruction and development, supports the promotion of economically sound and environmentally sustainable development in the full range of its activities.
    Mr. Smith: The Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be aware that Mr. Nicholas Brady from the United States Treasury and other European

    775
    Finance Ministers have taken the lead in calling for environmental objectives to be built into the role of the development bank. May we assume from the Minister's answer that the British Government will support them enthusiastically? Does he agree that there is a big difference between a lot of talk on green issues and practical proposals such as this, which will clean up eastern Europe?
    Mr. Ryder: That is already taken care of in article 2 of the EBRD's constitution.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the recipients of the bank's funds who need to co-ordinate the environmental input into their investment decisions but the industrialised countries of western Europe, which, of course, are the providers of the funds? Is my hon. Friend aware, for example, that the Department of Transport seems to have no accurate comparisons between the environmental input allocated by, say, West Germany or France, as opposed to the environmental input in this country, on transport investment decisions? Would he be so kind as to conduct research within the Finance Ministries of the EEC to see what is actually going on as to the allocation of environmental input in public sector investment decisions?
    Mr. Ryder: In so far as that question affects the EBRD, I shall of course ensure that Mr. Attali, when he gets down to his job in London shortly, is made aware of the points that my hon. Friend raises.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Economic Secretary will be aware that article 2 of the bank's constitution contains a general provision
    "to promote in the full range of its activities environmentally sound and sustainable development."
    He will also be aware that that provision is due to the leadership and insistence of the United States, not that of the British Government. What practical steps, rather than words, do the British Government intend to take to ensure that that objective is carried out?
    Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with article 2 of the EBRD's constitution, he should be aware that the EBRD must report annually on the environmental implications of all its policies.

    Taxes
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxes have been abolished since 1979.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Five: the investment income surcharge, the national insurance surcharge, development land tax, tax on lifetime gifts and capital duty. Moreover, in his 1990 Budget, my right hon. Friend announced the abolition of stamp duty on share transactions from late 1991–92 and the abolition of composite rate tax.
    Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that fine achievement is still incomplete? Will he undertake to abolish in the next Parliament as many as possible of the taxes remaining in this Parliament? I suggest for early inclusion stamp duty on house purchase and inheritance tax.
    Mr. Lamont: It remains the Government's objective to find taxes that can be abolished and certainly to simplify the tax system. My hon. Friend might also have noticed
    776
    that, whereas we have abolished five taxes, in its policy document the Labour party proposes the addition of five brand new taxes.
    Mr. Ashton: Is not there one tax that the Government have brought in which should be abolished—the poll tax? Is not it a fact that, for every tax that he has abolished, the Chancellor has abolished many benefits, many jobs and all the other things that go with public expenditure that Labour supported?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have dramatically cut the burden of income tax and that that has gone alongside a considerable improvement in living standards, which have increased dramatically during the past decade.
    Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent record, but is he aware of the disappointment among my hon. Friends that he has not been able to abolish inheritance tax, especially for small businesses? In view of the tremendous contribution that small businesses make to the economy in general, and to employment in particular, if my right hon. Friend cannot abolish inheritance tax, will he at least ease its quite unjustified burden?
    Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that we have dramatically reformed the punitive rates of taxation on businesses in capital transfer tax and that we have greatly increased the reliefs for businesses, which make it much easier for small businesses to be transferred from one generation to another. That has been recognised by the small business lobby, but I note what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mrs. Beckett: In pursuit of the objective of honest taxation, which was identified by the Chancellor a few moments ago, will the Chief Secretary now give us the other side of the balance sheet and list the taxes that have been increased under this Government, starting with VAT and national insurance contributions, and finishing with the poll tax?
    Mr. Lamont: As I have already pointed out in reply to the main question, although indirect taxes have been increased, they are taken into account when measuring real standards of living—and real standards of living have dramatically increased on a per annum basis far more than ever happened when the Labour party was in power.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest benefits to the regional economies has been abolition of the taxation and bureaucratic burdens that lay upon them? Will he speculate on the damaging effects of a payroll tax and a regional assembly with taxation powers of its own, as proposed by the Labour party?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party is proposing new tax-raising powers for an elected Scottish Assembly. It has also advanced the idea of a training levy, which would be yet another new tax on jobs. We know that when it was in power the Labour party imposed taxes on jobs and destroyed jobs through the tax system.

    Invisibles
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he forecast for the surplus on invisibles in 1990 in the 1989 autumn statement; and what is his latest forecast.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: A total of £6 billion and £1½ billion.
    Mr. Lloyd: The Chief Secretary will understand my scepticism about his forecasts, given the Government's bad historic record of forecasting the balance of payments. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when Opposition Members have complained about the deficit on manufactures, his Government have frequently told us that we should not worry about that because everything would be made up by the invisibles? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was a mistake so to damage the manufacturing sector that it is incapable of performing in the way that the nation needs? What does he intend to do to ensure that global shortfall in the balance of payments is made up?
    Mr. Lamont: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about forecasts, the Government's forecasts on the current account do not differ substantially from those of the vast majority of outside forecasters. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) described the forecasts of the Government of which he was a Member as being rather like long-range weather forecasts—better than nothing. We have a higher opinion of our forecasts than that.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to the deterioration on the invisibles account. That is due to a number of factors to which I referred at our previous Question Time, including the timing of EC payments. That is why, despite what happened in the last quarter of last year, we are expecting the position to improve according to the forecasts that I have given to the House.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give some thought in future to whether, when publishing the invisibles figures, a clearer distinction might be made between interest and dividends received, intergovernmental payments, and the sale of services to non-residents—all of which are conceptually different elements in the national income account, and distinguishing between them might avoid some of the confusion that has given rise to some of the questions this afternoon?
    Mr. Lamont: I shall certainly look into the point that my hon. Friend has raised. Several points have been made about the compilation of the invisibles account, including, for example, the fact that appreciation of our overseas assets does not score, although it might be argued that it should count against interest payments and dividends.
    Dr. Marek: The Chief Secretary might be squirming, after 10 years, that his Government have achieved the record that the tax burden has increased sharply since 1979. The total tax burden is much higher now.
    Mr. Major: No.
    Dr. Marek: Yes, it is, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows it. He also knows that the balance of payment on our visibles is much lower now than it was in 1979. He has achieved the unique record after 10 years of
    778
    his Administration that he managed to wipe out the balance of payments on our invisibles in the last quarter of the last year. Instead of simply telling the House that he expects this shameful state of affairs to improve, will he tell the House precisely why he expects it to do so?
    Mr. Lamont: I explained carefully to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) why we expected an improvement in invisibles. We also expect an improvement on the current account because we expect the economy to slow down as a result of the measures that we have already taken. We have repeated that on many occasions.

    Charitable Giving
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of his proposals to assist charitable giving.
    Mr. Lilley: The cost will depend on take-up, but m ay rise to about £15 million.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that charitable giving has doubled in the past 10 years and say how much the cost of tax relief has increased over that period?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right that the amount of charitable giving in Britain has more than doubled in real terms during the past decade. Tax relief has risen in real terms by 120 per cent. and has been a major stimulus in that welcome increase.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the Adam Smith Institute, a right-wing think tank and the keeper of the sacred flame of Thatcherism, benefits under the legislation governing charities? Is it fair that it can call itself a charity? Is not that an abuse of charity law and should not the law be changed?
    Mr. Lilley: I can neither confirm nor deny the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, he could look it up in the public records. However, I have been lobbied in the past on behalf of the Fabian Society for alleviation of inheritance tax. Apparently it receives a large proportion of its moneys from inheritances from deceased members.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What does my hon. Friend think would be the effect on charitable giving if the 171 promises for increased spending in "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change" were implemented, estimated by Phillips and Drew at £19·5 billion?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Undoubtedly, the increase in charitable giving was due not only to the physical incentives that we gave but to the fact that people have more money in their pockets because taxes are lower. They are able and willing to give more. If that were not the case charitable giving would decrease, as it would under the heavy and increased burden of tax which the Labour party would impose.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the increase in charitable giving, does the Minister agree that many charities are disappointed that more citizens and taxpayers have not used the give-as-you-earn scheme?
    Mr. Lilley: I confirm that there is considerable scope for improvement in the use of the scheme that we have introduced. However, last year the number of donors

    779
    through the payroll giving scheme increased by 50 per cent. and the amounts given increased by 100 per cent. I pay tribute to the level of giving of all kinds in the hon. Gentleman's Province. Although the Province has the lowest income, it has the highest level of giving per head and is an example to the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Smith: Why is not inheritance tax paid in respect of donations to political parties? What justification can there be for that?
    Mr. Lilley: Because the decision was taken, alongside other changes in inheritance tax, by the Committee that considered the Finance Bill last year, without a great deal of dissent.

    Investment Growth (EC)
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total investment growth in the 1980s across European Community countries.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Since 1980 growth of total investment has averaged 2·1 per cent. a year across EC countries.
    Mr. Thompson: Do not those figures confirm that Britain and our European partners are preparing well for 1992? Does not that provide a sound basis for future export performance? Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the confidence recently shown by business men in Norwich about future export performance?
    Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our investment performance compares well with that of other countries. The average for the European Community is 2·1 per cent., whereas total investment in this country between 1980 and 1989 has gone up by an average of about 4½ per cent. a year. That is an extremely impressive record.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the Minister rather easily impressed? He should look at the answer given to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday in which he suggested that had we achieved a rate of increase in manufacturing investment during the lifetime of the Government comparable to that achieved by France and West Germany we would have had £18 billion more investment and, according to the Chancellor's figures given in that answer, had we achieved the rate attained under the previous Labour Government, we would have had an extra £30,000 million of manufacturing investment. Does not that explain why we are unprepared for 1992?
    Mr. Lamont: Opposition Members do not like it when we give some of the good facts about the British economy. That is why the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) chose to make a press announcement this morning to celebrate the opening of the World Cup by saying that British economic performance compares badly with that of Italy. During the 1980s, however, we have grown faster than Italy; our investment and manufacturing output has been better and our unemployment rate is lower. Our rate of inflation, based on a comparable measure, is also lower. I fear that the hon. Lady has scored an own goal, and it is a pity. Like Bobby Robson, she ought to play for England.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures are encouraging even if they do not meet
    780
    the needs of the Opposition? Does he also agree, however, that one of the most important things that we must do is to encourage manufacturing industry to invest in new plant and machinery? When we come to consider new concessions they should be given to manufacturing industry, not to private individuals through individual taxation.
    Mr. Lamont: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion; perhaps he is making an early Budget representation. He will also have noticed that in the past couple of years manufacturing investment has grown strongly. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his concern for manufacturing industry in his constituency, will have welcomed that strong growth.

    Mortgages
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the percentage of total mortgage holders who pay interest on an annualised basis.
    Mr. Ryder: More than 40 per cent. of building society borrowers are members of annual review schemes. No precise information is available on banks and other mortgage lenders.
    Mr. Watson: Will the Secretary of State assure those millions of people, of whom I am one, who have their mortgage payments adjusted annually in the spring, that the next time they are adjusted they can look forward to a reduction in payments?
    Mr. Ryder: Interest rates will remain as high as necessary for as long as necessary to bear down on inflation. Once inflation has been conquered in that way, interest rates might come down.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical for Opposition Members to talk about the impact of interest rates on mortgages when they opposed the right to buy and when their roof tax would bankrupt many householders?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party is growing increasingly unsure of itself as those sorts of charges are made.
    Mr. Boateng: When the Economic Secretary attacked yesterday inaccurate and misleading advertising of mortgages, was he referring to either or both of the following, beginning respectively:
    "John Major might take a year to cut"—
    [Interruption ]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We paraphrase at Question Time.
    Mr. Boateng: Was he referring to either or both advertisements that suggest that the Chancellor might cut mortgage rates or that the surest way in which to ensure that mortgage rates come down is to bring about a general election in which case there would be nothing to pay? When he was referring to misleading mortgage advertisements—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is in order. He is not quoting now.
    Mr. Boateng: When the Minister was referring to misleading mortgage advertisements, did he have in mind

    781
    perhaps the biggest-ever misadvertisement for mortgages—that there was any prospect of interest rates coming down in the immediate future and some relief being given to people who are suffering the enormous mortgage misery that affects so many home owners and home buyers in Britain?
    Mr. Ryder: That was a poor advertisement for a sound bite. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.

    Business Investment
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount total business investment has increased in real terms over the past three years for which figures are available.
    Mr. Lamont: Business investment grew by over 40 per cent. in real terms in the three years to 1989, the largest increase over a three-year period since the war.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most encouraging aspect of the investment scene is the amount of investment being made in this country by foreign companies, illustrated this week by the Invest in Britain Bureau, which announced that up to 15 March this year, 233 investments had been made in Britain? It was illustrated also by the fact that 40 per cent. of all Japanese investment in the European Community came to this country, 9 per cent. went to West Germany and only 6 per cent. went to France, proving that other countries know the fundamental strength of the United Kingdom economy.
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a good point. This country does well, compared with its competitors, in the receipt of Japanese and American investment. That investment has been into certain key sectors, and there have been particularly important investments in the motor industry. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Chief Secretary mount an urgent investigation into the latest small business to be registered in Britain, National Front Printers Ltd? Will he ensure that that company, which seems to have come into being aided and abetted by officials and possibly Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, does not enjoy any tax reliefs or other benefits from the Treasury?
    Mr. Lamont: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of that massive business investment has been in manufacturing industries in Yorkshire, and particularly in my constituency, and that it has contributed to reducing unemployment? Will he congratulate the wool textile export companies which are managing in difficult times to increase their exports?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last year, manufacturing investment grew by about 6¼ per cent. to reach its highest-ever level, and I agree with her comments about the wool textile industry.

    Mortgage Rates
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Chancellor of tht, Exchequer when he will next meet the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss mortgage rates.
    Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss mortgage rates.
    Mr. Major: I have no present plans to do so, although I recently met the chairman of the organisation, Mr. Birrell.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Chancellor accept that the smug levity with which the Economic Secretary answered the previous question about mortgage rates paid scant respect to the hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering profoundly because of the Chancellor's one-club policy on interest rates? Does he accept that, according to the Building Societies Association, over 400,000 families in Britain are subject to legal action for recovery of arrears because of the mounting problems of interest and mortgage rates? Does he have any message of comfort to offer those people, many of them in my constituency, or is what he has to offer represented only by the kind of rubbish that we heard from the Economic Secretary?
    Mr. Major: There was neither rubbish nor smug levity in what my hon. Friend said. If the hon. Gentleman consults the Council of Mortgage Lenders or the Building Societies Association, they will tell him without reservation that mortgage arrears account for only a small amount of repossessions and that the principal problems that cause repossessions and other difficulties are marriage break-ups and other marital concerns. They have repeatedly made that clear, and Mr. Mark Boleat of the Building Societies Association did so yet again in recent days.
    Mr. Sedgemore: When the Chancellor is told by his Permanent Secretary that 70,000 mortgage holders are six months or more in arrears does he say to himself, "How could I conceivably have been so incompetent, so ignorant and so irresponsible as to ruin the lives of so many people?"—or does he not care?
    Mr. Major: I understand the concern of people with mortgage difficulties. The hon. Gentleman, who phrased his question with his usual charm, should bear it in mind that the number of borrowers in serious difficulties remains a very tiny proportion, as traditionally they have been. He will be aware, because I know that he takes an interest in this matter, that the Council of Mortgage Lenders recently issued all sorts of indications of precisely how the lending societies can help people who are in mortgage difficulties. The societies are doing so and I hope that they will continue to do so.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have been asked to reply.
    Mr right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given an address at the luncheon of the North Atlantic Council at Turnberry. Later today she will begin a visit to the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Janner: As the Prime Minister is about to leave for the Soviet Union to lecture people there about how to run a free market economy, will the deputy Prime Minister use his moment of freedom to tell the House and the nation why he thinks our economy is in such a shambles? What does he say to our constituents who cannot meet their mortgage instalments and to industrialists and employers facing ruin because of the high levels of inflation and mortgages? What does he say about the unparalleled trade deficit and to people labouring under the unfair chaos of the poll tax? What does he say—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not fair to take so long.
    Mr. Janner: How can this Government lecture others when they have ruined our economy?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will find that the people and the leadership of the Soviet Union will envy the record of this Government's management of our economy over the past 10 years. The problems today are put into perspective by the fact that manufacturing investment this year is advancing on the record level of last year which was itself a record on the year before.
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Couchman: In view of the link between listeria and French brie, the hallucinatory effect of French wines, the carcinogenous effect of Perrier water and the certain transmissibility of mad frogs disease, will my right hon. and learned Friend make contingency plans to impose a ban on all French agricultural products and comestibles lest France should fail to honour the agreement that was signed in Brussels this morning?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about the way in which matters have proceeded in the last few days. However, he must understand that the most important conclusion is that there should be a properly operating free market in agricultural produce throughout the Community in compliance with the law. I am sure that he will be glad to know that this morning the European Council of Agriculture Ministers reached agreement to end the ban on imports of British beef to other continental countries. The agreement will be considered by legal and scientific experts this afternoon. The Council will reconvene to give its approval to the documents produced. All member states will accept imports of British beef from tonight, and the European Community Commission has reaffirmed its belief that British beef is safe.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hopes, by leave of the House, to make a statement on these matters at the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Safety Bill.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Lord President tell the House what the standard rate of income tax will be after the next Budget?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: In all the questions asked by shadow spokesmen over many years that one beats all records for stupidity. One matter that Chancellors of the
    784
    Exchequer like, properly, to reserve to their Budget statement is the level at which income tax will be fixed for the year ahead. The nation can take great comfort from the fact that for the past 11 years a succession of Chancellors have progressively introduced lower and lower rates of income tax.
    Mr. Hattersley: My only criticism of that answer is that I think that the question is even more stupid than the right hon. and learned Gentleman made out. As there is unanimous agreement that he cannot predict the level of taxes under this Government in six months' time, will he ask the chairman of the Tory party to stop asking for predictions about the level of taxation under the next Labour Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to say that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer under this Government have set targets for the reduction of income tax and achieved those targets. This nation continues to display a constant interest in the prospect of tax policy from the Labour party, if that were ever to be relevant. The real point is that the Labour party cannot carry any conviction as a tax-cutting party when successive Labour Governments have always put taxes up.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it remains the Government's policy to protect working people from excessive mass picketing and secondary action, and will he take every opportunity to explain this policy to trade union leaders, perhaps by taking up some of the many invitations to attend trade union conferences that have been rejected by the cocoonist advisers of the Leader of the Opposition?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to take this opportunity to remind the House and the nation that if there were to be a Labour Government, introducing the industrial relations policies of which the Labour party talks, there would be a risk of a return to mass picketing and the disgraceful scenes, to which the House became accustomed, outside premises such as Grunwick. We should be interested to know why the Leader of the Opposition has shown himself so unwilling to explain his policies, even on this matter, to the trade union movement.
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend turn his mind again to the subject of beef? Is not it now certain that the French and German Governments have contravened article 30 of the treaty of Rome, and must therefore compensate our farmers for the substantial financial losses that they have suffered over the past few weeks, or are we to have partners who want all the privileges of free trade but none of the obligations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for the rules and obligations of the Community to be uniformly applied and observed throughout the Community. That is why it is so important that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has today been successful in securing the commitment that he has secured at the Council of Ministers.
    My right hon. Friend will be able to deal with my hon. Friend's point in his statement this evening.
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: Has the deputy Prime Minister had the opportunity to examine what is happening in the water industry, with the £5 billion that the Government wrote off in debts, the £1·6 billion that was given for the so-called green dowry and the fact that the taxpayer lost in general over £3 billion on privatisation? Is he aware that water charges have increased by more than double the rate of inflation, that in Yorkshire the standing charge has doubled, which means that the people who use least pay most in unit costs, and that the connection charge in Yorkshire has increased from £300 to £1,150? Is not that a shocking and abysmal record? Is not it time that the House had a chance to discuss the situation in the water industry, and who runs it?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that one of the closing acts of the last Labour Government—now many years ago—was savagely to cut investment in the then publicly owned water industry. A principal reason why the private sector, on assuming responsibility for the industry, must now make substantial investments is as the consequence of years of neglect under public ownership and Labour Governments.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is apparently possible to increase Government spending by many billions of pounds while, we are told, it is unnecessary to raise income tax on people whose incomes are equal to or less than that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot begin to explain such reasoning. The House will remember that under previous Labour Governments spending, borrowing and taxes increased, and that income tax payers were especially affected.
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Quin: The Government are on record as saying that they want to help the countries of eastern Europe to tackle the problems of environmental pollution. Of course, that is vital, but what example are we giving eastern Europe by failing to insist on a full programme of flue gas desulphurisation for our power stations? Moreover, the
    786
    Secretary of State for the Environment—who is in Brussels today—will apparently argue for a weakening of the EEC commitment to curb emissions of carbon dioxide?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The lesson is that the Government have introduced an effective and comprehensive programme for environmental improvement in relation to all forms of pollution. The realism of our target for carbon dioxide reduction has been specifically confirmed by Dr. Houghton, chairman of the working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He has the best evidence available in relation to our proposals.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the Government's support for Manchester as the venue for the 1996 Olympics? Does he agree that that would be good not just for the north-west of England, but for the entire country, and will he ignore the sour-grapes attitude that has been adopted by certain people in the Birmingham area?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not responsible for the attitude of people in the Birmingham area, but I gladly confirm that Manchester is Britain's preferred candidate. Manchester and the north-west have a long and illustrious sporting tradition, and we are glad to support it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to the president of the International Olympic Committee in support of Manchester's bid.
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that nearly all the textile mills in my area have closed? Is he further aware that three more are now to close, including the Mars mill at Castleton, with the loss of 540 jobs? Will he tell the House what the Government will do to help the textile industry, and those workers who have been thrown on the industrial scrapheap?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government will continue to support the textile industry in the negotiations that we undertake within the context of GATT and the multi-fibre arrangement. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the most recent survey produced at the beginning this week by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce shows that nearly two thirds of firms expect to increase their export orders, and nearly three out of five expect to increase their work forces in the year ahead. There is substantial evidence for the belief that export performance will continue to improve.
    Mr. Speaker: Sir Hugh Rossi. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Mr. Alan Williams.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Thank you for an unexpected surprise, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: May I, in turn, refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to a question I put to the Chief Secretary a short time ago? He failed to answer it, so I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do so. Will he confirm what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Tuesday—that manufacturing investment in this country would have been £30,000 million higher under this
    788
    Government had the growth rate under the Labour Government been maintained? Does he think that that is a major factor in explaining why a surplus of £6,000 million on manufacturing trade has deteriorated into a deficit of £16,000 million?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must have failed to hear the point I made earlier, when I said that even in the current year manufacturing investment is expected to increase. Last year was itself a record for manufacturing investment, as was the year before. Total business investment has increased by some 40 per cent. during the past three years. That is a substantial record of achievement, and it will be maintained.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 11 JUNE—There will be a debate on European Community affairs with a motion to take note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community July to December 1989 (Cm. 1023).

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill.

TUESDAY 12 JUNE—Second Reading of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Motion to take note of EC document relating to Community railway policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.

WEDNESDAY 13 JUNE—Remaining stages of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill.

THURSDAY 14 JUNE—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate on training followed by a debate on low income statistics. Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.

Motion on the International Fund for Agricultural Development (Third Replenishment) Order.

FRIDAY 15 JUNE—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 18 JUNE—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the defence estimates 1990 (Cm. 1022/1 and 1022/2) (1st day).

[Tuesday 12 June:
Relevant European Community Document
4478/90 Community Railway Policy
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 11—xvi (1989–90) para 3
Thursday 14 June:
Estimates, 1990–91, class VI, vote 1.
Third report from the Employment Committee of Session 1989–90 on Employment Training (House of Commons Paper No. 427) and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 2 May 1990 (House of Commons Paper No. 394-i), so far as it relates to training.
Estimates, class XIV, vote 7.
Fourth report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1987–88, "Families on Low Income: Low Income Statistics" (House of Commons Paper No. 565), the Government's reply to that Report (Cm. 523), the fourth report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, "Low Income Statistics" (House of Commons Paper No. 376), and memoranda laid before the Committee: "Households Below Average Income: A regional analysis 1980–85", a study commissioned by the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, ( House of Commons Paper No. 378-I) and "The Income Support System and the Distribution of Income in 1987", a study commissioned by the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, (House of Commons Paper No. 378-II.)]
Dr. Cunningham: As the Prime Minister is making a timely visit to Moscow, at a time of important movements
790
in world and European events, can we be assured that on her return to this country she will make a statement in this Chamber on her discussions with President Gorbachev?
Can we now hope that, as the Police Federation conference has taken place, the House will at last have the opportunity to debate, as it should have done many weeks ago, the Police (Amendment) Regulations order concerning the implications of poll tax for policemen and women and their families? Given the latest news of mounting chaos in towns and cities in Britain because of the nightmare of trying to administer that bureaucratic, expensive and unfair tax, should not we have the opportunity to debate the poll tax as soon as possible? I hope that the Leader of the House can now confirm that that long overdue opportunity will be given to the House.
When we debate developments in the European Community on Monday, who will be speaking on behalf of the Government? Will it be the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry giving his view of Government policy on Europe or will it be the Foreign Secretary—or will we hear one view at the beginning of the debate and the other view at the end?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I invite the hon. Gentleman to react in full, as I doubt whether he has yet, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will find that it contains many points that are almost exactly in line with those that I made in a speech a week before and which represent a contribution to the important developments that will take place during the years ahead in the EC. It is right that such matters should be advanced.
As for long overdue opportunities, we have been waiting now, I think, since 3 April for the fully worked out alteration to the poll tax which the Opposition's director of communications told us their major policy statement would contain, but we still wait in vain. That is the long overdue opportunity.
Dr. Cunningham: That is not relevant to next week's business.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nor was the hon. Gentleman's original question.
The police orders have been the subject of active discussion through the usual channels, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I am concerned to see that they are debated at a reasonably early stage. I shall make an announcement about the arrangements for their debate in my next business statement.
I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement in the ordinary way on her return from the Soviet Union.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: In view of the continued representations from the Liaison Committee, is my right hon. and learned Friend yet in a position to announce that he will take steps to amend Standing Orders so that the Select Committee on Health and Social Security can be divided in order to conform with the split into two Departments?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can confirm that the Government are prepared to agree that there should be separate Select Committees to reflect the split in the Department of Health and Social Security. I think that it would be for the general convenience of the House if those arrangements were to take effect from the beginning of the next Session.
Mr. Frank Field: I welcome the statement that the Leader of the House has just made, but will he confirm that the House will have a chance to vote on the proposal so that the two new Select Committees can start operation at the beginning of the new Session?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall need to think about the precise point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly consider it.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question relating particularly to his responsibilities as Leader of the House? May we have a debate soon on Short money? After all, as of this week, we are one party fewer and one campaign more. When does a campaign become a party? How energetic does it have to be? Would I, as an ordinary Back Bencher, qualify to become a campaign and receive Short money, particularly since I am as energetic as any Member of the former Democratic party? In fact, none of them are here today.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure about my hon. Friend's entitlement to qualify for Short money, but it is clear from his valuable contribution that he is not short of ideas.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Leader of the House tell us now or next week the arrangements for right hon. and hon. Members to see the closed-circuit experiment on sign language for deaf people of our proceedings?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding the House about that. As he will recollect, it follows from the experiment on subtitling just before the recess. The recording of Prime Minister's questions, accompanied by on-screen signing for the deaf, will be played back in the No Lobby between 5 and 6 pm today and on Tuesday and Thursday of next week. The broadcasting Select Committee wants the reactions of as many Members as possible to both experiments so that we can assess the acceptability of on-screen signing to the House. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will have a chance to look at the recordings either today or next week.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: The House of Lords is constitutionally entitled to overturn the War Crimes Bill, but this House, as the elected Chamber, is entitled to overrule it. When does my right hon. and learned Friend expect that we shall have an opportunity to discuss that important moral and constitutional issue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of that topic, which has been debated in both Houses more than once. Both Houses have now voted on the matter in opposite directions, by substantial majorities. Clearly it is right that we should have an opportunity to reflect on that, in view of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday.
Mr. James Wallace: We are to have a debate on low income statistics next week, but will the Leader of the House turn his mind to a much wider debate on Government statistics—particularly as, last night, the Secretary of State for Health used some very doubtful statistics in supporting the Government's policy
792
of imposing eye test charges? The Secretary of State's statistics were totally at variance with both a survey by my own party of 1,700 opticians and a report by the Consumers Association that is to be published tomorrow. Given the importance of eye tests in preventive health, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have another rally around the course—this time, using proper statistics?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have never yet encountered a topic on which there has not been an ample choice of statistics. I dare say that that is true in respect of the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday presented effective statistics, but I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for his announcement concerning the future of the Select Committee on Social Services. The work load being undertaken by that Committee is becoming intolerable, monitoring as it does one half of total Government expenditure.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement in the House on the progress of the negotiations concerning the multi-fibre arrangement? I understand from the textile and clothing industry that Britain's Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is standing out against practically every other country, in seeking to phase out the MFA over five years when most of the other countries concerned—and third-world countries in particular—seek a 10-year phasing out. May Britain's important textile and clothing industry, which still employs nearly 500,000 people and is concerned for their future, expect a statement soon from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The topic of the MFA and its relationship to the textile industry is raised in the House on many occasions—quite often by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I am not in a position today to add anything fresh, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: When may we have an opportunity to debate the implications of pit closures? Is the Leader of the House aware that British Coal announced yesterday the closure of Denby Grange colliery—the last remaining pit in my constituency—with the loss of about 500 jobs? That makes total job losses in the Wakefield area under the present Government number 16,000. Is not it scandalous that not one scrap of Government help has been given to Wakefield district to help generate alternative employment? When will the Government give up worshipping market forces and start thinking about human beings for a change?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Decisions on pit closures remain a matter for the British Coal Corporation. The Government are not able to intervene, and do not seek to do so. In making such announcements, British Coal is following the procedure agreed with the unions. The coal industry, like any other, depends above all on competitiveness and

793
efficiency for its survival. I am glad to say that there have been substantial improvements in its productivity in recent years, and we hope that it will be maintained.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to express their concern at the news that Mr. Gorbachev is apparently threatening to restrict the emigration of Soviet Jews—particularly as there seems to be a misapprehension that a significant number of Soviet Jews are settling on the west bank, which they are not?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises two relatively distinct points. Over the years, the House has shared his concern for the freedom for Jewish people, among others, to emigrate from the Soviet Union. So far as it is necessary to do so, I am sure that that matter will be in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this week.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite all the efforts made over the years to preserve the lives of kidney patients, recent reports have shown that no fewer than 1,200 people die unnecessarily every year because of the lack of donor kidneys? Is it not possible to take advantage of the fact that 75 per cent. of people are willing to donate kidneys? They cannot currently be accepted, because the system has failed. May we debate that subject next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman seldom fails to raise a point of importance, and the issue that he has just raised is one with which the whole House will have sympathy. He raises so many that I could fill almost every week with debates at his request. I shall consider that request as sympathetically as I can.
Mr. Robin Squire: Is it my right hon. and learned Friend's intention to schedule a London debate before the House rises for the summer recess, as it has been many a month since we last had the opportunity to discuss issues affecting London—including, of course, the many successes of Conservative councils within the city?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend offers a beguiling reason why we should have such a debate at an early opportunity. I am not sure how far I shall be able to be beguiled by him.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Given that the Stevens inquiry stated clearly, without any ambiguity, that there was collusion between the police and terrorist groupings in Northern Ireland, and given the penetrating insights of the Yorkshire Television programme "Shoot to Kill" at the weekend, will the Leader of the House ensure that we get an opportunity soon to debate those fundamental issues within the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Neither Mr. Stalker's nor Mr. Sampson's inquiry found evidence of any offence, such as incitement to murder, as would he comprised within what has loosely been called a "shoot-to-kill" policy. There is not and there never has been any such policy in Northern Ireland. No doubt there will be opportunities in the weeks ahead for debates on that and other matters affecting Northern Ireland.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that virtually every day
794
there is a new report of the closure of some reservoir or lake because of toxic blue-green algae spreading across it, following the appalling incident last September in my constituency, when 23 sheep and 15 dogs died? Since this is now clearly becoming a serious national pollution problem, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about the matter next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot arrange to have a statement on that matter next week, but I can and will arrange to draw the strong manner in which my hon. Friend expresses his view to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. David Winnick: Is not it important that there should be a debate on the War Crimes Bill as quickly as possible, since all the evidence shows that there remains a large majority in this House who believe that the Bill should proceed? Is not it important that, if there is a conflict between the two Houses, the views of the elected Chamber must prevail?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is precisely that question which requires reflection. It is only 72 hours since the other place debated the matter. Both Houses have considered it carefully on more than one occasion and have reached conclusions by large majorities in opposite directions. It is plainly good sense to allow some reasonable period to elapse to allow full consideration of what was said in the debates in both Houses.
Sir Bernard Braine: May I dissent from the view that my right hon. and learned Friend has just expressed? There is widespread indignation in the country, as one poll has already demonstrated this morning, arid there is strong feeling on both sides of the House, that wrong action—wrong both constitutionally and morally—has been taken by the other place. Surely the best thing is for this House to resolve, as quickly as it possibly can, where it stands on the matter and what it wants done.
Mr. Winnick: Well said.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the strength of feeling on the subject of my right hon. Friend the Father of the House. Both Houses of Parliament have contributions to make to the proceedings of Parliament, and it is right for the views expressed by each House on a matter of this gravity to be considered carefully in both Houses. I understand the strong feelings expressed by my right hon. Friend, but it is a matter on which there are strong feelings not only on both sides of the House but on both sides of the question.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Leader of the House accept that there has been a disastrous effect on the shellfish industry caused by the fishing ban, and the disorganised methods used by the Government to introduce it? Will he accept that there are important unanswered questions, such as why the industry was never consulted and why certain species were banned, yet two days later the ban was lifted on the flimsiest of grounds? Will he also study the situation, as compensation should be offered to the shellfish fishermen, given the state of the industry? As so many Government Departments were involved, and the industry is in deep trouble at present, can we have an urgent debate on the subject?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the anxiety felt by those in the industry about the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a statement about one aspect of it in the House on Tuesday, and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of the persistent and undenied rumours that the Prime Minister has withdrawn her veto on our entry of the exchange rate mechanism, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that whoever speaks for the Government on Monday explains how it is that it will be posible to resolve the conflict between a rigged exchange rate and the requirements of domestic monetary policy and, having entered into stage 1 of the Delors proposals, how we shall avoid being dragged by the Commission and the other nation states of the EEC into stages 2 and 3, with a single central bank and a single currency?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It sounds as though my hon. Friend is likely to make a speech in Monday's debate, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, of as much interest as usual. Having attended the Madrid summit in which we set out quite clearly the conditions on which we would join the exchange rate mechanism, I must confess that I do not recognise his description of a veto in respect of that matter. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it plain in her speech in Aberdeen that membership of the European exchange rate mechanism was entirely consistent with effective and strong domestic monetary policy.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement this afternoon from the Secretary of State for Transport on the safety implications of the management-engineered dispute involving some 7,000 British Airways workers at Heathrow? Is he aware that I have an eight-page list of 75 engineering faults and incidents that occurred in the 11 days up to Tuesday of this week, many of which could be life threatening? For example, on Sunday, the captain of a Boeing 747 reported that the engine fire detection loop was unserviceable, yet he was given dispensation to take off. Has nothing been learnt from Kegworth? Why will not the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority come clean about the risk to passengers flying British Airways out of Heathrow?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman made the most helpful contribution that could have been made on cool consideration of the subject. I am advised that safety is not compromised and that aircraft are properly certified as safe before they fly.
Mr. Robert Dunn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us representing constituencies in the county of Kent are becoming extremely concerned and anxious about the delay in an announcement as to the final route of the high-speed link? Is he aware that we were promised an announcement at the end of March, again at the end of April and again at the end of May? We are now well into June and the continuing delay is causing great hardship, counter-rumour and upset to many people in north-west, mid and south Kent? Will
796
he please therefore undertake to make the strongest representations possible to those who are responsible for making an announcement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend, together with others of my hon. Friends who represent Kentish constituencies, makes a point which he is entitled to make, and of course I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. There will be some opportunity to refer to the matter in the debate next Tuesday on the document relating to Community railway policy, but I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Lord President's announcement about splitting the Select Committee on Social Services, when does he hope to report progress in setting up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland as that also affects the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot take that matter any further today than I have on previous occasions. I shall of course discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate about the quality of the postal services in this country? Does he agree that the recent report by the Mail Users' Association has fully demonstrated the need to introduce competition into the postal services?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the quality of those services is not a matter that concerns only my hon. Friend. I shall certainly draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to see whether there is an opportunity for it to be considered more widely.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman yet found time to mug up on the need for an up-to-date maritime archaeology Bill, a matter which I raised with him many months ago and about which he appeared singularly uninformed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has been so uncharacteristically episodic in his references to the matter that, although I mugged it up some time ago, I am now almost as ill-formed as I was when he first raised it. However, I will be in touch with him when I have had another look at the matter.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, according to some sources in the Soviet Union, over 60 per cent. of Soviet agricultural production never reaches the consumer because of defects in the storage and transportation systems there.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Forty per cent.
Mr. Sayeed: Over 60 per cent. of Soviet agricultural production.
According to some Soviet sources, there is a possibility of famine in parts of the USSR next year. Bearing in mind the instability and misery that that will bring and following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's present visit to the USSR, would it be possible for us to have a debate on

797
how this country could best assist the USSR to move to a freer market, and therefore to a better system for agriculture and transport?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was struck by the fact that, even on that crucial matter, there was a moment of statistical insecurity between my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I do not know how far I can take a discussion in this House on fundamental repairs to the Soviet economy. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have some interesting things to say about that on her return next week.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware that, earlier this week, 15 local government officers from Poland came to this country to study local democracy? Given that fact, will he make time for an urgent debate on poll tax capping, when he can explain to the country and to the 15 Polish local government officers how local democracy exists under capping? Why when the people of Calderdale and in the other 19 authorities voted overwhelmingly Labour and for a Labour Government, did the Government decide that they knew better than the ballot box? Would not our Polish friends be confused and say, "We have just got rid of a regime like that. Why are we here learning about one that is doing exactly the same?"?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is an element of fantasy in the hon. Lady's anxiety to ensure proper information for our Polish visitors about the working of a democratic society under the rule of law. The steps in relation to charge capping are being taken in accordance with legislation passed by this House and following the votes taken in this House, and are now being considered by the courts in accordance with the rule of law. That is an impressive performance to commend to our Polish friends.
Mr. Michael Brown: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm a statement that I think he made at Prime Minister's Question Time? Did he say that there would be a statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the outcome of the EC Council of Ministers earlier today?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said in Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend is attending a further meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers this afternoon to consider the legal and experts' representations on the conclusions already reached. He hopes to be able to make a statement to the House this evening at the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Safety Bill. That representation has been made to you, Mr. Speaker, and it is, of course, subject to the consent of the House. My impression is that the whole House would like to hear an early statement from my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House review his decision about the need for a statement about the dangerous game being played by British Airways, in connivance with the Civil Aviation Authority, which has allowed certificates and approvals to be given on unsafe aircraft, including Concorde and scores of others, during the past fortnight? Those aircraft have supposedly been maintained and repaired by a handful of management, when 7,000 engineers are on strike. Nobody
798
would believe that that handful of people could manage, maintain and repair those aircraft. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have here a computer printout of the number of aircraft that have been flying during the past fortnight, but which are unsafe? He has a duty to the House to make a statement on the matter and to get the dispute resolved.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will of course bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the point that was made so vehemently by the hon. Gentleman. If the matter is one tenth as serious as his rhetoric implies, I hope that he will urge upon those who are currently taking industrial action the necessity to get back to work as soon as possible.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the popularity of "spot the ball" competitions. May I suggest to him a parliamentary version in Hansard, called "spot the promise"? My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said on 13 February that there were only two definite Labour promises, yet even in yesterday's Hansard we find promises from the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on the first two priorities of the next Labour Government. May I therefore suggest that it must be a very popular competition, and the prizes, which would be very generous, should be supplied by the Labour spokesman making the promise and would he commensurate with the cost to the taxpayer?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was waiting for the last part of my hon. Friend's question. Of course I am in favour of a competition that is designed to draw attention to the matters that he has in mind. He also had the good sense to indicate how such a competition could be financed.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tuesday, under the Standing Order No. 20 procedure, I attempted to get the House to debate the Government's disgraceful and complacent attitude to football ground safety and the fact that, in particular, the Football Licensing Authority, which should have been set up by 1 June under an Act of Parliament, has not been set up? There is no chairman and there are no members. As that vehicle is to implement Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, and local authorities and football clubs throughout the land are awaiting the tablets of stone from that body, will the Leader of the House agree to arrange a debate on that important subject in the near future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake to arrange a debate on that topic at this time. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that the House will join me in expressing satisfaction at the vigorous way in which law enforcement authorities in Italy are already upholding the law in advance of the football competition there, expressing the hope that British football fans will behave with dignity and in a fashion that upholds the honour of this country, and also expressing the hope that our teams are as successful as they deserve to be.
Mr. Edward Heath: Would not it save a great waste of time and the tedium of listening to a tiresome speech yet again from my hon. Friend the

799
Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) if my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House were to arrange for a junior economist to take him quietly aside this weekend and explain to him the simplicities of the relationship between European currencies, which are so well understood by the other 11 members of the Community?
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House on the attitude that he has taken towards the vote in the House of Lords about the War Crimes Bill. In that he is absolutely right. He has spoken about the need to maintain the rule of law. That is what the House of Lords has set out to do. It has not been influenced by the lobby being run from California on this matter.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is not a business question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must have an opportunity to put his point. [Interruption.]
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Father of the House to calm himself? We do not want to lose him.
Sir Bernard Braine rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) may have misheard the comment from over his shoulder. I do not think that it was made by the Father of the House.
Mr. Heath: As this matter has been brought up about 42 years after the agreement was reached between the leaders of all parties in this country and by those who had fought through the war and by those who had lived through that process——
Sir Bernard Braine: You are not the only one.
Mr. Heath: No, but I stand by agreements reached by political leaders. As that was done, there is no haste whatever——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady interrupts the former Prime Minister that will delay our proceedings. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a conclusion.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is what the House is about.
Mr. Heath: I have sat now through 20 years of screaming in my ear from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman)—[Interruption.]
Dame E. Kellett-Bowman: Your argument was defeated. We now want the Bill.
Mr. Heath: It is too much. I shall now stand through her screaming on her feet.
The Leader of the House is quite right. There is no constitutional crisis and there is no need whatsoever for further debate in this House.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend has contributed to an already interesting business questions by making them even more so and by concluding his observations by urging me—I commend this as a model to be followed by others—not to have a debate. That is a point of agreement. My other right hon. Friend, the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), has equally vigorously urged me to have a debate. Their contributions underline the importance of the issue and the need for us all to reflect on it carefully.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Leader of the House regard the long title of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill as having sufficient scope to enable hon. Members to explore the legal processes whereby planning decisions are reached in Scotland, given that the Secretary of State for Scotland has recently ruled that there should be tests for drilling at Dounreay by Nirex, and given that that is an attitude which——
Sir Bernard Braine rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Lady finished?
Mrs. Ewing: Given that that decision——
Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has steam coming out of his ears.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Ewing: Given that that decision clearly overruled the democratically expressed views of the people of the highlands and islands—and, indeed, the people throughout the length and breadth of Scotland—if it is not possible for us to consider that matter in the context of our deliberations on that Bill, will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on that issue, because the people of Scotland are furious about the decision that has been taken?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am obviously not in a position to give any kind of ruling—I should be unwise to try—on the scope of the long title of the Bill to which the hon. Lady has referred. As I understand it, the reasons for the decision arrived at by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland were fully set out in his letter of 14 May, when he made it plain that he had considered the matter on its merits—as he was obliged to do. However, I shall bring the hon. Lady's points to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving time for a debate on the British and European beaches about which the Commission has notified our fellow member states in the Community that they will be prosecuted under the bathing water directive? It is important that British tourists who are travelling abroad this summer should know the location of those beaches, and it is important that we should be able to discuss what action will be taken by the water companies to clean up our own beaches in the United Kingdom.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) will have an Adjournment debate, which will deal to some extent with this topic, next Wednesday,

801
13 June. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is right to draw attention to the need for the uniform enforcement of obligations in respect of this matter throughout the Community and to the need for the availability of information about it throughout the Community. I shall bring his points to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House provide a statement early next week, instead of showing such a complacent attitude, about the industrial dispute between British Airways and the ground staff? Does he accept the right of British Airways' management to enter into this shabby conspiracy with the Civil Aviation Authority, whereby aircraft are nominally certificated although there is a huge list of faults on aircraft that are flying passengers today? Those faults include faulty fuel gauges. I have the list with me.
This is happening because British Airways management are attempting to impose a 12 hour day on the engineers without them having the right to proper negotiation. It is a shabby arrangement. The Leader of the House should do something about this attempt by the management of British Airways to impose a diktat on people who have a perfect right to engage in proper negotiations and consultation and who want to keep our planes in the air safely, but who are denied that object by the attitude of the British Airways management.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Again, the hon. Gentleman's intervention is extremely interesting. He asks for proper negotiations and consideration. I have no doubt that the management are entirely ready to undertake proper negotiations and consultation. That would be greatly facilitated if he urged those now taking industrial action——
Mr. Cryer: I urge the management, who are responsible.
Sir Geoffrey Howe:—to return to normal working. I say that with some enthusiasm, because he should know that 12-hour shifts are not uncommon in the industry. They are worked by British Airways engineers at Gatwick. That is the basis on which I urge the hon. Gentleman to urge those taking industrial action to desist from it and start negotiating.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is not it time that we had another debate on local government finance? In making his decision, will my right hon. and learned Friend contrast the performance of the Labour party—which yet again, after no less than four years, failed to come up with its alternative to the community charge last month—with the performance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who took only a few days to come up with a respectable policy? Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that there might after all be a job for my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley as an adviser to the Labour party?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that he would wish to undertake such a hopeless task.
Mr. George Galloway: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1071 on the case of Jonathan Moyle.
[That this House expresses its deep concern at the strange death of British journalist Jonathan Moyle, Editor
802
of Defence Helicopter World, found in the cupboard of his Santiago hotel room, hanged by his own shirt from a bar 5 ft 4 inches from the ground although he was 5 ft 8 inches tall, with his shins bruised, traces of sedatives in his stomach and blood stains on his sheets; notes that he was investigating the Chilean arms industry; notes that he was in touch with the British defence attaché in Santiago; deplores the foul attempts to smear Mr. Moyle being made by British security `sources'; deplores the attitude displayed by Her Majesty's Embassy in Santiago towards Mr. Moyle's death and to his family, as publicly complained of by Mr. Moyle senior; demands that Her Majesty's Government fully' investigate the demise abroad of yet another British journalist; and calls for a full statement from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.]
It deals with the mysterious death of an English journalist abroad. I ask the Leader of the House to find time to debate this sinister story. The Chilean police now believe that Jonathan Moyle was murdered, although the British embassy tried hard at the beginning to say that he had committed suicide.
We have the mystery of the death of a young, talented journalist and former service man and of why British sources quoted at the weekend in The Sunday Times and The Guardian spread the story not only that the journalist committed suicide but that he was involved in some dark, seamy dealings at the point of his death. It is a strange arid mysterious story of the death of yet another British journalist overseas. The House could do with a debate on the matter, and I urge the Leader of the House to give it consideration.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. Clearly, it is an important matter. He will understand that it is for the Chilean authorities to determine the cause of death. A Chilean investigation is under way and is being pursued vigorously. We have no reason to doubt either the expertise or the integrity of the examining magistrate. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in regular contact with Mr. and Mrs. Moyle and Her Majesty's consul in Santiago is in close contact with the examining magistrate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the British embassy in Santiago stand ready to assist in every way. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's specific point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), can we have a debate fairly soon on charge capping, and will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that plenty of time is allowed for it?
In the case of Avon, the Audit Commission produced figures last year which show that while Avon employs about the right number of lecturers and teachers—slightly below the average—the back-up staff employed by the education department exceed the expected norm for a county council of Avon's size by over 1,000. Is not that a classic case of a Labour-controlled authority spending vast quantities of money on back-up staff and not on front-line services?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has raised a very good example of an important point. One of the principal objectives of the reform of the education system introduced by the Government is to induce the use at the

803
point closest to the classroom of the largest proportion of educational resources that can be there deployed. One of the effects that we want to see is a diminution of administrative staff at headquarters and an enhancement of the quality of management and performance at the chalk face.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the procedures used for the appointment of chairmen to health authorities and the proposed self-governing hospital trusts? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that such a debate would provide an opportunity to warn the Secretary of State for Health that, if he were to appoint Councillor Eric Pickles, the failed captain of the Tory flagship in Bradford, to either post in Bradford, it would be regarded as a provocative insult to those working in the health services? It would also be most offensive to the public of Bradford who rely upon the public health service and who watched Councillor Pickles do his damnedest in the past two years to destroy local community services.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is room for exactly two views on that question. he is entitled to express his, but the fact that he has made his comments may underline for other people the benefit of doing exactly the opposite of what he has suggested.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted the amendment tabled yesterday by 68 hon. Members to early-day motion 1063?
[Line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add notes the concern of the people of the Isle of Sheppey over the provision of local hospital facilities, so thoroughly expressed by the honourable Member for Faversham in the adjournment debate he instigated on 20th April; recognised the belated interest of the Labour Party in this issue, as evidenced by their Parliamentary Lobby of 5th June; notes the deliberate selection of a date when they knew that the honourable Member for Faversham would be abroad on Parliamentary business; finds it curious that the Lobby met the unrelated honourable Members for Wakefield, Halifax, Workington and Cardiff South and Penarth, rather than those representing Kent constituencies; deplores the exploitation of a genuine local concern for party political purposes; and supports the honourable Member for Faversham in his long-standing campaign for improved hospital facilities for the people of Sheppey.]
Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the amendment reflects the widespread disgust of hon. Members at attempts to undermine a Member in his own constituency, particularly when it was known that that Member would be abroad on parliamentary business? Can my right hon. and learned Friend take steps through the usual channels to see that political rivalry does not descend into the gutter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The time I have had available in which to study the important text referred to by my hon. Friend is less than I would normally wish for. I shall certainly study the matter with care and reflect on what he said.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Apart from the hooliganism we have just seen on the Tory Benches, the Leader of the House will be aware that there was a great
804
deal of interest and controversy about potential hooliganism in Sardinia. Football is trying to eradicate this, but it cannot get a move on because the Home Office will not set up the Football Licensing Authority. Is he aware that it should have been set up earlier this year, but was postponed until 1 June? It is still not in being, but local police forces, clubs and councils want to spend cash and liaise. They are ready to prevent hooliganism next season, but they cannot do so because of the Government's incompetence. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least arrange for a statement to be made by the Home Secretary next week so that he can tell us what is happening?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's judgment. I hope that he shares the general contentment expressed in the House that the international machinery for the notification of offenders is in good working order, as seen by events in the past 48 hours. I shall bring his other points to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, but at least let us join in taking some comfort from what has already happened.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 1077 on freedom of speech in Turkey?
[That this House condemns the actions of the Government of Turkey in issuing decree 413 on 10th April which abolishes press freedom and introduces wide-scale censorship; notes that since its introduction reporting of Kurdish issues has been prevented, newspapers closed down and many journalists imprisoned; and demands that the British Government make representations to the Turkish Government demanding that a free press be allowed in Turkey.]
Will he, when he has read it, make arrangements for a debate in this House on the treatment of Kurdish people in Turkey and Iraq and, more importantly, the British Government's continued support of the Turkish Government, despite their oppression of Kurdish people, and their continued trading policies with Iraq, despite its use of chemical and biological weapons against the Kurdish people? Does he believe that those slurs on civilisation should be treated far more seriously than they have so far by the British Government and that the House should be given the opportunity to discuss them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I am not prepared to agree with the hon. Gentleman in all his remarks, we certainly understand the concern expressed in the motion at the restriction of press freedom in Turkey. We look to the Turkish Government to restore full press freedom as soon as possible.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for an improvement in postal services, particularly in London where we still have no Sunday collections although they operate in the rest of the country? We want such collections.
A debate on postal services would also give me the opportunity to bring before the House the need for better postal services in parts of west Ealing and Hanwell in my constituency. I could also draw attention to the aggravation and annoyance felt by elderly people in Northolt at Grange court——
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman should write to the local postmaster.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman does not care about elderly people, but I do. The post box used by those elderly people has been arbitrarily removed and that is forcing them to walk a mile or two across busy roads to the nearest post box. We should have a debate on postal services so that the House can consider those matters.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my hon. Friend in recognising the importance of the point he makes. He says that the House should consider those matters. No hon. Member is more adept than he at bringing such matters to the attention of the House.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1066, which stands in my name and that of several other hon. Members, which congratulates the Isle of Skye Camanachd Association on its first ever victory in the Camanachd Cup at the shinty final last weekend in Fort William? [That this House warmly congratulates the Skye Camanachd Association over its victory in the. final of the Camanachd Cup; notes that this is the first occasion in the history of the competition that the trophy has gone back to the Isle of Skye; hopes that this well-publicised and popular result will lead to a continuing increase in both interest and participation in the game of shinty; and expresses appreciation to Glenmorangie whisky for their valued sponsorship of the sport.]
Would the deputy Prime Minister care to add his congratulations to the team? But more important, will he tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer—given that the interest and participation in shinty is on the increase—that a popular move by the Government, and one which would encourage the game, would be to remove the imposition of VAT on the sale of shinty sticks?
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Hear, hear.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am only sorry that the sport is not as familiar to my countrymen in Wales as it obviously is to the occupants of the outer isles. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating Skye on its historic victory, but I do not think that those congratulations necessarily lead us to the conclusion that the entire structure of the VAT system should be transformed.
Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early statement to be made on the situation in Cambodia in the light of alarming reports coming from Oxfam and others of an offensive by
806
Khmer Rouge forces, who are getting close to Phnom Penh, with the horrific possibility that the vulnerable people of that area will again be overrun by the tyranny of Pol Pot?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House never misses an opportunity of expressing its revulsion for the tyranny of Pol Pot and his cronies, as the saying goes. I re-echo that sentiment and will draw the point that my hon. Friend makes to the attention of the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Allen McKay: It appears that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted, at any rate to a degree, the destructive element of poll tax and poll tax capping on the education and social welfare systems of local authorities. Will he make sure that the poll tax orders are debated by the House individually and separately?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall have to consider the best way of bringing those matters before the House when the time is right.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Could we at last have a debate on the state of the franchise? It is clear that the Government are involved in manipulating electoral registration. There is a problem, in that a Home Office circular issued on 1 May shows that it is possible to overcome the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1989, which established the extension of the franchise to many people overseas.
The imposition of the poll tax has resulted in 600,000 people not being on the electoral register who could be expected to be on it. The House should debate this serious matter and examine the evidence; it shows that a problem will arise at the next general election, which will not be based on the type of franchise to which we in this country have been used in the past.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter for the second time in as many weeks.
Mr. Skinner: What is wrong with that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is nothing wrong with it, but it shows that the hon. Gentleman has already found an opportunity to raise the matter. If it is as serious as he suggests, no doubt his right hon. Friends will arrange for it to be raised on an Opposition day. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the arrangements made for the extension of the overseas franchise, about which he seems to be concerned, were supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparbrook (Mr. Hattersley) arid the other main political parties.

Points of Order
4.24 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House announced that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would make a statement on his return from the important discussions in Brussels on the future of the British beef industry.
Surely it would be for the convenience of the whole House if that statement were made as soon as possible. I believe that discussions through the usual channels would show that we would agree to the statement being made as soon as the Minister is available, rather than waiting until some time after 10 o'clock tonight. We shall have to intervene in the business on the Food Safety Bill in any event because that business will not conclude at 10 o'clock. We should have a statement as soon as possible because the matter is of considerable importance to beef producers and, of course, to consumers of beef in this country and abroad.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has already been considered as far as it can be in the short time available. I understand that it would be out of accordance with the normal procedures of the House for proceedings on a Bill that is before the House to be interrupted by a statement of that kind. It was for that reason that I indicated that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would make a statement at the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Safety Bill. Of course, I am perfectly ready to look at any arrangements that can sensibly and effectively be made to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) but, as I understand it, that is not possible. I cannot take the matter any further at this stage.
Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said that we will have to intervene in the business at some time unless the statement is to come at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. We do not know when the business on the Food Safety Bill will finish; there is no guarantee that it will conclude at 10 o'clock. As there will be at least one Division at about 7 pm, that is likely to provide a natural break in the proceedings and it seems perfectly proper, possible and reasonable for us to have the statement then rather than in the early hours of the morning or during an intervention in the business at some artificial time. I cannot see what is wrong with my suggestion.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think it unlikely that my right hon. Friend will be back by 7 o'clock. I thought that I was meeting the convenience of the House by indicating that he would be looking for an early opportunity to make his statement. The time that I have suggested has been established as the most convenient, consistent with the normal practice of the House. Obviously I shall look at the matter again, because I do not want to give the impression that there is no alternative. I understand that the right time, subject to your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is at the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Safety Bill.
Mr. Bob Dunn: I should like to raise a point of order, details of which I gave you, Mr. Speaker, before today's proceedings. It relates to the protocol and
808
convention of the House about hon. Members taking up constituency issues in the constituencies of other hon. Members. There is an increasing tendency for Opposition Members to raise matters in the county of Kent in constituencies in which they have no standing or locus.
Question 53 on page 7561 of today's Order Paper was put down by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). In that question, the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise a constituency interest in the constituency of Dartford which I represent. He gave me no notice of this. He did not ask my permission, nor did he inform me of his intention, and that is important bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Dartford is raising the incident and issue with which the question is concerned with his usual robustness and vigour.
What protection can be afforded to hon. Members when hon. Members from other parties are not prepared to obey and conform to the usual protocol and conventions of the House? If the conventions are not obeyed, a tit-for-tat process is bound to emerge, to the detriment of all hon. Members, and we will descend into a form of parliamentary if not local anarchy, which would be much to the confusion of the people that we represent.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the convention, which I think the whole House appreciates, about going into the constituency of another hon. Member without letting him know. I do not think that there is anything which says that there is an absolute bar on putting down questions that might cover what is happening in another Member's constituency. It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman has been prosecuting this matter with vigour in his constituency. I suggest that he takes it up with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and draws it to his attention.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Well, we have a heavy day ahead of us.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you are in a position to help the House in relation to what the Leader of the House has said—that, in his opinion, it is not procedurally possible to intervene in the course of debate on the Food Safety Bill in order to have a statement. If that is the case, then that ends the matter.
You, Mr. Speaker, could help by indicating whether that is acceptable. Most hon. Members will recollect that on Fridays it is quite normal for the proceedings to be interrupted at 11 o'clock for private notice questions or statements, whether the House is engaged on private Members' business or on a Bill. In order to further discussions that have taken place through the usual channels, may we have your guidance on what is possible?
Mr. Speaker: I am prepared to give my guidance. Statements are normally made at 3.30 pm or at 11 am on Friday. It would be exceptional to interrupt the business in the middle of a debate to make a statement unless the matter was of such urgency that it could not wait. That has rarely happened. I appreciate that it may be for the convenience of the House if the statement is made at a natural interruption of business this evening, and I judge from what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said to the Leader of the House that discussions about this are going on through the usual channels. Such a request has not yet been made to me, and

809
I imagine that it will be, when the discussions end. However, it would be exceptional to interrupt the business of the House at 7 o'clock just because it suited the people concerned. We must stick to our rules.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This concerns the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), which shocked many hon. Members, bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave no notification of his interest in a constituency matter of my hon. Friend. Will you guide us further? In your initial response, you spoke with great emphasis, but there appears to be a vague feeling that hon. Members notify other hon. Members of a visit to a constituency only if they are in the same party. That seems rather extraordinary. Will you confirm that the conventional courtesy is that hon. Members notify parliamentary colleagues, irrespective of party, of a prospective visit to a constituency?
I had an example in my constituency last year, when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) went to my constituency without notifying me of his visit, and said that he intended to do the same on many other occasions.
Mr. Speaker: It has long been the convention of the House that hon. Members visiting other Members'constituencies should notify them of such visits. I hope that the House will keep to the conventions because they have arisen so as to ensure good order, and good relationships between Members of Parliament.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner, as he has been mentioned.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We all know what those thin-skinned people on the Tory Benches do not know, which is that Ministers go to our constituencies. One went to mine recently, and never told me about it. He made a diversion from north-east Derbyshire, called in to Bolsover, and did not even tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). We did not get het up about it, and we did not come to complain to you, Mr. Speaker, because we do not think that it is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who represents Windscale, or Sellafield, finds that his constituency is mentioned regularly by hon. Members on both sides of the House. People visit it. According to the adverts, Members of Parliament from all over the place go there every week. It is a free country. Some of us travel around to spread a message that is contrary to that spread by the Tory party.
Several of my hon. Friends raised a point about the appalling practices of British Airways at Heathrow. Are we expected not to mention it? Are we supposed to tell those on strike, "Sorry, we cannot find the Member of Parliament who represents the area"? I went to Wapping God knows how many times. Do you mean to tell me that I should have gone to see somebody every time, Mr. Speaker? It is a joke.
Mr. Speaker: It may be a joke, but it is also a convention. There is a distinction between visiting a constituency on a general matter and visiting it in connection with a matter of specific constituency interest. The good sense of the House can determine the difference.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your advice about another parliamentary convention. I believe that this is a matter directly for you.
This place works on the basis of parties, which enjoy certain privileges. Several times this week, Mr. Speaker, you have been questioned about the implications of the Social Democratic party dissolving and becoming a campaign for social democracy. Hitherto, two SDP Members of Parliament—the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) and for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright)—have enjoyed opportunities to speak frequently so as to express their party's view. Their leader, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), has frequently caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, at Prime Minister's Question Time and on other occasions. Will you reflect on that in the future, and can you advise us whether independent Members, representing an independent SDP and a campaign outside the House, will continue to enjoy the privileges that they have enjoyed in the past?
Mr. Speaker: When a party is dissolved, it is dissolved. Without going too deeply into how my discretion is exercised in the matter, let me say that I should have to look on those involved as individual Members. I am not quite certain that a campaign is a party——
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have not finished yet. On reflection, perhaps I have.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I interrupt you briefly? There is money involved. The SDP was an organised party, and was allocated Short money to finance its position in the House. With its dissolution, and its change to a campaign, surely that money should be refunded and any outstanding payments cancelled to ensure that the Short money does not go to a party that is not in existence.
Mr. Speaker: That will be a matter for the authorities of the House, and I understand that discussions are in progress.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    PENSIONERS' TELEVISION LICENCES
    Mr. Keith Vaz presented a Bill to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to exempt persons of pensionable age from paying the full fee for certain wireless telegraphy licences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Home-Grown Cereals Authority Oilseeds Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That European Community Documents Nos. 7398/88 and 4218/90, relating to voting rights for Community nationals in local elections in their Member State of residence, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day
  Food Safety Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Food Safety Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      PROHIBITION OF IRRADIATION
      '.—(1) Nothing in section 17(1) shall be taken to confer any power on the Ministers to make regulations permitting, whether or not subject to conditions, the irradiation of food intended for sale or for human consumption; or the sale or preparation of such food.'.—[Dr. David Clark.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.36 pm
      Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 7—

      FOOD IRRADIATION COMMISSION
      '.—(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Food Irradiation Commission ("the Commission") to perform the functions assigned to the Commission by or under this section.
      (2) The members of the Commission, of whom there shall be not less than ten, shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate, and shall include at least one representative each from a consumers' organisation and from a food enforcement authority.
      (3) The Commission shall give advice to the Minister on matters relating to the implementation of this section or the exercise of any power conferred by it, or otherwise relating to food irradiation, where the Commission consider it expedient, or they are requested by the Minister to do so.
      (4) The Commission shall have a duty to examine all matters relating to food irradiation and shall draw up a plan to do so.
      (5) The plan established under subsection (4) above shall include—

      (a) measures to establish the effects of irradiation on pesticide residues and other toxins in food;

      (b) measures to establish the effects of irradiation on vitamin content and nutritional value of food;

      (c) measures to establish the effects of irradiation on food additives and food packaging material;

      (d) measures to establish a diagnostic test to determine whether food has been subject to irradiation;

      (6) No regulations under this Act authorising the irradiation of food shall be made before the results of the plan established under subsection (4) above have been published and such plan has been subject to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament.'.
      Dr. Clark: We are discussing the Bill at a most appropriate time, when the entire country's attention is focused on food safety as a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—the mad cow scare—and the Minister's efforts in Brussels, to which we shall refer later this evening.
      If we had not had the BSE scare, probably one of the most contentious issues relating to food safety would have been food irradiation. As Opposition Members have made clear, we welcomed the Government's intention and efforts in bringing forward the Bill. We did not vote against it on Second Reading, although we generally felt that it did not go far or fast enough; we had a useful and constructive

      813
      Committee stage, in which we made progress. However, the one issue that deeply divided the two sides of the House was food irradiation.
      Food irradiation is a technology looking for a use. For the past 50 years, it has been hawked around the world as a panacea for food poisoning. The British Government have sacked thousands of scientists in food and agricultural research; have cut the number of vets employed by the state by 27 per cent.; have allowed the shortage of environmental health officers to amount to more than 420; have closed research stations; and have weakened regulations. That has resulted in an inevitable food poisoning epidemic. In their desperation, the Government have jumped on the irradiation bandwagon. They see it as the easiest route out of their self-created problem. It is their magic quick fix. However, their actions are wrong, for a number of reasons.
      It is ironic that, as the rest of the world begins to turn its back on irradiation, our hard-pressed and desperate Government have seized on the technology as a drowning man clutches at a straw.
      It is interesting that even in Europe, where tentative steps have been taken towards Europeanwide legislation that is the only sensible approach in the long term—there have been difficulties. The European Commission put forward limited proposals for irradiation—much more limited than those that the Government are proposing. The European Parliament rejected them. The Commission has now put forward even more limited proposals. It is rather strange that our Government, alone in Europe, appear to be rushing headlong into adopting legislation.
      When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will tell us why the Government have announced their intention to proceed with legislation on food irradiation even before the draft directive has been agreed in Europe. It is nonsensical. Why jump the gun? Why do the Government want private investors to invest in very expensive irradiation plants when the European Community may make the process illegal? I draw the Minister's attention to the House of Lords Select Committee report published on 12 December 1989. There is a weakness in the Government's case that highlights their desperation to find a way out of their problems with food poisoning.
      The Opposition have fundamental objections to irradiation and we oppose it for a number of reasons, many of which we have outlined previously in the House and in Committee. The first and possibly the greatest weakness in the case for irradiation is the fact that there is no test. It is illogical to allow a scientific process that even the Government and the European Community accept can be dangerous if too high levels of irradiation are used. If it cannot be told whether a product has been irradiated, the extent of the irradiation cannot be measured. That is a basic weakness which makes the whole process potentially dangerous.
      Re-irradiation is even more dangerous. The kilograys are cumulative. If food is irradiated at 10 kilograys—the maximum permitted by the EEC—and then it is done again, that makes 20 kilograys, which is above the safety level. There is no way to test whether the food has been irradiated. That is the most basic weakness in the case for irradiation.
      We are constantly told that irradiation is a well-known, well-established science, although I believe that much of the information relating to it is rather sketchy at times and
      814
      selective. Much of the science of irradiation was carried out many years ago and much of the new information coming on stream casts doubt on the process. For example, we do not know sufficient about the effects of food irradiation on pesticides, food additives or food packaging. There are more and more complicated chemical cocktails in our pesticides. We hope that they are more effective and, indeed, more environmentally friendly. Certainly, we should be trying to achieve that. However, many of the pesticides leave persistent residues on the skin of the food. We do not know the effect of irradiation on the chemical cocktails that make up those pesticides. We may know the effect of irradiation in isolation, but not in a mixture.
      4.45 pm
      That view is held by the Department's scientists. 'We often hear Ministers saying that they always take the advice of their scientists. We know that that is not the case—they are most selective and take advice only when it suits them and saves them money. The Department's research consultative committee's residues sub-group expressed concern about
      "the irradiation of commodities which contained pesticide residues and associated inert substances and the possibility of these residues being transformed into more toxic radiolytic products."
      I hope that the Minister will think again about that aspect of irradiation and, for once, listen to his scientists. If he has better scientific advice than that, perhaps he can tell us what it is.
      Another basic objection to irradiation involves the argument that it can be used to clean up contaminated food. Conservative Members who are in favour of the technology say that that is impossible. Not only can we challenge that argument but we can give chapter and verse of food that was presented as good food when previously it had been condemned as unfit. I do not want to bore the House, but it is important to put it on the record because we are having some difficulty in persuading Conservative Members that it happened. Bad food can be dressed up as good food.
      I shall cite an example that has been proven in the courts of law in this country. In 1986 Young's found that prawns that it had imported did not match its public health standards. It sent the prawns to Gammaster's in Holland for a quick fix—they were irradiated—and they were then re-imported. They passed the bacteriological tests and were sold for human consumption. That is a proven case.
      There are many other examples that have not yet been proved. Indeed, I informed the Minister's predecessor of a number of specific cases. I accept that it is difficult to get the cases to stand up in a court of law. However, it is a widespread technique that is known in the trade as "Dutching". If that sort of abuse happens when irradiation is illegal, I find it hard to believe that it would not continue if irradiation were legal. Irradiation will become the charter for the food cowboys. It is for that reason that most of the reputable food processors and food retailers in Britain will not touch irradiation with a bargepole. They reject it because not only do they believe that their food is safe, but they know that their consumers will reject it.
      The other argument is that if we accept irradiation there will be no incentive for the food processors to follow the good and proper hygiene practices that are so necessary

      815
      and that we intend to espouse if the Bill is enacted—for example, training, handling, and ensuring that the whole food chain is subject to good hygiene practices. Irradiation will lull people into a sense of false security. There is no alternative to properly organised and structured hygiene standards.
      To make matters even worse, none of the recent incidents of food poisoning could have been prevented by irradiation. I use the word "incidents" as opposed to "scares" because "scares" implies that nothing happened. In these incidents people have tragically died. That is not media hype; it is fact. Therefore, let us consider some of the incidents and see whether irradiation could have tackled the problem.
      The first great incident happened just 18 months ago when the then Under-Secretary of State for Health made her famous—or infamous—statement about eggs. That was the salmonella incident when we had the whole debate about chickens. The truth is that irradiation would not have helped one iota. Eggs cannot be irradiated. The Government took the right approach by tackling the disease at source and in that they had the Opposition's support. We are pleased that they took that approach. Equally, it is difficult to irradiate chickens. The European Commission has dropped the concept of irradiating chickens. Sliced chickens can be irradiated, but not whole chickens without exceeding the safety levels of kilograys.
      Of late, we have also heard a great deal about cheeses. About 15 months ago the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food threatened to ban soft cheeses from France because they carried listeria. The French Minister of Agriculture put pressure on him and our Minister caved in to that French pressure. History has repeated itself today.
      What did we hear on Friday? Did the Minister intend to retaliate and ban French cheeses? No. He told the Tory Euro Members of Parliament, "We are not quite sure." But the newspapers had the story that we would take action against potentially dangerous French cheeses. The argument was—there is a certain logic in it—that many French cheeses are made from unpasteurised milk and there is some evidence that they could carry listeria. The matter is so serious that the American Government will not allow any soft French cheeses to enter America unless they are certified to be made from pasteurised milk. According to the American Government scientist, there is a safety risk, but irradiation would not help that one iota because cheese cannot be irradiated.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) was very involved in the environmental health officers' discovery of contaminated pate from Belgium on sale in a supermarket in his constituency. But pate cannot be irradiated, so that would not have helped.
      I could go on. We know that irradiation can kill bacteria, but it does not remove the toxins that are left behind in the food and in some cases it may not kill the spores that they form. There is an argument that killing the bacteria and leaving a sterile environment creates the conditions for new bacteria to breed in greater confusion. That argument applies if food has too long a shelf life.
      There was the case of botulism in hazelnut yogurt. But that was due to toxins, not in the yogurt but in the purée, so irradiation could not have been used in that case where, tragically, two people died.
      In the last 10 days my constituency has been affected by the shellfish issue. As the Minister knows, there has been
      816
      a little controversy about that. When it was drawn to the Department of Health's attention that mussels off my constituency, which usually have a safety level of 400, were found to have a level of 20,000, it rightly issued warnings about their safety and urged people not to sell them. However, the Ministry did not excel itself, because it took seven days to publish the result of tests on other shellfish, crabs, lobsters and prawns, during which time the livelihood of many fishermen was put at risk.
      But the point is that if any of those shellfish had been irradiated, even if they had been just above the safety level, they would not have been made safe because the contamination is the result not of bacteria but of toxins, and irradiation cannot kill toxins. The significance of that is that it is often argued that the real benefit of irradiation would be in the shellfish industry. Yes, it would kill the bacteria, but it would not kill the toxins which, by and large, are the fatal element in shellfish poisoning. That is why a major shellfish retailer, Mr. Ken Bell, in Newcastle has launched, at considerable expense, a long campaign against irradiation. When I asked why, he said that his shellfish were clean and good and that he could guarantee them. He did not believe that he needed to irradiate them in order to sell them. He believes that irradiation would diffuse the shellfish market because some cowboys would bring in shellfish which appeared to be clean but which were not, as happened in the 1986 Young's case—a proven case which no one can challenge.
      Let me make one obvious point which must be made because some people are under an illusion. Irradiation would do nothing to kill the BSE agent causing mad cow disease.
      As we press ahead with the move towards irradiation, other countries are turning their backs on it. Australia, which used to have irradiation, now has a three-year moratorium on it. Numerous states in the United States of America are now banning irradiation. It is often alleged that irradiation is widespread in the United States of America, but in most states it is illegal and most people do not realise that it is licensed for only two ranges of products—spices and tropical fruit. Irradiation is not used for any other products in the United States. Recently, Sweden has also announced a ban on the process. Tragically, as the rest of the world moves in one direction, the British Government move in the opposite direction—the wrong direction. The Government have taken that action because it is more palatable than the situation in which they now find themselves.
      Mr. Conal Gregory: I have listened patiently, as have other right hon. and hon. Members, to the hon. Gentleman, who has been quick to make assertions but—surprisingly, in view of the length of notice of this debate—whose speech has been sadly lacking in detail. If he agrees that 50 to 60 per cent. of all food poisoning cases reported involve poultry, can he counter the comment made by no less a distinguished person than Professor Bevan Moseley, head of Reading food research institute, that the number of food poisoning cases in the United Kingdom could fall to 60 per cent. of the present number if irradiation is introduced? On the findings of which scientists do the Opposition base their arguments?
      5 pm
      Dr. Clark: Obviously the hon. Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not given precise details because on Second Reading, in previous debates in the House, and in the Standing Committee on the Bill on 27 March, I quoted a number of scientists. I did not wish to labour that particular point again today. I have my doubts about the information that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) gave. It is generally alleged that most food poisoning incidents of late were related to eggs. I also repeat that even the European Commission now says that whole chickens cannot be irradiated because the bone interferes with the process. One can irradiate sliced chicken, but that is only a partial answer. The real answer is a proper hygiene code.
      The Government are obsessed with irradiation because they cannot face up to the alternative of a complete U-turn. They will have to increase the number of state vets, whose numbers have been cut by 27 per cent. since the Government came to office in 1979. The Government will have to do something about training and finance for the environmental health service, which is currently 420 officers under strength. They will also have to do something about trading standards officers, who are currently 300 under strength. The Government will have to do something about bringing together new groups and teams of research scientists, so that problems can be tackled at the root, and about introducing tough new regulations to protect public health. The Government are not prepared to make a U-turn because that will cost them money—even though they know that they are putting the health of the public at risk by neglecting to make that U-turn. They turn instead to irradiation.
      Irradiation is the only option that the Government will entertain. They view it as a cheap option, but it is one which nobody wants. Many reputable organisations oppose irradiation. The list goes on and on. They include the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the British Medical Association, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Consumer Association, most food retailers, and even the National Farmers Union.
      I conclude with the most telling point of all, made by the technical executive of Marks and Spencer, Dr. Tom Clayton, who encapsulated the argument against irradiation best when he said:
      "If food is already safe, as we believe it is, in our shops, there is no need for this extra process of irradiation."
      And he is absolutely right.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: Throughout the progress of the Food Safety Bill, irradiation is the topic that has most taken up the time of right hon. and hon. Members in expressing their concern, yet the Government have consistently shrugged off those concerns and clung to their own starting point—the argument that irradiation is not only safe but to be welcomed.
      By doing so, the Government are flying in the face of the British Medical Association, public opinion, and evidence of the practice in other countries. It is hard to understand why they are taking such a hard line when there is no need to hurry. They are pushing through the introduction of a process that has not been fully researched, for which scientific evidence is not complete, and for which no diagnostic test has been developed for ascertaining whether the process is being abused by those with access to it.
      818
      Throughout our debates, I and other hon. Members have tabled amendments to meet the Government half way. We tried to place restrictions on the use of irradiation and to ensure that it is not introduced short of the introduction of techniques that will reassure the public that it is safe. The Government have resisted them all throughout. I tabled an amendment requiring novel food processes to be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses. Another sought to list specific areas of concern that needed to be identified before irradiation is allowed and in which there remains some doubt. I refer to the lack of a diagnostic test, the effect of irradiation on pesticide residues and other toxins, food additives and food packaging materials, and vitamins. Another amendment would have delayed the introduction of regulations until the European Community had agreed a common position.
      I support Labour's new clause I, and I have tabled one of my own that is intended to achieve the same effect, although in a different form. No doubt the Minister will argue that the new clauses would serve no useful purpose and that plenty of evidence is already available. We have already heard from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that many questions hang over existing evidence and over other matters that the Government prefer to brush aside. The Minister must accept that other countries and many scientific bodies believe that the available evidence is still open to doubt or is against him, and that there is no pressing, urgent case for the early introduction of irradiation. The Minister may feel that the balance of opinion is the other way and that there are advantages in pressing ahead, but he cannot deny that there is a case to be made against doing so. Why should not the proposed new clauses be acceptable?
      Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have quoted the evidence of the World Health Organisation in supporting their determination to force through legislation on food irradiation, while conveniently ignoring experts who urge caution. I draw the Minister's attention to what the European Parliament had to say on the matter, and to the publisher's note on the book "Food Irradiation Now", which appeared at the request of the WHO. It said:
      "But WHO expressly stated that the Committee of Experts had not considered the general safety aspects of the food irradiation process nor had it claimed that food irradiation was safe or that it had no harmful effects on human health or could be applied without any health risks. After a general survey, however, the Committee of Experts have come to certain conclusions on the toxicological, microbiological and physiological acceptability of food irradiated with a total dose of up to 10 kGy."
      That is not wholehearted endorsement. The WHO is drawing attention to the fact that it was anything but a wholehearted endorsement—that the committee was satisfied only in respect of certain criteria relating to some aspects of irradiation that it had been asked to examine. That is not sufficiently reassuring to embark on the kind of changes now envisaged.
      The European Parliament has expressed many concerns regarding irradiation. It said that, despite decades of research, it was not possible to prove that food irradiation caused no harm to health. It pointed out that practically all scientific studies admit a considerable degree of uncertainty as regards effects on human health, and that, it is not possible to prove that food has been irradiated, because there is no technical means of checking. It pointed out that, as a method of conservation, irradiation is no

      819
      better or cheaper than other methods. Technological improvements to certain foods are of interest to manufacturers but not to consumers.
      The Parliament also pointed out that the use of the technology involved is potentially more dangerous than other types of conservation, at least to employees exposed to risk in the plants, especially in the Third world. Incidentally, irradiation encourages the spread of nuclear technology outside the states that currently make use of it. It pointed out that irradiation can be used to deceive consumers about the freshness or ripeness of food. The microbicidal effect of irradiation varies considerably, and may lead to an increase in germs. It pointed out that the desired objectives of food irradiation can be achieved by other methods, and that it does not provide greater protection for consumers against spoiled food.
      If that list of objections is not enough, I shall add another, which should be on the Minister's plate: recently the European Parliament voted by 263 votes to 66 against irradiation. As an EC country, Britain is not allowed to introduce legislation on a subject on which there is a directive pending or when the EC has said that it will legislate, so the Government would be breaking the spirit of that rule by pushing through legislation now.
      I cannot understand how, in the face of the bulk of that evidence and of evidence from the British Medical Association, from environmental health officers, trading standards officers and the National Farmers Union, the Minister can still say that he believes that irradiation is proven to be absolutely safe. Until it is, the House should not pass legislation to allow irradiation to go ahead. The old adage, "If in doubt, don't", should apply.
      I am glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed those doubts and I hope that they will do so again tonight, if the Minister pushes the new clauses to a vote and does not accept the case that is being made. I hope that hon. Members will show that what they have said outside this place applies when it comes to a vote inside the House.
      I hope that the Minister, at the last minute, will recognise that none of that is necessary. He simply has to swallow his pride and do something to respect and respond to the concerns of consumers, most of the scientific bodies and many people in the industry.
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: I support new clause 1 and the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democratic party, which goes into somewhat more detail. Both are a step in the right direction.
      Like the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), I am amazed at the obsessive determination of the Government, who have an almost evangelical zeal for irradiation. We have heard it from the Secretary of State and from the Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. Friend said that perhaps it is a panacea for the Government; because we do not have enough environmental health officers or Ministry vets, they may see irradiation as the answer. However, it seems to go beyond that because they argue the case for irradiation with passionate concern.
      In a press release the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking on 1 March at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's food science laboratory in Norwich, used these words:
      820
      "A torrent of pseudo-science … science fiction … myth from publicity conscious activists in the media and elsewhere who are anxious to foist a particular viewpoint on to the public".
      That is dramatic language when talking about something like food irradiation.
      Who are the people to whom the Parliamentary Secretary is referring? The Consumers Association—I know that the Government do not particularly like that association but it is vocal on behalf of consumers. Who else? The National Federation of Meat Traders, and who knows more about meat than that federation? It is opposed to irradiation. The British Medical Association is opposed to it, and what organisation knows more about the health of the nation than the BMA? The environmental health officers—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said—are opposed and they are the watchdogs whose duty it is to protect public health and to protect people from bad food. They are violently opposed to irradiation. Who else? The National Federation of Women's Institutes—that revolutionary body of pseudo-scientists—opposes irradiation. It is not only the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats; as the Minister knows, many people are seriously concerned that the Government are trying to foist food irradiation upon an unwilling public.
      I hope that the Minister will think again about new clause 1 and that some Conservative Members will come into the Lobby and vote for the clause—I am sure that many of them will. This is hardly a party political matter. The Government have made it that, not the Opposition. I am certain that many Conservative Members feel let down by their Front Bench spokesmen because of the Government's evangelical zeal for irradiation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields listed many of the faults of irradiation. We are worried because it is uncertain and not sufficiently tried, tested and proven. Perhaps at some future date experiments will be done to make it safe, but we do not know whether it is safe at the moment.
      5.15 pm
      My main worry is the lack of detection for irradiation. The Government must admit that food irradiation can mask bad food, although the food may look all right. At present the housewife or purchaser can look at the food and say, "That looks off to me and I am not going to buy it". However, irradiated food looks in pristine health and consumers buy it as a result. If bad money can drive out good, bad food can drive out good food if irradiation is allowed.
      I know that the Minister will say that irradiated food must be labelled by the shopkeeper. However, I have not had an answer to the point I raised on Second Reading about cafés and restaurants. If irradiated food is cheaper, the proprietors will buy it and they will not have two separate lists saying that this food is irradiated while that food is not. They will not tell their customers. Therefore, the consumer in the café will not know what he is eating and whether it is irradiated.
      There will be no test whereby public health inspectors can detect whether food is irradiated. Nobody can tell how many times food has been irradiated. No one can tell the dosage of radiation. Before one allows irradiated food, it is essential that we know all those things. There must be a detection test, or we will be wholly dependent on the honesty and good will of the retailer, trader or café

      821
      The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) mentioned food poisoning and quoted an eminent scientist who said that the number of cases would be halved with irradiation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields answered that point. I did not know, and I do not think many hon. Members knew, that the only foods allowed to be irradiated in the United States of America are spices and tropical fruits. Can the Minister tell us how many cases of food poisoning and how many deaths have arisen because people have eaten spices or tropical fruit? They are not the causes of the trouble—it is such food as chicken, eggs and cheese, which cannot be irradiated. That is where the mischief is—not in spices and tropical fruit. If necessary, spices could have irradiation treatment. I understand that at the end of 1990 the present methods of making spices safe, using ethlyene oxide, will cease. Irradiation may be the answer, but it is not the only answer. I understand that the recent discovery and adoption by market leaders of a new steam pasteurisation process eliminates the use of ethylene oxide.
      Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to listen to public opinion outside and to responsible organisations. They are not wild men but responsible organisations such as the National Federation of Meat Traders, the British Medical Association, the Consumers Association and the National Federation of Women's Institutes. If the Government will not listen to Opposition Members, they should listen to those organisations, and if they will not listen to them, will they please look behind them and listen to the voices that no doubt will be raised in the debate bitterly opposed to the foisting of irradiation on consumers and food in Britain?
      Mr. Gregory: This evening we are having an important debate on irradiation, but the speeches from Opposition Members have not been of the substance and quality that one might expect. We have heard a great deal of assertion and have seen a Luddite attitude which will come over clearly to those who follow our debates. However, if we introduce some common sense and scientific thought rather than allegation, we shall put the subject in its rightful context.
      The first point on which I support my hon. Friend the Minister is that we are discussing an enabling piece of legislation. It is not forcing irradiation on anyone. Quite clearly, my hon. Friend is looking to those in the industry to introduce adequate tests. I share the concern of right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House about the inadequacy of tests at present and would not wish regulations to be put before the House until trading standards officers and environmental health officers, whom we rightly expect to implement the law passed in this country, should have the ability to check whether food has been irradiated. My hon. Friend has said in the House and in Committee that irradiated food will be labelled. The absence of such a label means that food has not been through that process.
      The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred obliquely to his concern about restaurants. A restaurateur would be required to identify those items on the menu that had been irradiated. Irradiation has been shown to be extremely useful in dealing with bacteria, particularly salmonella and listeria. Bacteria is all around us and irradiation is useful in killing or greatly reducing micro-organisms in poultry meat and some shellfish.
      822
      I imagine that a number of right hon. and hon. Members are old enough to remember the argument used against the pasteurisation of milk—that it would lead to a relaxation in efforts to reduce cattle disease. But the 3 per cent. of milk that remained unpasteurised was responsible for some 90 per cent. of milk-borne disease. Personally, I would rather herbs and spices were irradiated than put through the present procedures, although industry is looking carefully at that, and I should also feel happier about poultry products that had been irradiated. However, the shopper and the customer in the restaurant will have the choice; we are not forcing irradiation upon them.
      Toxicological, microbiological and nutritional effects of irradiation have been studied extensively, and references have been made to a number of United Kingdom scientific committees. The World Health Organisation, the Food and Drugs Administration, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes show that irradiation has been tried and tested for decades. So we are not talking about a development that has occurred in the past few years; one has to go back to the 1920s when the process was invented. I understand that the 1991 mission into space—the Anglo-Soviet Juno flight—will carry irradiated food because the scientists advising those astronauts consider it the safest form of food.
      I share the concern of those who expressed reservations about vitamin loss through irradiation, but clearly the process is favourable, in that it extends storage time. Many of us may have purchased food which, even within its storage life, has not lasted long. Had it been irradiated, those difficulties would not have occurred. Quite clearly, irradiation cannot improve the appearance of food, disguise taste or mask unpleasant odours. In all those respects, food manufacturers, retailers and restaurateurs will be careful before utilising the process.
      In conclusion, we are talking about enabling legislation and we should get some common sense into our debate. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will not put regulations before the House until adequate tests are in place. It is the right way forward to encourage industry to develop those tests and to ensure that trading standards officers and environmental health officers can enforce them. We should not adopt a Luddite attitude by putting our heads in the sand and saying that we shall throw out irradiation and join the extremely small group of countries that will not permit the procedure.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I apologise to my namesake, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), for jumping in ahead of him. I also apologise to hon. Members who have participated in debates in Committee and throughout the proceedings on the Bill for intervening at such a late stage, but as a former consumer protection Minister, I cannot allow the Bill to complete its proceedings without intervening briefly to raise a couple of points.
      I was most impressed by the speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) who introduced the new clauses. Contrary to what the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said, I thought that all three hon. Gentlemen spoke with great moderation. There is no doubt about the sincerity of the points they raised, and

      823
      they expressed them with great moderation and no attempt at scaremongering. The hon. Member for York and I have debated consumer affairs for many years, and we are often on the same side. I hope that he will not be offended when I say that the speech that he has just made does him the least justice of any I have heard him make.
      The hon. Member accused my hon. Friends of being Luddite and then adopted their arguments. He said that it is Luddite not to permit irradiation, but that we should not introduce regulations until we can monitor them properly. I am sure that he was listening to my hon. Friends, but my understanding was that they were making exactly that point time and again. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that monitoring was essential. If the hon. Member for York adopts the criterion that we should not introduce irradiation until it can be monitored, he should agree that that cannot be undertaken while there is a shortage of 400 environmental health officers and 300 trading standards officers. When those services have been working to full establishment, they are overstretched in the range of their responsibilities. Even on his own basic criterion, the hon. Member for York has been making the same case that we have been trying to make—it is impossible to monitor irradiation.
      It is bad enough when something unimportant is impossible to monitor. There are many rules and regulations that we should like to see enforced, but we recognise that they are not of fundamental importance. But in this case we are dealing with health, even with life and death. When public health is genuinely at risk, the benefit of the doubt must always be given to the consumer and to the public. Again, my hon. Friends have been trying to make that point. The Minister has argued at various stages that it is a matter of choice and that people will have a choice because irradiated food will be labelled.
      5.30 pm
      Good firms will label food but, as my hon. Friends have said, such firms will probably not need to use irradiated food. However, there is no choice if people do not know whether food has been irradiated, and there can be no knowledge where there is no monitoring and no way of testing. How can one have monitoring, for which the hon. Member for York called, if one cannot test? If he and I were to go to a restaurant after the debate to discuss our differences amicably, we could eat a meal of irradiated food and yet be utterly unaware of what we were consuming.
      That in itself should be sufficient to cause any serious Minister to step back and to say, "Have we got it wrong?" Other people are willing to admit that they are wrong, so I hope that even at this stage—the consequences of getting it wrong are so serious—the Minister will be willing to recognise that he, rather than hon. Members who have been criticising him, is the one who is out of step.
      Other countries are turning back, or saying that they must go no further and should have a moratorium. Other hon. Members have pointed out the severe limitation on the extent of irradiation in the United States, the most open market in the world. That should lead the Minister to realise that there is sufficient doubt about the scientific validity of irradiation for him to say that we should put irradiation aside.
      824
      We must think of the dangers implicit in going ahead. We are on the verge of 1992, with its acceleration of uniform rules, regulations and standards. Anyone investing in those processes who saw a 4:1 vote against irradiation in the European Parliament, who saw the European Commission watering down its proposals at each successive stage as it got cold feet, and who realised that the proposal for irradiation would not get through would know that he had to make a rate of return quickly. It may happen that, despite the Minister, Europe will declare irradiation illegal after 1992 and, after all, there is already a draft directive. In a few years, decisions will be made by a majority vote, and Ministers will no longer have a veto. That will be an incitement to those who invest in the equipment and processes necessary for irradiation to ensure that they get a return as quickly as they can.
      In the food industry, as in any other, there are many good people, but there are also some villains. Those villains could poison people and could cause enormous damage to public health. The food industry is competitive and the aim is to operate at minimum cost, especially at the quick food end, which has a consumer body of youngsters and children. The quick food industry caters for the most vulnerable and those who have the least experience on which to judge what is safe, yet it is the area most likely to be persuaded to use cheaper, irradiated products. There is danger to the public here, which the Minister appears to be utterly unwilling to address.
      New clause 7 proposes a commission. I want to make a rather technical point which is relevant to the proposal. Whether such a commission makes sense depends on the Government machinery within which it operates. As a result of food poisoning and the various scares over the past couple of years, there has been talk of a Ministry of Food as opposed to a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is a misguided approach—and I go further. What is needed is a separate Ministry of Consumer Interests and Affairs.
      I do not say that because I am a former Minister in the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. The Ministry in which I served lasted for six years and then ceased to exist for a reason that would apply to a Ministry of Food. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members do not seem to want to listen. I was describing my experience of operating within a Department and trying to achieve some of the benefits that we all want for our constituents. The Department was too narrowly based to be viable in the long term and there was not sufficient work load to sustain it. It did not have responsibility for food, as I should have liked. The same would happen to a Ministry of Food.
      I gladly support the commission to deal with irradiation, as proposed in new clause 7. New clause 6 also suggests a monitoring organisation. By the time such organisations had been established, there would be limited work for a Ministry to carry out. However, the paradox is that, if those organisations are to be effective, they need a Minister at Cabinet level able to argue the consumers' case on an equal footing with the sponsoring Ministers arguing the industry's case. Although I support as a step the proposal for the commission and for the monitoring organisation, I ask Opposition Members, when considering the framework of Government that they would like to see, and I ask Conservative Members, to consider the possibility that what is needed is not a narrowly based and

      825
      probably non-viable Ministry of Food, but a more widely based Ministry of Consumer Protection, with far wider interests.
      Mr. David Ashby: To some extent, I agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about the idea of a watchdog and protector of consumer affairs who is concerned not only with food, but with consumer affairs in the widest sense. This country lacks a Ralph Nader. He was uncomfortable to many and caused many problems, but he did a good job in America. However, that is an argument for another place, for another time and, perhaps, on another Bill.
      We have seen many scare tactics and misunderstandings about irradiation and about the purpose of the Bill. To understand irradiation and what it entails, we should consider the title of the Bill. Clause 7 creates an offence of rendering food "injurious to health" and refers to
      "Any person who renders any food injurious to health by means of any of the following operations".
      They arc set out fully, and they include
      "abstracting any constituent from the food; and subjecting food to any other process or treatment."
      That is apart from other substances. That matter is at the heart of the Bill.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) rightly said, food irradiation is an old process. It started in the 1920s—it has been around a long time. It is part of many processes to make food good and wholesome, and it must be considered as a process alongside all the other processes. No doubt, if we went back to the early days of food canning—we may have to go back to Mrs. Beeton's days—I am sure that people would say, "We shall get food poisoning. It will not last. People will be very ill." I have not looked at the relevant Hansard, but I am sure that such a thought must have prevailed. We also have vacuum-packaging processes and gas treatments such as flushing. Some fruits are kept in inert gases such as nitrogen to preserve them. There are many processes, and irradiation is just another process.
      Why are we so worried? We are told that irradiation does not deal with toxins, for example. If we were to can food that contained toxins, it would not make it any better. Even after the treatments that I have discussed, toxins would still remain in bad food. Why single out irradiation because it does not deal with toxins?
      Irradiation does not make bad food good. It is an expensive way of dealing with bad food. The discerning housewife or restaurateur will not buy bad food because he or she demands food of high quality. However, irradiation may make bad food safe. That is another matter. By destroying biological processes, irradiation may destroy salmonella and various other things and render food safe, but it probably will not render it palatable. It will not make it the sort of food that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I would wish to eat, but it will make it safe.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that food that is going bad should be irradiated and sold''
      Mr. Ashby: Of course I am not. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my argument he would know that. That remark is typical of the silly remarks that Opposition Members make. It is a red herring—I suppose it is an irradiated red herring.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: A pinkish herring.
      Mr. Ashby: As the hon. Gentleman says, a pinkish herring. It makes nonsense of the argument that it creates good food—it does not. Bad food does not become good food as a result of irradiation, but it could become safe food. It is perfectly clear to me and to most sensible people that the housewife and the restaurateur will not buy food that is not of a high standard. Why should they pay a high price because food has gone through that process? It just will not stand the market.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I fail to see the subtlety of the argument of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). He is saying that irradiation does not make bad food good, but it makes bad food safe. This is one of our concerns. Is not there a danger that poor-quality food will be irradiated and returned to the market?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman should listen to me. used the word "may", not "would". I enjoy cooking. I invite the hon. Gentleman to one of my gourmet meals over the weekend, when he may sample something that is cooked with good-quality food. You are invited also, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The good housewife—even the reasonable housewife—and the good Member of Parliament understand good-quality food and know that it will produce certain results. They will not tolerate bad-quality food. That is why the argument that bad-quality food will be irradiated is not sound. The market will not take it.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to some prawns that were exported to Holland for irradiation and were re-imported into the United Kingdom. How would a housewife know whether prawns had been irradiated?
      Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman has obviously never been shopping for prawns. If he had, he would know jolly well what a good prawn looks like and what a bad prawn looks like. I suspect that a bad prawn is good only for a rather bad curry, rather than for a good prawn cocktail. I go shopping, so I have my feet on the ground in that respect.
      This is an enabling provision. Irradiation will be subject to careful regulation and monitoring, and it will take place in proper premises that have been built for the purpose. Any food that is to be irradiated will be subject to instant inspection. I return to the tinned food analogy. How can we be certain about the quality of meat or any other item that is going into tinned food? We are satisfied with the quality of that food because food inspectors regularly inspect premises, processes and food. One can imagine the devastation that would be caused by a factory using bad food or a bad process. Several years ago, we had problems with poor meat from a canning factory in Argentina. I well remember the cases of salmonella that occurred as a result of that problem about 10 or 15 years ago. Such poisoning problems are as evident with canning as with any other process. However, irradiation will ensure that there is no salmonella poisoning. That is the one sort of poison that irradiation will eradicate.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is laying a little too much stress on the example of tinning as a new process that has so far been successful. After all, many new things that are introduced are not successful. Over time, lead in petrol and chlorofluorocarbons have turned out to have bad consequences that were not envisaged at the time of their introduction. The fact that something is new does not necessarily make it right.
      If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can do so, will he publicly examine two prawns and tell us which has been irradiated and which has not? If he were to do so publicly, does he really think that he would get it right?
      Mr. Ashby: I could not tell which prawn was irradiated and which was not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—but I can tell which is a good prawn and which is a bad prawn——
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is truly a veritable gourmet.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) do it?
      Mr. Ashby: I would choose the prawn of the best quality. I would reject a bad-quality prawn that had been irradiated and thus rendered safe from bacteria because I should be able to tell that it was of bad quality even though it had been irradiated and was safe to eat. That is my point.
      Not only will irradiation be monitored and subject to careful regulations, but irradiated food will also be subject to labelling. We must also bear in mind that there is consumer choice. The housewife—and, indeed, anyone else—has the right to choose the food she buys. That also means that she is choosing the system of food production. Labelling will give the housewife that choice. Nobody is pushing irradiated food down the throats of the public. People will be able to choose whether they wish to purchase irradiated food. Many retail stores around the country have already decided not to stock irradiated food. That is their choice and it will be a matter for the housewife's choice. In due course, the housewife may well demand that certain foods are irradiated. The decision of those retail stores may then be reversed. This is all part of consumer choice and free trade.
      I am looking forward to the irradiation of food because it will improve the quality of some foods. Certain foods cannot be irradiated. The Opposition have referred to salmonella in eggs. Eggs cannot be irradiated, but the process can be applied to a whole host of other items.
      I look forward to the day when I shall be able to choose tropical fruits that have been irradiated. I was born in a tropical country and have always enjoyed tropical fruits. At the moment most of the tropical fruits that I eat over here have been picked green and do not have the taste of the sun that I remember so well from my childhood. I am looking forward to eating fruits that have been picked much closer to the eating date, which have been ripened in the sun and irradiated so that I can eat them in this country with the full taste that I remember from my childhood. I am very much looking forward to that and to exercising my consumer choice.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Irradiated mangoes.
      Mr. Ashby: Yes. I am looking forward to irradiated mangoes, especially the small sweet ones.
      828
      The food industry in this country is run largely on the basis of trust, although there is regulation and inspection. The Opposition treat the food industry as though it was based on a conspiracy, but everything that we eat is produced largely on the basis of trust. The food industry is, and has shown itself to be, a trustworthy industry. Spot checks by health officials have shown that in the overwhelming majority of cases that trust has been kept by the food industry. I cannot believe that it will break that trust. I cannot believe that the retail chains will put their good names at risk or risk their livelihoods or the loyalty of their shareholders by putting into the food chain bad quality food which has been irradiated.
      The Opposition are engaged in scare tactics. No scientific body can show that the proper irradiation of food is dangerous to health. Indeed, committees all over the world maintain that irradiation is a good system. It is one of many systems, which means that there will be choice. Consumers will not be forced to eat irradiated food which will be carefully labelled. I have no doubt that in due course irradiation will prove to be a popular system. I, for one, certainly look forward to it.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: When I heard the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) describe how he was looking forward to eating irradiated tropical fruits—and irradiated this and irradiated that—it reminded me of the enthusiasm for beefburgers of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of how the right hon. Gentleman was willing to volunteer his little girl to test the safety of British beef. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for irradiation and his appetite for irradiated tropical fruits do not convince me that the process is safe.
      Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) have tried to label those who oppose radiation as Luddites and have said that they are somehow anti-progress and that they would have been anti-tin can if they had been born in that age. I must advise the hon. Gentlemen that the British Medical Association is among the opponents of irradiation. The BMA can hardly be described as Luddite because all the medical progress of the 20th century and the improvements in medical care have depended on the rapid implementation of all technical advances, including the use of irradiation. As we know, radiotherapy is part of cancer treatment. The BMA can see the benefits of radiotherapy, but it is discriminating enough to be concerned about the widescale application of irradiation to food for human consumption.
      I am no Luddite. My professional training was as a scientist—as a chemist and a research worker in chemistry. I have examined the idea of food irradiation off and on for the past 15 years.
      Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why only irradiated food is given to people who have had transplants?
      Mr. Williams: They need sterile food which contains no micro-organisms.
      Mr. Ashby rose——
      Mr. Williams: I shall not give way again. Irradiation is one of the chief ways of sterilising medical equipment and, in the case of certain illnesses and transplants, food. That is for medical reasons.
      Mr. Ashby: It is safe.
      6 pm
      Mr. Williams: There is no comparison. One cannot conclude that irradiation is safe simply from the fact that someone who has had a heart transplant must eat sterile food. We shall come to some of the dangers of irradiation shortly.
      As a chemist I have examined the idea of irradiating food from time to time over the past 15 years. From a naive view, it seems impressive that one can stop potatoes sprouting—that one can interfere so dramatically with a natural process. But, in chemical terms, irradiation fragments living molecules. It fragments proteins and nucleic acids in a random way. It takes a sledgehammer into the food. In every cell perhaps 1 million molecules are split apart randomly. When they recombine they produce a pattern like a jigsaw that has been broken up and thrown together again at random. We have no idea what some of the products of that combination might be. When water molecules are split up hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen atoms are produced. When they recombine the chemical composition has been changed.
      As a one-time research chemist in the biological sciences, I am certain in my mind that the materials that are produced from irradiation will include radiolytic products which will be carcinogenic. Establishing that carcinogenicity is as difficult as establishing whether BSE is a hazard to human health. It is extremely difficult to establish because it is impossible to find a test population that is willing, like the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West, to eat 100 per cent. irradiated food. Perhaps, if he is willing to volunteer to eat such food for the next 20 years, we shall have a better idea at the end of that time. But there is no way of demonstrating the absolute safety of the process.
      Much of the research work that has been done and used by eminent scientific committees which advise on safety is incredibly suspect and involves cheating. Much of it is dishonest science. We know that irradiation produces off flavours in food. Fats go rancid and vitamins are destroyed. We do not know what will be the effect of irradiation on food additives and pesticides. Pesticides are already incredibly toxic, but they get into our food and our water supplies. We have no idea what will happen when we irradiate pesticides. We are conducting macro experiments on the human population, and we have no right to do that. There are strong grounds to believe that irradiation may damage food, modify the structure of pesticides and produce even more toxic material.
      The dosages involved in irradiation of food are equivalent to about 10 million chest X-rays. Let us imagine a conveyor belt carrying our poultry through the irradiation machine, which is the Government's vision. If a human being was on that conveyor belt, irradiation at that dosage would not only kill the person instantly but kill every single cell in his body. That is the dosage needed to kill every single micro-organism and every cell of every micro-organism must be killed. We are dealing with prolific doses of irradiation.
      Let us consider the international use of irradiation. Of the 140 countries in the world, only 39 allow irradiation of food and those only for a narrow range of foods. Less than 0·1 per cent. of food is irradiated internationally. The amount of irradiation is trivial compared with salting,
      830
      adding sugar, refrigeration, canning, bottling, fermentation, pickling and so on. Yet the Government have it in mind that irradiation of food is one of the key answers to salmonella. The Government have presided over an epidemic of salmonella and now about half the poultry that we buy is infected with it. I am extremely disturbed that the Government regard irradiation as part of the answer. If they have their way, in five or 10 years' time most of the chicken that we buy, whether from a restaurant or supermarket, will be irradiated.
      Of the 39 countries that allow irradiation, only 11 allow the irradiation of poultry. We are lining ourselves up with a tiny minority of countries, none of which allows irradiation on a significant scale.
      Mr. Gregory: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about how we may be in a minority. Will he reveal to the House at what stage the Labour party moved away from its wisdom of the 1974–79 era when it did not ban irradiation but was a party to it? Then the Labour party saw irradiation as a sensible means of dealing with food products. At what stage did it move away from that position to the crass stupidity of the Luddite view that the hon. Gentleman now puts forward?
      Mr. Williams: I shall disregard the hon. Gentleman's last remark as not worthy of him. In the past 20 years, the general public, which is much more important than just the Labour party, has woken up to the dangers of science. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, processes using CFCs and other technologies have gone wrong. The number one technology that has gone wrong is the nuclear industry. The 1974–79 Labour Government supported nuclear energy to some extent, although they did not order any new nuclear power stations. The Labour party is much wiser these days. We determinedly oppose nuclear power, as do the general public. The same goes for all nuclear technologies, including irradiation of food.
      I wish to throw back the remark of the hon. Member for York about crass stupidity. The people who stand in the way of the opinion of 90 per cent. of the general public on irradiation are guilty of crass stupidity.
      No test is available to detect irradiated food. Several other speakers have already made that point. There is no way in which one can say whether a prawn is irradiated and, if it is irradiated, whether it was irradiated once, twice of three times or whether it received five or 10 times the legal dose. Irradiation is a cowboy's charter because regulating it and proving whether food has been irradiated will be impossible. It is wide open to abuse.
      The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West tacitly implied that there is a danger that bad food will be made, as he put it, safe, but in any case marketable. Internationally, companies will adopt the technology and buy cheap cargoes that could not be sold in France, Germany and the rest of the European Community. They will bring the food here, irradiate it and sell it on our supermarket shelves. There will be no way in which environmental health officers or anyone else could rule out such an abuse.
      The Government should listen to public opinion. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is a former Minister responsible for consumer affairs, talked about the consumers' interests. Before the debate this evening I read the latest brief from the Consumers Association. It is implacably

      831
      opposed to food irradiation. I have also received a letter from my local authority asking me to vote against it. That opposition is shared by the National Farmers Union, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the big supermarket chains. We should follow the lead of the European Parliament, which voted 4:1 against irradiation.
      The Government have demonstrated that their green credentials, such as they are, are in tatters. They support nuclear power and the nuclear industry right through to the irradiation of food.
      In Brussels today the Secretary of State for the Environment has gone against the rest of Europe, which wants to control CO2 emissions by 2000. We have done nothing about flue gas desulphurisation or acid rain—not one of our power stations has been cleaned up. During the Whitsun recess we heard the scares about the beaches at Blackpool and elsewhere because of sewage pollution. Thanks to the Government, another product of our times is toxic algae. Above all, the Tories have given us the disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy—[Interruption.] It is a Tory disease because it was caused by the changes to the rendering industry introduced by the Government.
      If the Government proceed with the introduction of irradiated food, frankly it will be just another nail in their coffin.
      Mr. Churchill: Nobody disputes that it is the right of the consumer to have access to safe, wholesome food, but the housewife already has a terrible battle finding such food for her family.
      The problems with beef have already been rehearsed in respect of BSE and potential problems arising from the outfall of radiation from Chernobyl. There are also potential dangers from scrapie in lamb. The shellfish off our north-east coast cannot be consumed now because of toxic algae, and fish from the North sea are increasingly diseased. Eggs are subject to salmonella. Fruit and vegetables are increasingly sprayed with toxins and preservatives. Many of them are applied outside this country, so the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has no control over their use. The housewife is left in absolute ignorance as to their use and their effect. Those problems will be added to by the introduction of the process of irradiation, which has not been proved safe when used on food for human consumption.
      The public are also entitled to clear labelling, and I welcome the Government's commitment to introduce such labelling for irradiated foodstuffs. In the absence of any tests to establish whether food has been irradiated at all, or more than once, it makes it almost impossible to monitor shops and restaurants to ensure that they honour the Government's labelling code.
      There is no demand from any significant section of the population for the introduction of irradiated food. Many responsible national bodies have expressed their opposition to it, including the Consumers Association, the British Medical Association, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the National Federation of Meat Traders.
      The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have made it clear that it is their opinion, based on the authority of their experts, that there is no evidence of any harmful
      832
      effects from irradiated food. I absolutely and unequivocally accept that, but I am sure that they will concede that that is far from stating that irradiated food is safe for human consumption. Might one not have said exactly the same two or three years ago about the possibility of a scrapie-like disease being passed on to beef cattle and other species which had been fed the ground bones of animals, including diseased sheep? Is it not those very same experts, on whom Ministers now rely for their expert advice, who bear responsibility for the present situation? Until about three years ago they believed that it was perfectly safe and acceptable for the ground bones of diseased animals to be fed to herbivores, such as beef cattle. That has led us to the present disaster; a blight has been put on the entire British beef industry. Are not those experts the same ones who are now advising MAFF on irradiated food? That should give us cause not to fall too deeply into the hands of experts, but to approach the matter with a healthy degree of caution.
      6.15 pm
      I am suggesting not that it is unsafe for humans to consume irradiated foodstuffs, but merely that no one knows for sure one way or the other. My right hon. Friend has been unable to advance any proof of safety. The scientific community is sharply divided on this issue and some suspect that it may prove harmful. The fact is that no one knows. Surely the path of caution is the only sensible course for the Government to take.
      Little is known about the chemical changes and consequent potential effect of irradiating food treated with modern pesticides, hormones, chemicals and other food additives—let alone about the effect on the packaging that surrounds those foods. Little is known about the effect of irradiation on the nutritional value of food and the vitamins that it contains.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend has said that science is divided on this, but as far as I am aware 35 countries have approved the irradiation of food as well as the World Health Organisation, the United States Food and Drugs Administration and our Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. Can my hon. Friend tell me about those scientists who are against irradiation?
      Mr. Churchill: Several countries have refused to endorse the irradiation of food. Australia, after a two-year in-depth study, imposed a three-year moratorium on the importation, sale or production of irradiated foodstuffs. Many other countries and many states in the United States have imposed such bans.
      The way in which some of the evidence is used by those who want to ram irradiated food down our throats is especially disturbing. Some of the evidence is based on a misrepresentation of the facts. One such example is the data summary produced by the joint expert committee of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation. That summary appears, either accidentally or deliberately, to misrepresent the conclusion arrived at by the international food irradiation project conducted in Karlsruhe in West Germany. It stated that, apart from the general effect of including spices in the diet of animals,
      "no other treatment-related findings were observed and no differences between irradiated spice or non-irradiated spice-fed animals were seen in any of the findings."

      833
      That piece of evidence which the committee called in aid arrived at a totally different conclusion. The interim report published in the international food irradiation project series by the Karlsruhe group showed that rats fared less well on a diet which included spices than on a diet without spices, but that it was possible to feed a high-spiced diet as the basis of investigating toxicological problems with irradiated spices.
      The final, unpublished report covers the comparison of animals fed diets including irradiated and non-irradiated spices and says in its conclusion:
      "Irradiation of spices by 1·5 Mrad shows an increased effect in reducing food intake and body weight. This means that irradiation causes a change in chemical composition of spices which has an influence on animals even at the 2 per cent. level."
      In other words, there is an observable effect associated with the irradiation of spices, even at the lowest level at which spices were included in the diet of rats—the 2 per cent. level.
      In view of the weight attached by the Government to the World Health Organisation report, one is bound to wonder whether the whole question of the database on which it was founded needs re-examining, for there was a specific case of either oversight or misrepresentation.
      The irradiation of food is clearly no panacea. As has been pointed out, it cannot deal effectively with salmonella in eggs or with the problem of listeria in paté and it cannot destroy toxins such as botulism. What, then, is the purpose of introducing regulations that will allow the irradiation of food? What foods need to be irradiated, anyway? There are two answers: first, food that is of dubious hygiene; and, secondly, to extend the shelf life of food which otherwise within a matter of days would become unfit for human consumption.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend concede that in the case of spices, where the chemical process will no longer be available—it will be illegal—irradiation is the only alternative?
      Mr. Churchill: No, because the principal importers of spices have pioneered and developed an alternative means of providing for the hygiene of spices involving a process of steam pasteurisation. They claim that that is preferable to, and as satisfactory as, irradiation. Indeed, the Government have time and again cited the irradiation of spices as being the prime reason for introducing legislation—to enable spices to be rendered hygienic without going through the present process involving chemicals that are carcinogenic to those who apply them. That is an added reason why there is neither urgency nor need for the proposed regulations.
      I endorse the view of the Marks and Spencer technical executive who said:
      "If food is already safe, as we believe it is, in our shops, there is no need for this extra process."
      Food irradiation will be seized on by those at the bottom end of the food industry—the cowboys of the market—to make saleable otherwise unsaleable food. I am amazed that the Government should wish to go along with such a process.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who is no longer in his place, said he could tell a good prawn from a bad one. He cited the great cost of the process of irradiation. I draw
      834
      attention to the 1986 case involving Young's prawns, questions about which the Minister did not answer satisfactorily in Committee or at an earlier stage.
      The Young's prawns were unmarketable in this country and were sent back to Holland to be irradiated. Those involved in that scandal were obviously not bothered about the cost of irradiation because they knew that the consignment they had on their hands was valueless as it stood and that it was well worth paying for irradiation so that the goods could be brought back and marketed in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West would have been able, with his undoubtedly sensitive nose, to detect the quality of those prawns, particularly if they had been frozen or wrapped in other packaging.
      The case for irradiated foodstuffs has not been made out, at any rate not for food for human consumption, and the Government are taking unnecessary risks with public health. It will give me no pleasure to vote against the Government. I shall have no choice but to do so unless the Minister gives an undertaking to defer introducing the regulations until the European Community has reached a judgment on the matter. If he gives that undertaking, I shall with pleasure join him in the Division Lobby.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I give credit to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for urging the Goverment time and again to tread the path of caution on this issue. But I fear that his warning will go unheeded today, as it has until now, because it would be inconvenient for the Government to take his advice. They need to pretend to the public that they are tackling the multiple food problems that have arisen since the Conservatives took power. Irradiation is that step, their excuse, when they should be taking proper action.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, irradiation will do nothing to counter the problems of botulism, listeria, BSE, salmonella and the toxins that account for much food poisoning. It will not clean up contaminated food. It will simply dangerously disguise that contamination.
      I fear that Ministers, supporters of irradiation and those who are trying to sell certain produce will fool people into believing that irradiation is a worthwhile process from the health point of view. Nothing of the sort has been proved. In any event, it is being introduced not for health reasons but for profit reasons.
      The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in a speech on 1 March, repeated in a MAFF press release, that opposition to irradiation was
      "a torrent of pseudo-science."
      With that statement he discounted all the opposition that had come from the Consumers Association, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the BMA, food producers and retailers, the National Federation of Meat Traders and from public health organisations such as the Farm and Food Society, the London Food Commission and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. He discounted the findings of the Cantox committee of the Canadian Parliament which said that there were some unresolved questions. His own Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods said that further research was needed in many areas. But the Minister said that that was all a torrent of pseudo-science.

      835
      6.30 pm
      What science have we had from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? It has presented no proof that irradiation is safe and has carried out no work. What research has been carried out into thermo-luminescence? The Ministry has not even waited for conclusions, but is presenting to Parliament a measure that will allow food to be irradiated without restriction. Allowing such as measure to go ahead is what I would call pseudo-science.
      The Ministry has not carried out any checks on the effects of packaging. Few packaging materials have been tested and some people have said that some packaging materials might migrate to the food or that the food itself might undergo changes and become carcinogenic. There have been no tests on the effects of irradiation or pesticides on food additives. There is a great deal of confusion about labelling. The EEC proposes two labels. One would say that the food was irradiated and the other would say that it was treated by ionising radiation. That is a recipe for confusion and the public will not know where they are.
      There is no test to determine whether a product has been irradiated and there is certainly no control on the extent of irradiation that takes place. That will not appear on labels. Unscrupulous people in the food industry will not affix a label even if the food is irradiated. It will not be possible to check such action and therefore it will go unpunished. That is the real response to the argument about choice. What choice is there for the consumer in such cases?
      My last point is in many ways about class. The worst foods go to the poorest people in Britain who end up paying higher prices than they should. Irradiated food will be cheaper than fresh, untarnished and non-irradiated food, but people can buy only what they can afford and will buy food that is at the end of its shelf life and is bacteriologically unsound. Irradiation kills the nutrients and vitamins that are crucial to people's diet. It will worsen the diet. The Tories are trail-blazers for worst practice in the food industry and irradiation is another example. It will lead to a serious slackening in food hygiene and a poorer diet.
      Mr. Ron Davies: We have heard another powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). It was one in a series of such speeches from the Opposition which have shown unanimous and forceful opposition to irradiation. The Opposition are under no illusion. If the new clause is accepted, it will mean that the Government will not be able to introduce measures approving of irradiation. If the clause is defeated, it will be tantamount to a vote in favour of irradiation.
      All the arguments that have been presented about the rights of the consumer, the possible weakening of the confidence of the consumer in the British food industry and the protection of public health will be swept to one side if the new clause is defeated. There is no doubt that the public are greatly concerned, as are manufacturers, food producers and retailers, about the consequences of irradiation. Serious questions are being asked about the scope and validity of the scientific verification of irradiation. That has been recognised by most hon. Members.
      The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) made an honest and courageous speech in which he considered all the arguments, just as he did on Second
      836
      Reading. I applaud his integrity in saying that he intends to join us in the Lobby, but I am disappointed that such integrity is not shared by some of his hon. Friends who have considerable reservations about irradiation. On Second Reading they demonstrated those reservations. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who I am sure will shortly be back in his place, intervened on Second Reading. He said:
      "My right hon. Friend says that there is no distinction between a product that is pasteurised and one that is irradiated. I fully take his point about labelling and the importance of that, but scientists are able to undertake a test to show that a product has been pasteurised. How can he, with hand on heart, promote irradiated foods when, in the event of a court case, there will be no test to show whether the product has been irradiated? That invalidates the fundamentals of his argument"—[Official Report, 8 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 1029.]
      Those are strong words. The hon. Gentleman did not say that the balance of judgment was one way or the other but spoke about the fundamentals of the argument being invalidated. The hon. Gentleman has undergone something of a conversion because he now says that we must question the reliability of the tests. He knows, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm, that it is not a question of testing the validity of the tests or their reliability; there is no test. The way in which the hon. Member for York destroyed the Minister's argument on 8 March holds true today.
      The hon. Member for York was not alone on Second Reading, because the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) said that people should know what they are eating. The hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) was forceful in her condemnation. I remind the House that the hon. Lady is a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and has certainly canvassed the arguments. She said:
      "There is still public concern about what we accept as the evidence of the experts and the qualified scientists."
      That point was made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme. The hon. Lady went on:
      "My right hon. Friend will have to take account of the public perception. It may be an erroneous perception, but we still have to deal with it; we cannot bulldoze it."—[Official Report, 8 March 1990; Vol. 168, c.1041.]
      Those are wise words and I should have thought that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, after its bruising experiences in the last couple of weeks when it realised that it had lost public confidence on the matter of scientific judgments, would have learnt that lesson. Unfortunately it has not. It says that the scientists have said that it is all right. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has said, the Ministry is discriminating about how it accepts scientific advice. If it fits the Ministry's preconditions it is infallible, but if it does not fit those preconditions or the political agenda the Ministry chooses to ignore it. I shall develop that point later.
      The House must address several key arguments. First, the case for irradiation has not been put. I hope that the Minister will put it. It was not put on Second Reading and the need for irradiation has not been established. As many of my hon. Friends have said, if food is wholesome, properly stored and handled and consumed within the appropriate time irradiation is not needed.
      If there are problems in our food industry they will not be remedied by a quick fix at the end of the process. We must make sure that the food production and handling

      837
      processes are themselves remedied. I compliment the Government on some parts of the Bill which address that problem. Irradiation will not clean up the food chain, but will allow a quick fix for a contaminated product at the end of a faulty chain. That is the crux of the argument.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) is an authority on safety. I know that he has followed the debate closely, and doubtless he will be reading my comments in Hansard tomorrow, as he is not here. There are major questions about the safety of the process and the impact that it has on irradiated food. We know that there are toxic residues. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that no research has been done into the impact of the process of irradiation on the pesticides residues that might he in some processed food that are then wrapped in cellophane, or other, new, products.
      Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: No. The hon. Gentleman made a long speech and I do not have time to give way.
      We know that irradiation does not provide immunity to listeria and that there are inherent dangers in creating a vacuum. The destruction of the microbiological life creates a vacuum and, if a product is then subjected to secondary contamination, such secondary contamination will grow at a pace that we cannot comprehend, making the product even more dangerous than it would have been had it not been irradiated.
      The Minister's response to all this is that we must rely on the scientists. They will have it right, they have done their tests and they are always infallible. That amuses me when I consider the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I presume that his philosophy is that scientists are always infallible except on Sundays, because on Sundays there is a higher authority. It seems that we have to rely on the Bible when making choices about eating habits, and it tells us that vegetarianism is an unnatural practice. I have heard some unscientific statements but that takes the unirradiated biscuit.
      Let us have a look at the Government's record in accepting scientific advice. They were told that the proposal for a ban on the sale of green top milk—untreated milk—was supported by the enforcement authorities, scientists and a number of other expert organisations, particularly those concerned with public health. What was the Government's response? For political reasons, they decided to ignore the scientists' advice.
      Among other things, the Tyrrell committee recommended a survey of the brains of cattle sent to slaughter, to monitor the incidence of unrecognised infection by BSE, and the examination of the relative susceptibility of calves to BSE. The Government had gathered together qualified scientifists under the chairmanship of Tyrrell to give them recommendations on research priorities, but, because it was politically inconvenient to accept those recommendations, they were pushed to one side. The same thing happened with the Richmond committee which made a great many recommendations about microbiological contamination which the Government rejected.
      The Farm Animal Welfare Council is composed of experts. They are qualified people—vets, and people concerned with public health and animal welfare. They are
      838
      all handpicked by the Government for their expertise, scientific qualifications and experience in their chosen field. Of its 51 scientific recommendations, only 18 are to be implemented, while the rest are sacrificed because they do not fit the Government's political agenda.
      6.45 pm
      This is all a bit rich when consumers are increasingly suspecting the Government's honesty in their handling of these matters. Well-verified surveys show that 65 per cent. of the public believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot be relied on to tell them the truth about food safety. It is no wonder that they suspect the Ministry or that, with that track record, they do not want irradiation.
      There is no consumer pressure for irradiation and retailers such as Asda, Budgen, the Co-op, Gateway, Iceland Frozen Foods, Littlewoods, Londis, Marks and Spencer, Spar, Tesco and Waitrose are all opposed to it. The National Farmers Union is also opposed to it, as is the National Federation of Women's Institutes. Why are the Government hellbent on driving this legislation through, against all informed opinion and against the abundant reservations felt by Tory Back Benchers? It defies logic. There is no pressure from Europe, and the European Parliament has voted to oppose irradiation. Increasingly, all the pressure is to reduce the amount of irradiation allowed. There have been many powerful arguments against the proposal.
      The Government's defence is that the public will have a choice, but that argument was destroyed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). There can be no choice, because there is no diagnostic test, and without such a test the Government and the public health authorities cannot monitor or check whether food has been irradiated. Even if they could check, they would not be able to bring any prosecutions because there would be no evidence without a diagnostic test. If one cannot enforce legislation or prosecute, how can the Minister say that there will be a choice for consumers?
      Fortunately, the new clause offers the House a choice. I hope that those Tory Members who share our view will exercise their choice and vote for the new clause.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): It was a shame that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) went a bit over the top and spoiled a rather interesting debate. He continued to say what has been said by Labour Members many times, and gave us the same old myth that the Government regard this as a panacea or as a silly quick fix, or that they are in a terrible hurry to introduce irradiation. This must be one of the slowest quick fixes in history. The food irradiation process was invented in 1902, but only in 1982 did the British Government begin to consider it, setting up an independent expert advisory committee to examine the matter.
      The committee took five years to study the process, although the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Americans and the EC had been looking into the matter. Hundreds of expert committees had examined it. In 1987, the committee reported. The Government did not automatically accept its view. They had some queries, and sent the report back,

      839
      and it was not until last year that the committee again reported. That is why we have felt it perfectly reasonable to bring in the necessary changes that will allow us, after consultation and after formal regulations have been made, to go ahead with irradiation in certain cases.
      We have heard an awful lot of what irradiation cannot do, as if that was something fatal in its character. We heard that it cannot remove toxins in the food. We know that is true. It cannot remove botulism, it cannot make the coffee and it cannot hoover the carpet, but none of us has suggested that it could do all these wonderful things. We have merely said that it has a small useful part to play if consumers and the industry want to use it, along with the deep freezing techniques, the techniques for canning peas and drying mashed potato and other food processing techniques. We think that this process should be made available if people want to use it, because we believe that it is safe, and all the expert evidence from around the world believes that it is safe.
      The ridiculous statement has been made that, if one irradiates something and kills off bugs, thereby creating a vacuum, the bugs grow more prolifically in the vacuum. That is unscientific gobbledegook. Irradiation is not like pulling a few thistles out of a garden and leaving more room for the weeds to grow; bacteriologically it does not work in that way, and it is nonsense to suggest it.
      The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) cast doubts on the World Health Organisation, and quoted others for his purpose. He should quote the World Health Organisation itself, and listen to what its director general has said. He said:
      "WHO is satisfied regarding the safety of irradiating any food commodity up to an overall average dose of 10 kilograys."
      It would be difficult to find a blunter statement than that. Golden rule number one of the World Health Organisation's "Golden Rules for Safe Food Preparation" says:
      "if you have the choice, select fresh or frozen poultry treated with ionising radiation."
      We have not heard much about that tonight.
      The hon. Member for Truro quoted the European Parliament as if it were an expert on the matter. However, he did not quote expert advisory committees from around the world, or even the independent committee advising the British Government. It is unworthy of him to come to the House and pretend that the opinions of politicians—in any part of the world—are equal to the opinions of expert scientific committees.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclean: No. I have little time, as the Opposition want me to finish by 7 o'clock.
      I have great respect for the views of environmental health officers, trading standards officers and the National Farmers Union. However, I do not think that anyone would suggest that they are among the world's experts on the techniques of ionising radiation.
      Tonight we have heard what Opposition Members consider to be the most damning indictment of irradiation—their erroneous allegation that all around the world other countries are backtracking. Australia was quoted.
      840
      The Australian Government have announced a moratorium, but it was not based on the views of an expert scientific committee of leading microbiologists, toxicologists and experts on radiation, physics and nutrition who all agreed that irradiation was safe. My hon. Friends may be interested to hear that the moratorium was prompted by the recommendations of the House of Representatives' Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts. That is the Les Patterson approach to Government policy; we shall base our policy on firmer grounds.
      Mr. Churchill: Does my hon. Friend accept that that committee, which conducted an in-depth survey over two years, took a good deal of evidence from many highly qualified scientific expert advisers?
      Mr. Maclean: I accept that. Any political committee in any House of Commons or House of Representatives throughout the world would do the same. However, it was essentially a political decision, made for political reasons and not based on science or safety.
      The main point that I wish to make concerns the question whether the Americans are backing down on irradiation. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said that, in the United States, herbs and spices were irradiated, but not chicken. Therefore, he asked, what was the point of it? In his view, that was proof that irradiation was dangerous. He is slightly out of date. On I May this year, the United States Food and Drug Administration—which is highly respected, and whose lead we are urged to follow—in many areas—after careful evaluation of toxicity studies, reports on microbiological considerations and nutritional studies, authorised the irradiation of fresh and frozen poultry meat in addition to the other products for which the process is permitted. The pressure came not from industry or from capitalists who wanted to irradiate chickens, but from the food safety and inspection service of the United States Government. It thought that that would constitute
      "an important public health benefit."
      It is noteworthy that food irradiation in the United States has the support of not only the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, but the American Medical Association, the Council of Agricultural Science and Technology, the American Council on Science and Health and others.
      The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), like some of my hon. Friends, was concerned about monitoring. The regulatory controls that we plan to introduce will amount to the close and detailed control that the public will expect to be imposed if we go ahead. Our proposals for controls are based on EC discussions, and on a study of the regulations in more than 20 countries that already operate controls.
      First, no one will be able to undertake irradiation in Britain without a full and detailed prior inspection by highly trained experts, capable of assessing ability to carry out the process correctly. Secondly, those who undertake it will be subject to detailed conditions on all aspects of their business, which will be set out in a formal licence. Thirdly, they will be restricted to treating the foods stipulated in the licence and to the doses specified therein for the irradiation objectives for which they have received official approval. Fourthly, they will be required to keep detailed records of all aspects of their business. Fifthly, they will be subject to inspection at any time. Sixthly, they

      841
      will be subject to microbiological testing to confirm suitability for treatment. Finally—as we have said many times—there will be comprehensive labelling, which will apply to restaurants as well. The controls that the Government have planned are in line with those recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and are included in EC proposals in the draft directive.
      Some hon. Members were concerned about enforcement. Specialist inspectors within central Government are already familiar with the work involved in inspecting irradiation premises, and local authority officers have great experience in the enforcement of food hygiene provisions. We are well placed to police the systems effectively.
      Mention has been made tonight of the Dutching technique. The impression was given that every day loads of prawns or other illegal consignments were going around the world. There is only one example of that—Young's, in 1985. It was contrary to the rules, and we condemn anyone who breaks the rules, but it is not right for the Opposition to give the impression that there is a Dutching industry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) asked about a test. Of course, no viable test has yet been devised anywhere in the world. However, both the WHO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission are satisfied that adequate controls can be imposed on the basis of documentary checks. An adequate detection test is not regarded as essential to a rigorous and adequate control system.
      I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme—to whose contribution I listened with great interest and respect—that irradiation is not the only food process for which there is no detection test. Documentation is relied on for verification in the case of food produced by organic methods, meat derived from animal slaughter by ritual procedures and date stamps on products; there are no magic detection tests in those instances. We believe that they are not necessary in the case of irradiated food either, although they will be a worthwhile bonus when they come along.
      The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) ruined his case by being ridiculous and trying to scare us. He is a scientist, but he told the House that irradiation was so dangerous that if a human being was put on an irradiation conveyor belt and shoved through the irradiation plant it would destroy all the genes in his body. I bet it would. If we shoved people on the pea-canning conveyor that would destroy all the genes in their body as well; if they were stuck in an Aga for two hours that would also kill them. That is the ridiculous level to which the hon. Member for Carmarthen and others have sunk.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme asked for the database to be checked. I assure him that the database is checked constantly. No subject has been examined more exhaustively than irradiation, and it will continue to be examined. I fear that he misquoted me, so I must put the matter right. I do not think that there is no evidence that irradiation is unsafe: all the evidence is that it is safe. That is positive. I refer my hon. Friend to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, which said in the first of the conclusions in its summary:
      "The overwhelming weight of evidence is that irradiation of food, on the limited basis proposed by the Commission, is safe."
      842
      7 pm
      We have consistently maintained that irradiation is but one of the processes that we think have a beneficial use in food processing techniques. It is certainly not a panacea, and my right hon. and hon. Friends do not suggest that it is. There will be full and comprehensive labelling and monitoring to ensure compliance with the rules. Irradiation is backed as a safe process by all the expert committees in the world that have considered the matter. The scientific community is not divided. We have the backing of the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Food and Drug Administration, the EC expert committee and the British Government's independent committee.
      I give the House the assurance that it is not the end of the matter—irradiation will not be introduced when we vote against the Opposition's new clause. Irradiation can be brought in only when the Government come before the House with detailed regulations, having had a period of consultation. Then, and only then, will the House make a final decision.
      If all the irradiation plants in the world were uprooted tomorrow and brought to England, they would only irradiate a maximum capacity of less than 2 per cent. of our food. It is nonsense for the Opposition to suggest that we will be swamped with irradiated food. We are entitled to give the same choice to the 5, 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of our population as the French housewife has at this very moment. She can buy irradiated food in supermarkets in France. If it is good enough for the French housewife, British housewives should have the same right in the choice of food. I urge the House to reject the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 223.

      Division No. 227]

      [7.02 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coleman, Donald

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Corbett, Robin

      Anderson, Donald

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Crowther, Stan

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cryer, Bob

      Ashton, Joe

      Cummings, John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Darling, Alistair

      Beith, A. J.

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bell, Stuart

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

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

      Dewar, Donald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dixon, Don

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dobson, Frank

      Blair, Tony

      Doran, Frank

      Blunkett, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Boateng, Paul

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Boyes, Roland

      Eadie, Alexander

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Buckley, George J.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Callaghan, Jim

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

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

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Fisher, Mark

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Flynn, Paul

      Carr, Michael

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Foster, Derek

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Fraser, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Galloway, George

      Clay, Bob

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Clelland, David

      George, Bruce

      Cohen, Harry

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      843

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Gordon, Mildred

      Mullin, Chris

      Gould, Bryan

      Murphy, Paul

      Graham, Thomas

      Nellist, Dave

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      O'Brien, William

      Grocott, Bruce

      Patchett, Terry

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Pendry, Tom

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Prescott, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hinchliffe, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Radice, Giles

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Randall, Stuart

      Howells, Geraint

      Redmond, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Hoyle, Doug

      Richardson, Jo

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Robertson, George

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Illsley, Eric

      Rowlands, Ted

      Ingram, Adam

      Ruddock, Joan

      Janner, Greville

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kennedy, Charles

      Skinner, Dennis

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Litherland, Robert

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Snape, Peter

      Livsey, Richard

      Soley, Clive

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Spearing, Nigel

      Loyden, Eddie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McAllion, John

      Straw, Jack

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McCartney, Ian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Turner, Dennis

      McLeish, Henry

      Vaz, Keith

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wallace, James

      McWilliam, John

      Walley, Joan

      Madden, Max

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Marek, Dr John

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Martlew, Eric

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Maxton, John

      Wilson, Brian

      Meacher, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Meale, Alan

      Worthington, Tony

      Michael, Alun

      Wray, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morley, Elliot

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mrs. Llin Golding.

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bowis, John

      Alexander, Richard

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Amess, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Amos, Alan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bright, Graham

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

      Ashby, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Baldry, Tony

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Beggs, Roy

      Burns, Simon

      Bellingham, Henry

      Burt, Alistair

      Bendall, Vivian

      Butterfill, John

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Benyon, W.

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Carrington, Matthew

      Body, Sir Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      844

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Colvin, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Conway, Derek

      Lilley, Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Cormack, Patrick

      Maclean, David

      Couchman, James

      Mans, Keith

      Cran, James

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Critchley, Julian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Day, Stephen

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Devlin, Tim

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Dicks, Terry

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Dover, Den

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Dunn, Bob

      Moss, Malcolm

      Durant, Tony

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Dykes, Hugh

      Needham, Richard

      Eggar, Tim

      Nelson, Anthony

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Neubert, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Fallon, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Norris, Steve

      Forth, Eric

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Page, Richard

      Franks, Cecil

      Paice, James

      Freeman, Roger

      Patnick, Irvine

      Gale, Roger

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Gill, Christopher

      Pawsey, James

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Portillo, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Gow, Ian

      Price, Sir David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Raffan, Keith

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Gregory, Conal

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Ground, Patrick

      Rost, Peter

      Hague, William

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Ryder, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Hannam,John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

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

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Harris, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hayward, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Speller, Tony

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Squire, Robin

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

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

      Steen, Anthony

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Stern, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Irvine, Michael

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Jack, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      Jackson, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Janman, Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Key, Robert

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Kilfedder, James

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Knapman, Roger

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Thurnham, Peter

      845

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tracey, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilshire, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Wolfson, Mark

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wood, Timothy

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Viggers, Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhlll)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wells, Bowen

      Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Whitney, Ray

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      FINANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
      '.—(1) This section shall have effect for securing the effective implementation of the duties conferred under this Act.
      (2) The Ministers shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out their estimates of the resources likely to be required by food authorities in the financial year 1991–92 for the purposes of the carrying out of their functions under this Act.
      (3) The Ministers shall before the commencement of any financial year consult organisations representative of food authorities before the announcement of any plans for public expenditure in respect of that year as to the estimated cost in that year of the maintenance and improvement of food standards in their areas, including the cost of staffing, training, and the provision and maintenance of adequate laboratory facilities or access thereto.
      (4) The Ministers shall satisfy themselves generally that the resources available to food authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out by them of their functions under this section.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 2 seeks to ensure the effective implementation of the Bill. It is worth putting it on record that the Opposition did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading and that in Committee we were at pains to press the Government on a series of points which we thought were necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the measures that we support.
      New clause 2 explores the financial arrangements and, in particular, seeks to ensure that Parliament is aware of the full cost to local authorities of the Bill's implementation, to ensure that local authorities are consulted and to provide specifically that Ministers are satisfied that the resources that they make available are adequate to meet the demands of implementation.
      It emerged strongly in Committee that the Bill does not place duties on local authorities to enforce the measures in the Bill; rather it gives powers to local authorities to exercise their discretion. That is not a principle with which we would necessarily disagree, but we recognise that if powers rather than duties are given to local authorities serious questions are raised about how one ensures that those powers are adequately enforced.
      7.15 pm
      It is worth drawing to the attention of the House that there is no mechanism within the Bill, within the financial arrangements, or within the Department of the Environment, which presumably will be the Department which ensures a flow of money from the Government to local authorities, to require action to be taken by local authorities in the event of deficiencies being identified in
      846
      the food industry within their area of responsibility. Nor is there any mechanism to ensure that the resources that are made available are used for the purpose for which they have been earmarked—food safety. There is no mechanism in the Bill to ensure the monitoring of the way in which local authorities discharge the duties contained in the Bill. That is a serious omission.
      The Government may be able to convince me of the error of my ways, but the Minister did not strike me as being particularly on form when he assured us tonight that what was good for French consumers was good for British consumers. However, we may want to explore that later. If the Minister can convince me that adequate systems are in place to ensure the proper implementation of the measure, I will be happy.
      I was a member of a local authority for about 15 years before I was elected to Parliament, and as a result of that and my relationship with local authority officers since I know that no finger of criticism can be pointed at those who are responsible for inspecting food. On the contrary, it is obvious that they have been anxious to expand the monitoring of food and the scope and nature of their work. But they continually tell me that, no matter how diligent or keen they are to discharge those responsibilities, they are always hamstrung by the lack of finance from Government.
      Local authorities frequently have to decide whether to employ people in their environmental health departments to monitor food establishments and carry out other duties. They have to judge whether to allocate resources to public health, housing, social services, welfare, leisure or a range of other responsibilities that local authorities have. I hope that the new clause will allow us to explore some of those questions.
      On Second Reading, the Government made great play of the fact that about £30 million was being made available. On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister was quizzed about the financial arrangements. We wanted to know whether the notional £30 million would be hard cash. He said that the £30 million would be taken into account in the revenue support grant settlement. We asked whether it would be new money—whether the existing money would be put to one side and a new calculation made based on the additional responsibilities that local authorities will have costing £30 million, and then £30 million added to the local authorities' existing resources. If so, that would mean a real increase in local authority resources. Local authorities across the land would be able to say when fixing their budgets, "We have an additional £50,000"—or £100,000 or £150,000, or £200,000—"from central Government in cash terms. We have more money this year than last year, so we can now implement the measures contained in the Food Safety Bill."
      We raised that matter several times in Committee. The Minister may recall his remarks on 22 March. I know that relations between the Department of Health and MAFF are a little strained just now, because they have a different understanding of their respective responsibilities in food safety measures. I do not blame the Department of Health in its current subterranean attempts to impinge on the responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): We are the best of friends.
      Mr. Davies: I was not referring to individual Ministers because you and I both know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the real battle was going on between the Secretary of State for Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. That was clearly instanced when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came to the House to fight for his political life over the BSE issue, and the Secretary of State for Health was not to be seen. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not going to come here to lend his support to the Minister but wanted to dissociate himself entirely.
      In the light of the interesting development in the relationship between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I am not sure that I would call it constructive tension—the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee:
      "We have made the allocation of £30 million. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health made matters clear."
      One assumes that he had made matters clear beyond doubt, and that there could be no further argument. The Minister continued:
      "I understand the Opposition's scepticism about whether it is new or old money or funny money, as the hon. Member for Carlisle suggested."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 March 1990; c. 49.]
      But matters had not been made very clear if the Minister had to add:
      "I understand the Opposition's scepticism about whether it is new or old money or funny money".
      That is at the heart of the amendment.
      For the purposes of tonight's debate, let us give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and assume that £30 million of additional money will be available. That is a dubious prospect because of the way in which central Government calculate how they make money available to local authorities, through the standard spending assessment. That is done every year according to the importance that the Government attach to the different responsibilities of local authorities—so £1 given for environmental protection this year could be £1·20 next year, or perhaps only 80p. I do not necessarily disagree with that practice because it is a perfectly proper way for Government to influence local authorities, by giving an indication of priorities on a year-to-year basis.
      If we received a firm undertaking from the Ministry that there would be no accounting sleight of hand, I would be happy. In fact, the Ministry will provide £30 million notionally to implement the Bill—but when the Government conduct their weighting exercise and decide their priorities in other areas of local authority responsibility, at the end of the day the amount of cash that local authorities are given will not be equal to the sum they received last year, plus an amount to take account of inflation, plus a percentage of the £30 million. On the contrary, even with the measures that the Government will take to extricate themselves from the poll tax fiasco, the amount of cash that local authorities receive will be substantially less.
      Mr. Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend is far too kind to the Minister. In calculating the standard spending assessment, the Department of the Environment, in conjunction with the Minister, takes no real account of any additional obligations placed on local authorities. My local authority has been poll tax-capped for additional expenditure relating to the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill from 1 April 1991. What position will the Minister adopt if my local
      848
      authority takes steps to make allowance in its budget for next year resources for the implementation of the Food Safety Bill and again finds itself falling foul of the Department of the Environment? Will he ring-fence and protect my local authority?
      Mr. Davies: I offer my sincere apologies to my hon. Friend if he thinks that I am being unduly kind to the Minister. It is not for want of trying, but the Minister keeps dodging about. He presents different arguments at different times. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes a valid point that is at the heart of the funding relationship between central and local government. My later comments will support my hon. Friend's argument, but if he wants to intervene later or even to make a brief contribution, I am sure that the House would welcome it, particularly since my hon. Friend represents a local authority that is an exemplary illustration of the deficiencies of the poll tax. His local authority is traditionally very responsible and moderate. It has discharged all the duties required of it by central Government and the public. It has never embarked on spending sprees or overshot its targets. It has always tried to comply with Government spending guidelines—but because of the ludicrous inconsistencies of the poll tax, that local authority, with neighbouring local authorities, has been dragged before the Department of the Environment and told that it will be poll tax-capped.
      Because of the continual underfunding of local authorities and the impact of the SSA system, there can be no guarantee that money provided for in the Bill will be used for ensuring food safety. In the current year, about 70 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales are spending above their SSA. I refer not to Labour authorities or to the so-called loony authorities that the Government like to attack. Some are Labour, but some are Conservative. Incidentally, I am glad that we have the continuing presence of the massed ranks of the Liberal and Social Democrats in the form of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), having seen off the SDP. I invite the SLD to join us in the next general election in seeing off the Government.
      Mr. David Lighthown (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Is that the new alternative strategy?
      Mr. Davies: I am delighted that we have something rarely seen in this House—a Whip who can actually speak. That is a rare privilege. Having recognised him, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be appearing in Hansard tomorrow. I have no doubt that at half-past 10 or 11 o'clock a message will come through from the Patronage Secretary, and the hon. Gentleman will be called up to the office and invited to explain why Government Whips are now taking part in debates.
      Local authorities are spending above their standard spending assessments. They have more commitments than they have resources from central Government and from the local population via the poll tax. That means that local authorities must make judgments and prioritise. Perhaps at the moment they are using money out of the standard spending assessment for the purposes that I mentioned earlier: care for the elderly, sheltered accommodation, meals on wheels, concessionary fares for pensioners, providing leisure facilities or social facilities for the handicapped and day care facilities for the mentally handicapped. Those are the sorts of thing that progressive authorities, whatever their political hue, will do. Now local

      849
      authorities are under increasing pressure from central Government. The choice that they will have to make next year, as they did this year and last, is whether to continue to fund such services or whether to use the new powers that they have been given and divert resources from existing services to food safety.
      7.30 pm
      I am all in favour of allowing local authorities discretion, but that can be meaningful only if they are allowed resources and if they are allowed to provide services over and above the minimum acceptable standards. The impact of successive Government revenue support settlements is that local authorities are having to, and will have to, make hard judgments whether they implement the Bill or continue to provide services for the elderly, the young, the handicapped or people in need. That is a matter of great concern to Opposition Members. We are worried that there is no guarantee that the money will go to individual local authorities. We do not know, and the Government certainly have not told us. They might tell us tonight and I hope that the Minister can offer us an explanation. The Government have not told us what the mechanism will be, and how they will apportion the funds among local authorities. Will they say that inner city authorities, which might have enormous problems during the day because of the wealth of catering establishments, will be given resources to reflect their duties? Rural authorities, which cover many acres and have a low population density and therefore high costs, may have a lot of industry associated with food. Will their problems be accommodated?
      There is a mass exodus of population from the inner cities at night, so there is no point in saying that the amount of money will be calculated on the basis of the residential population. An inner city area might have a large number of catering establishments but very few people living there. How will it have the resources to tackle the problems? Those are the questions that we are pressing the Government to answer, and I hope that the Minister will give some sign, when he responds to the debate, of how he proposes to tackle them.
      Mr. Martlew: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid-flow. Does he agree that the other worry is that authorities which provide a good service, like my local authority, which has high numbers of environmental health officers, might be penalised and instead money may go to authorities which had neglected food safety in the past? Does he agree that it would be almost criminal if that happened?
      Mr. Davis: Absolutely. That gives the lie to two things: first, the Government's commitment to ensuring the implementation of these measures: and, secondly, to their commitment to good democratic local government, because they are penalising local authorities which have done the job that they are there to do.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, the Bill transfers the burden of implementing measures—if they are to be implemented—on to the poll tax. If additional services are to be provided, and if local authorities are spending above their standard spending assessment—we know that 70 per cent. of them are—any additional expenditure will fall directly on the poll tax. We know that, due to the multiplier effect, a heavy burden will fall on local authorities. I have no doubt that next year we
      850
      will have the iniquitous situation of the Government wanting to take local authorities to court, twisting arms and imposing all sorts of poll tax—capping measures. How will local authorities be able to implement the measures contained in the Bill?
      The Government say that they will give local authorities the money. But local authorities are spending above their standard spending assessments, so any additional money that they get will be taken up by existing commitments. If they incur new commitments, they will have to add them on to the poll tax and they will immediately be caught by the panoply of measures that the Government will introduce to prevent rises in the poll tax. That that is absolutely unacceptable has been recognised by the local authority associations.
      A useful indication of the concern expressed by some local authorities is a note which I received from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It says:
      "The Government does not provide a detailed breakdown of the individual components of the grant"—
      that is, when the revenue support grant settlement is announced—
      "it only provides Control (i.e. spending) Totals for each block of services. Environmental health"—
      that is the block under which food safety measures will be held—
      "comes into the Other Services block in the category of `Services provided predominantly by district councils'. This covers a rag-bag of services—from Allotments to Registration of Electors—and has a Control total for 1990–91 of £3,891. So, an increase of £30m in the environmental health section would be insignificant and could well be hidden by reductions in other areas. Weasel words such as 'this sum takes account of the increase in spending needed to meet the requirements of the Bill' are used to give the impression that all is well."
      All is not well. The Government have to answer some serious questions. We want to know what they are going to do to prevent the burden of implementing the Food Safety Bill from falling on poll tax payers. We want to know whether, when the revenue support grant settlement is announced, the Minister will give a breakdown of how the additional resources, if they exist, will be distributed to local authorities, and how the "Other Services" heading in the AMA briefing will be calculated.
      Unless we get satifactory answers to those serious questions, Opposition Members will have no alternative but to conclude that the Government are happy to pass legislation as long as that legislation only gives powers to local authorities rather than places duties upon them. in the absence of money to enforce those powers, the Government cannot be serious about their commitment to food safety.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: The debate is a replay of debates in Committee, and the Labour Front Bench spokesmen have talked at length about exchanges that took place there. The key point is not whether money should be specifically allocated. If we believe in the discretion of local authorities, we should not be arguing that point. The key is the basis on which the calculation is being made and on which the money will get to local authorities so that they can implement the new procedures that the Government are requiring of them.
      By saying that £30 million has been allocated, the Government acknowledge that extra expenses will be involved and that they should at least take a share of the

      851
      burden—I would hope that they will take the bulk of it—through the grants system. That is what the Minister claims that the Government have done.
      The reason why new clause 2 is important, and should be pursued—I hope that the Minister will respond positively, if not to the new clause, at least to the spirit in which it was tabled—is that there must be room for debate about whether the money allocated is sufficient. The House has every reason to expect Ministers to come forward with a much fuller explanation of how they have made that calculation, and how they intend funds to be distributed. The House has every justification in asking for and expecting that, because when Ministers were asked in Committee for the basis of their calculation, they were unable to provide any real explanation.
      I challenged the Ministers, saying that their calculations amounted to a guesstimate. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as Ministers are prepared to admit it, but they refused to do so. However, they were not able to offer any explanation or any detail about how they had reached that precise figure and were able to say with apparent authority that they had got it absolutely right and that there could be no question about it. I cannot see any evidence of that and the House should not accept it. It seems to me entirely appropriate that hon. Members should ask the Government—and the new clause is one way of doing that—to explain themselves before local authorities are required to bear the cost of implementing the legislation.
      If the Government have got it wrong and are not prepared to justify themselves, other services will suffer. I do not believe that local authorities will wish not to implement the legislation, but that could be at a cost to other services or at great cost to the community charge or poll tax payer. Either of those consequences would prove disreputable, given that the Minister is claiming that he has carried out all the calculations to ensure that that will not be the case. There is no reason for the House to believe him, and if he cannot come up with a better answer than he gave in Committee, he should accept the new clause.
      Mr. McCartney: I support the new clause which goes to the heart of whether the Government are serious about the implementation of food safety measures. There is general agreement in the House about the concept and the principles of the Bill. Although Opposition Members consider that it has not gone far enough, at least it makes an effort to set out a way forward from the serious food safety problems that have arisen over the past few years. I am referring not simply to the various outbreaks of salmonella and listeria, but to the large increase in the number of restaurants and take-away establishments in Britain. The growth in food production and related service sector industries has been to the detriment of engineering and other traditional industries.
      The largest food processing plant in the world, H. J. Heinz of Kitt Green, is in my constituency. Every time hon. Members eat a tin of beans they should think of me and the town of Wigan. A number of other large companies involved in the production and retail sale of food are based in my constituency. Whenever such an establishment has been set up my local authority has used its resources to ensure that those companies have a clear
      852
      understanding about the arrangements by which we in Wigan try to maintain high standards of food safety at the point of production and at the point of sale.
      However, in the past few years there has been increasing strain on the local authority's ability to maintain those high standards, because central Government have withdrawn resources through grant-related expenditure assessments, the reduction in rate support grant and the introduction of the poll tax. This year alone there has been a reduction of more than £20 million in the Government funding that enables the local authority to run its services. That reduction has occurred precisely when, through this and other Government measures, local authorities are being asked to implement consumer safety legislation.
      That legislation has been demanded by the way in which consumers have reacted to food scares and because of their genuine right to ensure that the food that they purchase is as safe as possible. Therefore, if the Government are not prepared to give an absolute commitment to providing local authorities with the necessary resources to implement that legislation, it is essential that we support the new clause.
      Staffing and training are essential in the development of codes of practice at local level, working with industry and those involved in the retail sale of food to maintain and improve existing standards. Unfortunately, the high standards in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) do not represent the pattern throughout the rest of the country. In many areas there is a lack of resources because of the deliberate policy of local authorities, cuts in expenditure or unwillingness or lack of interest in food safety and consumer safety.
      7.45 pm
      Local authorities start from a low level of resources to implement the Bill. It is, therefore, vital—if the Government are serious—that they should give a categorical assurance about the level of funding and how that funding will be ring fenced to ensure that the money is used for the purposes set out in the Bill. It would be tragic indeed if local authorities were allocated resources to implement the requirements of the Bill, but, because of pressures on local government resources, the money was used for another purpose and the Bill was not implemented. We cannot allow that to happen, given public attitudes towards food safety. The public will not expect the dragging of feet in the House or at local government level in protection of the production and sale of food.
      The Select Committees on Agriculture and on Social Services have considered the implementation of a large number of recommendations to prevent listeria in large supermarkets and small corner shops. The implementation of those recommendations, if approved by the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will mean that local authorities need substantial additional resources. They will need officers and training to implement those changes. Therefore, the Minister must give a clear undertaking that, in discussions about allocating resources for next year, some money will be set aside specifically for the implementation of the legislation. The Government must take adequate measures to ensure

      853
      that new money is provided and that that money is clearly identified or ring fenced to ensure that it is spent on food safety.
      I have served on a local authority finance committee and I understand only too well the ability of local authorities—under pressure or otherwise—to change heads of expenditure and to spend resources on other services than those to which they were allocated. We have to ensure that lack of resources due to poll tax capping or the level of poll tax do not force local authorities to spend the money on other services to the detriment of food safety.
      The Minister owes it to the House to ensure that new money is provided by the Department of the Environment and that local authorities do not use it to reduce their overall expenditure. The Government must ensure that the legislation is seen as a new and welcome approach to food safety and that local authorities have the resources to get on with the job in the way in which consumers would wish.
      Mr. Tony Speller: I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I come from a catering background and I suspect that, despite his connection with Heinz, he does not. Our greatest problem is not to provide lots of money; that is not the answer. Lots of training is the answer. Much holiday catering is done by casual labour and much of the damage is caused through infection by casual labour.
      It is fine to talk about laboratories, as new clause 2 does. There are normally adequate laboratory facilities, but we do not have trained and qualified staff. If we are to look for money from the Government, we should first seek a way in which we can train the staff, especially the casual staff, and we should provide a form of certificate of hygiene in food. That would be a step forward.
      A greater step forward would be to train the housewife because most damage to health occurs in the home.
      Mr. McCartney: For the record, I inform the hon. Gentleman that I have a catering background. At 15, I was trained at the merchant navy national sea training college as a chef. I went to sea and then worked in the hotel trade for several years. I was so poorly paid and exploited by Tory employers that I got out and became a Member of Parliament.
      Mr. Speller: That is a fascinating coincidence. I started my training as a commis chef. The pay of a commis chef and then a commis waiter was probably rather lower than the pay of those in the merchant navy, who are not badly paid on the whole.
      We need assistance to ensure that the people who do the casual work are properly trained. In London and in the provinces there are many who take up a job for a few days. Within a couple of years, they should not be able to take up those jobs without the certificate of basic food hygiene.
      The events of the past few weeks show that we can do things without cash. I have been chairing a working committee of the Mobile and Outside Caterers Association and the environmental health officers. They have been trying to draw up a checklist. Catering for a function is a bit like an airline's job. On an aeroplane, it is the engineer's job to check out the aeroplane and the pilot's job to fly it. They are not contrary to each other. Too often, people assume that the environmental officer is in some way the enemy of the caterer—or vice versa.
      854
      I wholly support the Bill, which seeks to bring together all the strands so that we have cleaner and better-presented food. There are a million and one points that I could mention. One can observe outside a supermarket the family collecting the frozen food. It goes into the back of the hot estate wagon and is at a nice boiling temperature by the time it is put back into a freezer cabinet. Training and education will help us far more than vast quantities of money. Money does not solve anything; the application of training might.
      Mr. Maclean: New clause 2 would place several requirements on Ministers which are unnecessary and would add nothing worth while to our present system. We have already consulted local authority organisations at some length on resources. Following those consultations, we derived the figure of £30 million as being the annual sum that food authorities would need to carry out the extra tasks that would follow from the Bill. That took account of staffing needs, training, the impact of the Bill and the EC official control of foodstuffs directive.
      It was noticeable that from the day that we unveiled the Bill and the notice in the Bill that we would provide an extra £30 million, which rather shot the Opposition's fox because they believed that we would not make available that large extra sum, they have been trying to undermine the favourable reception for the additional funding by suggesting that local authorities will receive far less than that. That is not so. Central Government will provide an extra £30 million for food law enforcement. As has already been pointed out many times, local authority financing is complicated. However, it will be understood from the start of negotiations on the 1991–92 revenue support grant settlements in the autumn that the whole £30 million will be paid by central Government.
      We shall also be able to take account of changing circumstances. In the Bill, we have provided for consultation on all the regulation-making powers likely to have a financial impact on local authorities. Local authority associations will thus have a formal opportunity to comment on our detailed proposals. We shall listen carefully to what they have to say on all aspects of the regulations. What is more, the local authority associations can make representations in the normal way in the extensive discussions on spending that we hold each year, culminating in the annual meeting between the associations and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that local authorities were under no obligation to enforce food law and he asked what would happen if they did not. Local authorities have the duty to enforce food law under clause 6(2). There will be codes of practice to assist them in prioritising their work. There are also default powers which will enable the Government to step in and send the bill to the local authority concerned. Our aim, of course, will be not to have to use those powers, but they are contained in clause 43 to be used if necessary.
      Ultimately, we need a system that leaves it to local authorities to allocate resources, both from central Government and raised locally, in the right way for then. area. If it is now Labour party policy, as espoused by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), that we should ring-fence the money and dictate to local authorities how they should spend it, we shall take that as an interesting change in policy. The local authorities will

      855
      be interested if it is the new Labour party strategy to dictate to them how they shall spend the money in their local areas.
      Mr. McCartney: I am surprised that the Minister is not up to date on the issue of ring fencing. It is a method of ensuring that local authorities implement new measures. That idea won the approval of the Select Committees on Agriculture and on Social Services earlier this year, and it was supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and by the local authority associations. The Government give on the one hand in speeches here and take away with the other hand at meetings at the Department of the Environment. The Minister will have to come up with some better arguments to ensure that my local authority will receive some new money from the Government to enforce food safety legislation.
      Mr. Maclean: We have made the point time and again that the £30 million is new money and that it will be paid by central Government. I am merely making the observation—which is interesting to my hon. Friends—that Labour party policy seems to have moved considerably if it is now the view of Labour Members that central Government must dictate to local authorities the areas in which they must spend their money.
      We do not intend to dictate to local authorities exactly what they should spend on enforcing food legislation. Local authorities will be duty bound to enforce the law and we shall give them some guidance through codes of practice. I am sure that the House will agree—I invite Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to agree—that each authority must spend what it believes is right in its own area.
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: I agree with the Minister's view on not dictating what local authorities must spend. The Liberal Democrats have always taken that view on local discretion and accountability to the local community. But is the Minister prepared to publish, for the aid of those local communities and of the House, the detailed assumptions on which the figure of £30 million is based in terms of staffing needs and other costs associated with these measures?
      Mr. Maclean: No. I have said repeatedly that, having had discussions with some local authorities and their associations, we made a calculation. We stand by the £30 million as being adequate for the new and extra tasks that the Food Safety Bill will impose. I cannot say at this stage—it is not up to me—how the money will be distributed. The allocations to individual authorities will be made some months from now after the usual consultations with local authority associations. Let me repeat—I hope for the final time—that the whole of the £30 million will be paid by central Government.
      Having made that point clear, I hope that I have also made it clear that we are in the business of listening to what the local authorities have to say. I emphasise that £30 million is a significant sum both in absolute terms and in relation to the present sum spent on food safety and food enforcement. It is generally recognised by many outside the House—certainly outside the Labour party—that that sum represents a good response by the Government. Moreover, the Audit Commission is undertaking a study
      856
      on food law enforcement and especially on how the law is enforced by environmental health officers and it may make recommendations on the more effective use of resources.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) cannot fail to have noticed the consultation document issued by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health which deals with all aspects of training. I hope that, before the closing date at the end of this month, either as an individual or on behalf of many of the organisations to which he may talk, he will make representations to the Department of Health on what training is necessary. I also hope that, in the circumstances and in view of the explanation that I have given, the hon. Member for Caerphilly will feel that he can withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am not sure whether I am overwhelmed by the Minister's argument, but I am grateful that, at last, we have flushed out from him a firm promise on the £30 million in this brief debate. I am grateful, too, that he has at last given an undertaking to enter into meaningful consultation with local authorities. He will understand that we shall be in contact with them. In the light of those two little bits of good news, if not concessions, we shall not press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 5

      LICENSING OF CERTAIN PREMISES
      '.—(1) This section shall have effect for securing the licensing of certain premises used for the purposes of a food business by means of regulations under section 20(1)(b).
      (2) The Ministers shall make regulations under section 20(I)(b) in respect of premises in which food is prepared by the processes of pre-cooked chilled products, low-acid canning, aseptic packaging and vacuum packaging.'.—[Dr. David Clark.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Dr. David Clark.]
      8 pm
      Mr. Martlew: New clause 5 would strengthen the Bill by providing a licensing system that will ensure that certain food premises where various food processes are conducted are licensed and not registered. The Government propose to introduce a register, which would be excessively bureaucratic and take considerable time to compile and would require considerable finance to maintain. Such a register would do little to stem the tide—the epidemic—of food poisoning that is sweeping the country. The word "epidemic" is not mine; it was used by the chief medical officer of health—Ministers are always quoting the chief medical officer of health—who told the Select Committee's salmonella inquiry that an epidemic of food poisoning was sweeping the country.
      The Government's answer to that problem is a registration scheme that will do nothing to improve minimum standards or ensure that the owners of premises are trained or experienced. Environmental health officers will not prosecute people who are not registered. They will find someone who is not registered and say, "You are not registered, so go along and register." If environmental health departments decide to prosecute, they will be accused of being petty. They will go to a magistrate, and

      857
      he will ask, "What laws have been broken?" They will say, "He refuses to register." He will ask, "Has he corrected that?" They will say, "Yes." The magistrate will then give an absolute discharge and tell the environmental health people not to come back with such trivial matters.
      Registration reminds me of the ribbon around an expensive Easter egg—it is there for effect. When one eats the egg, one finds that the ribbon adds nothing to the taste. At the end of the day, the ribbon ends up in the bin. All that adds to the cost of the egg. It is very much like the Government's Green Paper on protecting the consumer—many words but not much action. That criticism could be made of the Food Safety Bill.
      I should like to quote—or misquote—George Bush, the American President. During the presidential elections, referring to the policies of Michael Dukakis, he asked, "Where's the beef?"—I suspect that, if he were in Britain in 1990, he would have found another phrase. What he meant was, "Where's the substance in the policies?" There is no substance in the registration of food premises, but there would be great substance in a licensing scheme. That is the view not only of the Labour party but of the Consumers Association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. It is also the view of a scientist—Sir Mark Richmond, the Government's appointed chairman of the committee on microbiological safety of food. In a letter dated 24 August 1989 to the present Minister—he is always saying that he has just come to the Department, so bovine spongiform encephalopathy has nothing to do with him—he said that at least all catering establishments, processing of pre-cooked chilled products, low acid canning, butchery and meat processing and vacuum packing should be licensed.
      What did the Government do? They completely ignored that advice. Less than a fortnight ago, the Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee and said, "I should like to cull calves, but my advisers say that we should not do that. I should like to carry out research, but my scientists advise me that it is not necessary." His chief scientist, Sir Mark Richmond, advised him to introduce licensing. For one reason or another, the Minister decided to kick out that advice. We suspect that the food processing industry has put pressure on the Government. That reason alone has prevented the introduction of licensing.
      We do not have licensing because the Minister has said that it is bureaucratic and not practical. However, we have licensing systems. For example, betting shops, cinemas and theatres are licensed.
      Mr. Ron Davies: And public houses.
      Mr. Martlew: When we talk about licensed premises, we normally talk about public houses. Since the Ale House Act 1928, we have had licensed public houses. It is not a simple matter of going to a local council and getting a licence. The process is complicated, but it works successfully. I have not heard any Minister say that public houses should not be licensed. A person who wishes to obtain a licence applies to magistrates and submits a plan of the public house. The magistrates then decide to have a site visit to examine the premises and determine whether it is fit for the consumption of alcohol.
      The licensee is brought to court and questioned. He is asked, among other things, "What training, qualifications and experience do you have to he granted a licence to run
      858
      a public house or a restaurant?" It is ironic that the Government are concerned about public houses. When it comes to selling alcoholic beverages to get people drunk, premises must be licensed, but when it comes to selling people food that can poison or kill them, all that is needed is a register. There is no common sense in that policy.
      We have the remnants of Thatcherism. Common sense says that we should have a licensing system, but all we have is the old policy of "Get the bureaucrats off the back of business and let the free market go forth and prosper". Ironically, all the markets in this country are also licensed. However, the free market, when it comes to food processing and the sale of food, kills people. That is why I hope that we can have a positive response from the Minister.
      I suspect that there is a leeway in the Bill for the introduction of licensing. If this Government do not introduce licensing, the next Labour Government will look seriously at it so that people can be protected against those who are concerned only with making profits. That does not apply to the majority of people who sell food, but it certainly applies to the minority who cause the problems.
      When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say that the Government have been convinced and that they will change their policies. If they do not, a Labour Government will give the matter serious consideration. We should be grateful to this Government for giving us the means of implementing a licensing system.
      Mr. Dorrell: I believe that this is the first occasion on which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench for his party. I welcome him to his new responsibilities. Although I did not find his argument persuasive, I hope that this will be the first of many occasions on which he speaks from that Dispatch Box.
      The hon. Gentleman began by suggesting that registration is too bureaucratic. He supported that assertion by suggesting that environmental health officers would not be able to initiate prosecutions for non-registration. That power exists, but I hope that there will be relatively few prosecutions for non-registration. The hon. Gentleman's argument missed the point about the purpose of registration. Registration itself is not part of an enforcement mechanism. It is the machinery for giving sufficient information to the environmental health department of the enforcement agency to allow it to use the other powers of the Bill effectively and to reinforce its provisions. Registration is explicitly part of the light regulatory regime that we are seeking to introduce, which would be effective but no more heavy-handed in arty individual case than is specifically necessary to achieve the objective.
      I am pleased that today I have been able further to elaborate the registration scheme that we propose because today I have published the draft registration form, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. It is a straightforward form that contains only eight questions. It should therefore be quick to complete.
      A key section of the form asks businesses to state the type of business that is carried out on the premises. Businesses are divided into three main groups—catering premises, retail premises and food manufacturing premises. The heading "food manufacturing premises" is subdivided to highlight certain processes, including the

      859
      four processes that are identified in the new clause. Any food business will have the right to register, and the process of registration will not be subject to a charge.
      Registration will enable local authorities more easily to identify the types of food premises within their boundaries and will consequently enable them to target their enforcement action more effectively. Enforcement officers will have a range of powers—inspection; seizure; the issue of improvement notices, prohibition orders and emergency prohibition notices; and prosecution. Ministers will have the power to make emergency control orders. We believe that registration backed by that panoply of powers, which are the effective machinery of enforcement, will be a simple but effective way of ensuring good standards of hygiene throughout the food industry.
      The new clause suggests that we should license the premises used for the four processes that are quoted in the new clause. The hon. Member for Carlisle prayed in aid the report of the Richmond committee and suggested that it endorsed his argument. That is not strictly true. The Richmond committee suggested that the process—not the premises—should be licensed.
      However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Government are taking the power that is contained within the Bill to do what he proposes, should the need arise. I do not believe that the need will arise, but I prefer the way that we are advocating because it is much more flexible than his suggestions. There is already the longstop that the hon. Gentleman wants, because we can invoke that power. However, I do not believe that it will be necessary. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 6

      FOOD LABELLING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
      '.—(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Food Labelling Advisory Committee ("the Committee") to perform the functions assigned to the Committee by or under this section.
      (2) The members of the Committee, of whom there shall be not less than eight, shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate.
      (3) The Committee shall give to the Minister advice on matters relating to the implementation of this section or the exercise of any power conferred by it, or otherwise relating to food labelling, where the Committee consider it expedient, or they are requested by the Minister to do so.
      (4) The Committee shall have a duty to identify labelling descriptions which are misleading and shall have a duty to propose to the Minister alternative descriptions.
      (5) The functions of the Food Advisory Committee in respect of food labelling and compositional standards shall be transferred to the Committee from the first day this Act comes into force.'.—[Mr. Matthew Taylor.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 32, in clause 8, page 6, line 19 at end insert—
      '(d) it is not reasonably safe, having regard to all the circumstances, including the manner in which, and the
      860
      purposes for which, the food is being marketed, the composition of the food, the use of any mark in relation to food and any instructions or warnings which are given with respect to the keeping, use of or consumption of the food.'.
      No. 33, in clause 17, page 14, line 28 at end insert—
      'In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Ministers shall take all necessary steps to ensure that milk collected from cows which have been subject to injection with bovine somatotrophin shall be labelled as such.'.
      Mr. Taylor: New clause 6 proposes a food labelling advisory committee as opposed to what happens at present, when labelling matters come within the remit of the much more general Food Advisory Committee. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will be aware that Liberal Democrats have taken a particular interest throughout in the issue of food labelling. The new clause is an attempt to put that issue back on the agenda today and to move forward from what we believe to be a weak position for a Government who, in other respects, have accepted the argument that the consumer should have elements of choice. That choice could come with accurate and proper labelling. Labelling should not only be accurate in scientific terms, but should be capable of being readily understood by consumers when they are making their purchases. The anomalies and the misleading labelling that exists at the moment—and which is allowed—demonstrates that the Government and the Food Advisory Committee have failed in the job of providing the consumer with that service.
      We need a separate body specifically dedicated to labelling. As one example of the areas in which improved labelling would be appropriate, the amendments would allow the labelling of mechanically recovered meat. That would enable consumers to make a distinction between artificial and natural ingredients.
      Throughout the Bill's passage, I have repeatedly used the example of yoghurts that are labelled "strawberry flavour" as opposed to those that are labelled "strawberry-flavoured". To most people in the shops, that does not seem a distinction of great relevance, but it distinguishes between artificial ingredients and natural ingredients, such as real strawberries in the product.
      I refer also to the distinction between "battery eggs" and "farm fresh eggs". In fact, there is no distinction, but a consumer who does not want to buy eggs produced from battery hens will not be aware of that fact. Frankly, the egg producers would use the description "battery eggs" rather than "farm fresh eggs" if they thought that the consumer would not react badly to the term "battery eggs". Producers use the term "farm fresh eggs" precisely because of the images that that conjures up in consumers' minds. That image is wholly wrong but the description helps to sell the eggs.
      We want to ensure that "Cape" produce bears the words "South Africa". To many consumers, "Cape" produce and South African produce are different kettles of fish. Hon. Members may or may not feel that people should buy goods from South Africa, but some consumers may not want to buy South African goods and it may not occur to them that South African produce is labelled "Cape".
      We also want to replace the word "tenderised" when that refers to the fact that the animal has been injected with a vegetable enzyme. That is not what one thinks of when one sees a product labelled "tenderised". When a cookery book states, "Tenderise your meat", it is not envisaged

      861
      that the housewife will get out a hypodermic needle and inject the meat. The cookery book means that the meat should be bashed with a hammer.
      Those are all examples of the way in which the present labelling system fails to give consumers what they think they are getting. In this respect, information is power and ignorance is impotence. It is high time that the Government did something about it.
      Amendment No. 32 has received the strong backing of the Consumers Association. It is designed to ensure that the Bill includes a general safety clause and to make it an offence to sell food that fails to comply with the food safety requirements. We believe that being legally accountable for the safety of the food that they sell will make suppliers more careful about what they buy and how they store and display it. Although the proposed safety requirements are a considerable improvement on the present legislation—I do not take that away from the Government—they still do not meet the standards of other consumer protection legislation. The draft EC product safety directive, for example, which covers food, contains a much more wide-ranging safety duty that takes account of the
      "intended use, consumption, packaging, transport and storage of a product, according to normal circumstances".
      That is precisely the intention of the amendments.
      The Consumer Protection Act 1987 imposes a similar general duty of safety, and trading standards officers have used it successfully. It is difficult to see why Ministers argue that such a measure is unusable or inappropriate. Clearly, they believe that it is appropriate in other areas and, indeed, the EEC believes that it is appropriate in food safety. Such a measure is used successfully in other areas.
      The catch-all that the amendment would provide will extend all the way along the food chain and cover any loopholes that may emerge in the future. That is particularly important in food safety where technology, as we have already said, is changing rapidly. The provision would ensure that any potential risk presented by the product is appropriately indicated to make the consumer aware of it and allow an individual assessment of its seriousness.
      The Government have maintained that such a provision is not necessary. They argue that all eventualities are covered by other, more targeted provisions in the Bill. However, the Consumers Association has identified two examples of loopholes in the Bill as currently drafted. Those loopholes were highlighted during the debate on this issue in the House of Lords. One loophole involves microwave ovens. There has been recent speculation about how effectively microwave cooking kills listeria. Some manufacturers of the ovens have reacted by removing instructions on how to microwave a particular product to heat it up because of worries that listeria might not be entirely eliminated by following the instructions. However, manufacturers provided no warning about goods that people may have cooked by microwave for some years following the users' instructions. To consumers it was the same old product that they had bought many times and heated in the same way. No warning was provided that the product was unsuitable for microwaving. Consumers could be forgiven for expecting to be able to continue to reheat the product in the microwave. The inclusion of a general safety requirement, such as that in the amendments, would require manufacturers to label such products as unsuitable for microwaving.
      862
      There is a similar loophole with red kidney beans. We know that there is a problem if the product is not properly cooked and that it can cause quite severe stomach upsets. Indeed, the Government issued prompt advice to the food industry urging it to label products accordingly. However, there is no legal requirement on suppliers to co-operate.
      When those examples of loopholes were debated in the House of Lords, the Minister maintained that the addition of a general safety duty was unnecessary. In my view, he failed to give adequate explanation of how the existing provisions would cover the specific problems that had been pointed out. For example, the Minister claimed that the food labelling regulations covered kidney beans. However, beans sold loose are not covered by the regulations and whether pre-packed beans are covered is arguable.
      The Minister referred to the provisions of clause 8, which deem food unfit if it has been rendered injurious to health or contaminated. But neither of the examples that I have given would be covered by that. The Minister also referred to the labelling and presentation requirements in clause 15. It covers false or misleading descriptions of food, but neither problem would he covered by it.
      The Bill represents the Government's acceptance of the need to take measures to provide the public with general safety. The Ministers argue that the Bill does that. It is clear that the Bill does not do so in all eventualities. A general safety clause would cover all eventualities. Other legislation includes such clauses and I see no realistic or good reason why Ministers should oppose it. I hope that they will take this opportunity to react accordingly.
      Amendment No. 33 requires the labelling of milk from cows which have been treated with BST. It does not address the question whether that product should he sold at all. In many respects, the simplest solution would be not to sell it to the public but simply to destroy it. Presently only three sites are testing BST and only 71 cows are involved. If the Government do not wish to pursue that course, at least they should let the consumer know what they are buying, according to exactly the same principle on which the Minister argued in the case of irradiation. He maintained that there was no risk from irradiation but that consumers should be allowed to be aware of what they were buying in order to exercise an informed choice. It is well known that, from the National Farmers Union to the women's institutes, consumers demand that knowledge and the ability to exercise that choice. However, it seems that Ministers are not prepared to give them that choice. Why not? When testing is being carried out at only three sites using only 71 cows, why not collect the milk separately, bottle it separately and label it to see whether people want it or not? [Laughter.]
      Mr. Ron Davies: They will not.
      Mr. Taylor: I notice Labour Members laughing. I bet my bottom dollar that there would be no buyers for such milk if it were so labelled. That may be why the Government do not want to do so. The thought crossed the mind of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). Perhaps it has crossed the Minister's mind too. We should at least test it. If the Minister thinks that people will want to buy such milk, if is easy enough to test.
      The only argument against labelling milk from BST-treated cows is that BST is the same as the natural hormone in cows. People say that one simply adds to the level of hormone in the cow but that in other respects one

      863
      cannot tell the injected hormone and the natural hormone apart. The problem with that is, first, that the Government argue that irradiation is safe but that customers must be informed that food is irradiated. That is a right principle and it should apply to BST, too. Secondly, the case that BST is identical to the natural hormone is not proven. On the contrary, the molecular structure is different. On that basis alone, there is reason for caution, quite apart from evidence from Monsanto trials that, for example, cows injected with BST show significant and unnatural increases in the size of the internal organs, especially the heart and the kidneys, that pregnancy rates in BST-treated cows are almost half that in control cows and that the hormone content of BST milk is 26 times higher than that of normal milk. Monsanto's own trials revealed those details. They do not mean that there is necessarily a danger or a risk, but, on the basis of everything that Ministers have said about other matters from BSE to irradiation, surely the consumer should be protected against that risk, particularly while trials are taking place.
      The trials happen to be taking place in the west country so I have a particularly strong interest in the matter. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to act to protect and inform the consumer by making labelling a requirement.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I say to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and to the House that instinctively the Labour party is opposed to BST. We have made that clear. Whether this is the right vehicle to express our opposition to it is another matter. The hon. Gentleman would not expect us to go that far.
      As this is the only occasion tonight on which I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity—[Interruption.] I am glad that that has given pleasure to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). I am sorry to say that it seems to have given him mere pleasure than his speech gave me. I say that in a spirit of generosity because recently I visited his constituency. I take this opportunity to apologise for not having told him. I was a member of what was a pleasant Standing Committee because I am a member of the health team. I found myself from time to time opposite the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). I am sure that we all wish him well with his new portfolio. I enjoyed working with him on the Committee dealing with this Bill as well as on the Committee dealing with the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. In that spirit we extend a welcome to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell).
      I hope that the hon. Member for Truro will not be too disappointed when I say that, having listened to his speech for the second time, and although I appreciate that there is much to be said for the principles that he expounded, we cannot agree with the details. The principles are well intentioned, but although we support the main objectives of the new clause we have reservations about the details.
      Food labelling is an essential part of the safety process and consumers have a right to expect labelling to be clear, accurate and informative. To be fair to food suppliers, such labelling is already provided; there are technical difficulties that the Committee recognised, but I shall not detain the House with them tonight as they are already on record.
      864
      8.30 pm
      An area of particular concern involves new products and ingredients whose names are less familiar to consumers. The E numbers are used as part of a common EC nomenclature, but they are strange to many consumers. More information on that specific matter would be helpful to shoppers.
      The new clause lacks reality because it proposes a specialist food labelling advisory committee. To achieve that would diminish the functions of the Food Advisory Committee, which already does useful work on labelling and compositional standards. We respect the work of the FAC and we do not want its role diminished, but that would follow the acceptance of the new clause.
      Mr. Maclean indicated assent.
      Mr. Clarke: I am glad to note that the Minister agrees. I detect that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is a bit worried, but his earlier intervention gave me far more pleasure than any of the speeches I heard from Tory Members in Committee. I hope that we hear a great deal more from my hon. Friend.
      It is true that consumers should be more strongly represented on the FAC, but things are changing and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield about that.
      Doubtless when responding the Minister will say that the Government consider that the labelling of food is an EC affair and, as such, much of the decision-making about labelling occurs in Brussels. We are not unaware of the requirement for and benefits of common standards for labels, especially with 1992 in mind. Nevertheless, there must be a large consumer input into the regulations and directives from the EC.
      The Government must test any proposals for labelling before those who speak for consumers test them, although I accept that the FAC has the expertise. The new consumer working party established belatedly by MAFF means that the shoppers' view will be known before the Council of Ministers decides on such matters.
      For the present we prefer to use that which exists rather than to create another body with a limited function.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall deal first with amendment No. 32, which I believe is unnecessary and unworkable.
      The House accepts that it is vital to ensure that we will always be able to prohibit the sale of unsafe food. I believe that that is already achieved by the three-part food safety requirement set out in clause 8(2). That requirement takes into account all the factors that have a direct effect on the safety of the final food. It makes little sense to say that food fails to comply with food safety requirements if it is not "reasonably safe". That term is extremely subjective and, even without it, it would be difficult to evaluate whether food was safe. Food that is safe to eat now may be harmful if eaten later. People are also different and food that does no harm to one can be extremely dangerous to another.
      I believe that we have got the balance right on our food safety requirements. However, should there be some unforeseen turn of events that means that we need additional measures, we have the powers under clause 17 to make specific regulations to deal with the matters precisely mentioned by the amendment. We can regulate on the composition of food and on labelling and require

      865
      warnings to be given to consumers. We have the legislative protection to hand if it is needed. The Bill contains broad and flexible powers based on what is good in existing legislation. I would not want the House to accept the amendment.
      It is a pleasure for me to meet the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) at the Dispatch Box. He showed his customary kindness and good humour. On this occasion he displayed his excellent wisdom by pointing out that, even if there is merit in amendment No. 33, the Bill is not the vehicle for it. The same goes for some of the other rag-bag matters that the hon. Member for Truro would like to be subject to labels. We dealt with those issues exhaustively in Committee. If it is meritorious to start labelling South African produce, no doubt we shall get a demand from some Opposition Members to start labelling Nicaraguan produce now that that country is no longer controlled by a nasty left-wing regime. That country is now probably persona non grata. Were we to seek to take such action, we should do so after first taking the advice of the Food Advisory Committee. We could make such changes under the labelling regulations and the powers set out in clause 16. I repeat, however, that the Bill is not the vehicle for the personal issues raised by the hon. Member for Truro that he wants to be subject to labelling.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, West was right to cast doubt on the new clause and right to support the FAC. It already advises Ministers on matters relating to the composition, labelling and advertising of food and on additives, contaminants and other substances that might be present. It is unnecessary and undesirable to set up a similar but separate body. The FAC has a chairman and 14 members appointed for their personal expertise—they do not represent particular interests. Five of them are from the food manufacturing or retail industry, five have consumer or enforcement expertise and five are from the academic world. The committee reviews and prepares reports on all matters within its terms of reference and it makes recommendations for legislation where necessary. I set great store by the FAC and I hope that it will continue in its work.
      I have told the House on many occasions that we have given the FAC a major task to perform in the next few months as it will advise on all aspects of labelling, identify misleading labelling descriptions and propose alternatives. Many of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro are currently under review by the FAC. The comprehensive review of food labelling undertaken by that committee will be first class. It will also take into account changing EC obligations. The hon. Member for Monklands, West was right to point out that we are no longer totally our own master in that respect. We must bear in mind EC decisions.
      The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Truro are unnecessary and unworkable and his new clause undermines the excellent work undertaken by the FAC. We see no need to set up a separate body to deal particularly with food labelling. In common with the hon. Member for Monklands, West, I hope that the House will not want the new clause to be added to the Bill.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 9

      DECLARATION OF FEEDINGSTUFFS INGREDIENTS
      'For the purpose of protecting and promoting the interests of consumers by means of informing persons in charge of live animals which are food sources from which food in intended to be derived, the Ministers shall by regulations coming into force no later than six months from the day on which this Act is passed provide that compound feedingstuffs may not be marketed unless such particulars as may be prescribed are clearly marked on the packaging or container or on a label attached thereto, including—

      (a) the species or category of animal for which the feedingstuff is intended,

      (b) directions for the proper use of the feedingstuff,

      (c) a declaration listing all of the ingredients in the feedingstuff described by their specific names in descending order by weight,

      (d) the energy value of the feedingstuff,

      (e) the date of manufacture and minimum storage life of the feedingstuff and

      (f) the name and address of the person responsible for the prescribed particulars.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

      Brought up, and read the First Time.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
      `(e) fodder or feedingstuffs for animals, birds or fish intended for human consumption'.
      No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert
      `not intended for human consumption'.
      No. 3, in clause 17, page 14, line 10, at end insert
      'provided that regulations controlling the presence of substances in food sources shall not permit the presence in fodder or feedingstuffs for animals intended for human consumption of substances not permitted for use in food intended for human consumption'.
      No. 4, in clause 17, page 14, line 10, at end insert—
      '(1A) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Ministers shall take all necessary actions to ensure that fodder or feedingstuffs for animals intended for human consumption be so labelled as to provide full details of the ingredients and origin of the fodder or feedingstuffs.'.
      Mr. Davies: The purpose of the new clause is to make provision in the Bill to require those who are responsible for manufacturing animal feedstuffs to label the contents in a manner that is clearly understood by the purchasers of those foodstuffs.
      The House will appreciate the need for the new clause. It is common knowledge that the food industry has been shattered in the last couple of years by two instances of epidemic caused by the consumption by farm animals of contaminated feedstuffs. I refer to salmonella infection in the poultry industry and the current epidemic of BSE An our cattle herd, both arising directly—I believe this is beyond disagreement now—from the consumption of contaminated feedstuffs.
      There is no doubt in my mind that beef producers, given the opportunity, would now be feeding their animals nothing but feedstuffs containing vegetable protein. I am equally sure that consumers would be happier if they could purchase beef that had been produced from cattle fed with nothing but vegetable protein. Unfortunately, that cannot be the case because under the present law in Britain cattle can still be fed the rendered remains of pigs and chickens and chicken litter, and various items such as plywood can still be mixed in with cattle feed. I am not sure how a diet of rendered pigs, chicken litter and plywood quite fits in

      867
      with the theological menu which the current Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would have us believe is suitable for vegetarian cows.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has made that point.
      Mr. Davies: That may be so. The hon. Lady has just drifted into the Chamber, no doubt having been entertaining herself in the west end. I agree that it is the second time, and if the opportunity arises, I will make the point a third time—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Really!
      Mr. Davies:—and if the hon. Lady continues to interrupt me, I will say it a fourth and a fifth time. It is a valuable point. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is unfortunately obsessed with theology and pays too little attention to the proper running of his Ministry—[Interruption.] The natives on the Conservative Benches must learn when they get restless that if they want to dish it out, they must be prepared to take it. I learnt that early in life. I shall be happy to stay for the rest of the night taking what they have to dish out, but I warn them that I shall give it back with interest.
      The Minister preaches the virtues of feeding vegetarian cows a diet of vegetable matter. But he presides over a Department which has regulations allowing the rendered remains of pigs, chicken litter and plywood to be fed to cattle. That is a fact—[ Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not like it, I am sorry; I do not like it either. That is why we need the new clause. I hope that they will rise in abundance to support it because, according to a poll in today's issue of Farming News, 82 per cent. of farmers believe there should be a total ban on the inclusion of meat and bone meal in animal rations.
      Opposition Members have been calling for that for well over a year. If the Government are not prepared to take that fundamental precautionary step, they should at least ensure that livestock producers have the opportunity to follow their own, more sensible, approach and choose not to feed livestock on rations containing meat and bone meal. It is a fundamental question of choice.
      At present, the Government, for all their protestations about consumer sovereignty and the disclosure of information, refuse to take the basic step of requiring the feed compounders to list the ingredients of their rations. The new clause would not require the disclosure of any trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. The exact proportions and nutritional balance of compound feeds, which are the commercially sensitive bits of information, would remain confidential.
      But the compounders would have to disclose what is in the feed. To take a topical example, they would have to disclose whether a high protein cake contained entirely vegetable protein or animal protein, too. Why should not the farmer have that information so that he can make a choice, particularly if the Government refuse to do the sensible thing and ban ruminant-derived protein from all animal feed?
      Mr. Ashby: Almost all the farmers in my constituency have been crying out for some knowledge of what is in their feedstuff and say that they would not feed their cattle animal products if they knew that feedstuff contained such
      868
      products. I would support the new clause but for the fact that I am aware of an EEC directive and believe that it is probably better that the matter is tackled through the European Community. If that were not the case, I would support wholeheartedly what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Davies: That is not much consolation to the beef producers of Scotland, Wales and England, who are seeing the bottom fall out of their market. If the only answer the hon. Gentleman can offer them is, "Hang around for a couple of years and in 1992 we might get some European legislation, and then all will be okay," I suggest he tells that to the farmers in his constituency. They are crying out for action, not in two years' time but in two days' time. That would enable them immediately to take the necessary action themselves. They would be empowered to take action to help resolve the crisis that is afflicting their industry. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but we must act with urgency. There is no time to waste.
      The Daily Telegraph said in an interesting article this morning:
      "Eighty two per cent. of the sample—"
      conducted for Farming News
      "said they wanted a compulsory ban on the use of meat and bone meal in all farm livestock rations. These ingredients can still be used in food for pigs and poultry."
      It is abundantly clear that farmers have a greater understanding of public susceptibility in these matters than has the Ministry.
      Mr. John Greenway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at a meeting in York last week of 300 beef farmers from all over the country, not one was convinced, having listened to the evidence, that there was any scientific backing for what the hon. Gentleman is saying? The animal feed people at the meeting made it clear that, if individual farmers wished to have certain rations taken out of the feed supplied to them, they had only to ask.
      Mr. Ashby: Oh?
      Mr. Greenway: I was at the meeting.
      Mr. Davies: I am enjoying the sight of Conservative Members being almost at each other's throats. I followed with interest what happened at that conference in York. I read the background to it and I appreciate the enthusiasm that existed there. I also know of the enthusiasm on the part of consumers, who are anxious to buy a product in which they have total confidence. Frankly, if we continue feeding chicken litter to cattle and expect to have public confidence in our beef-producing industry, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will have to think again.
      Mr. Greenway: Rubbish.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman might think it rubbish. He should rise and defend his position on this. I quoted from a sample of farmers and the view of 82 per cent. of them. A poll in today's issue of Farming News shows that farmers believe that there should be a total ban on the feeding of meat and bone meal. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present about a week ago for the debate on BSE. There may be scientific evidence to suggest that there is nothing demonstrably wrong with the

      869
      practice. But that is not the heart of the argument. There may be dangers about which we do not yet know and, anyway, consumers do not like the practice.
      If that is not enough, and if the 35 per cent. drop in the British beef market is not enough to convince the hon. Member for Ryedale of the true position, I can only say that I care more for the £250 million interest that the farmers of Wales have in the beef industry. The hon. Gentleman might think it satisfactory to feed chicken litter to cattle, but there are dangers in doing that. For example, an article in the June 1990 issue of Agscene says:
      "Australian beef producers were shaken in the new year by a mass botulism outbreak among cattle from two feedlots in the Queensland area. 5,000 animals destined for the lucrative Japanese grain-fed beef market have reportedly died after consuming chicken manure mixed in feed causing the fatal attack of food poisoning."
      The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) may say that they do not enjoy the protection of the European Community and that that could not happen in the Community or in Britain. I refer the hon. Gentleman to an article in the Veterinary Record of 27 May 1989. It states:
      "A major outbreak of type C botulism in cattle has recently been reported from Northern Ireland … Eighty animals from a herd of 150 housed beef cattle were affected and 68 of them died. It was the largest outbreak of bovine botulism recorded in Europe and the first to be caused by feeding ensiled poultry litter to cattle, a practice which is common in Northern Ireland and in many other European countries. In view of the risk of botulism from this feed source, and because of the severity of the outbreak, some additional laboratory findings relating to the incident are presented in this paper and their implications are discussed."
      There is no doubt that there is a major problem with our food producing industries. One way to start to restore confidence is to ensure that farmers can buy with certainty products whose labels have a legal basis so that if the farmers wish to produce organically or to give a guarantee that their animals have consumed nothing other than vegetable protein they should he able to do so.
      If consumers want to go to the butcher with some certainty that the animals with which he has been supplied have been fed only vegetable protein, they should be entitled to do that. It is wrong for anyone to suggest that those fundamental freedoms in the production and consumption of animal products should not be afforded by legislation. The National Farmers Union endorses that view. Notwithstanding the comments of its president at the conference in York last week, that is now the official view of the union. In correspondence to me on 5 June the union said:
      "For over a decade the NFU have been calling for an obligation on suppliers of compound feedingstuffs for farm livestock to declare the specific ingredients of those feedingstuffs so that farmers can know more precisely what they are feeding to their animals. We believe that such a requirement is important for the confidence of both farmers as producers of animals for the food chain and for consumers as the farmers' customers".
      The Country Landowners Association also contacted me and asked to go on record. It wishes to have its support recorded for the campaign for compulsory labelling of feedstuff ingredients. The association says that fanners and landowners will not be impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West that the United Kingdom can simply wait for the EEC directive on feedingstuffs and should not act before the due date.
      The Government have an excellent opportunity to show that they can respond positively to the consumer's
      870
      need to know what is in feedstuffs. By accepting the amendment the Government would bring United Kingdom law into line with the objective of the EEC directive. What could be a better position to defend in Europe in view of the situation in the past couple of years when the practices in this country unfortunately brought our agriculture into disrepute?
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The four amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends are quite far reaching in their implications because, as well as having labelling requirements a nd requirements that labels should show ingredients and the country of origin, they bring feedingstuffs for animals designed for human consumption into the definition of food within the Bill. That is a radical concept which is worth looking at when one thinks of the objectives that the Government themselves have set and the need to establish the kind of confidence that the industry deserves.
      I represent a prime beef-producing area. It is in the interests of farmers in my constituency that standards should be brought up to those that they keep rather than pulled down by the bad practice that occasionally arises. I do not find support for the idea of feeding animal protein to herbivore ruminant animals, nor do I find confidence in the idea that what is unfit for human consumption is somehow fit for consumption by animals which we will eat. Those issues arouse increasing feeling among consumers and increasing recognition by farmers of the need to maintain the high standards to which many work and to which more are beginning to work. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the approach that we have suggested. I hope that he shares our objective.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is a major item of Government policy that the consumer should exercise informed choice. In this case the consumer is the farmer who wants to be able to exercise choice that is informed by accurate labelling of what he is buying. This is in line with mainstream Government policy and I trust that the Government will accept the new clause for which I shall certainly vote.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: If the Government refuse to accept the new clause, it will be symptomatic of their whole approach to these matters. They are in the 11th hour, under siege in Europe, with a 35 per cent. reduction in beef sales and are seeing the world caving in around them. If they resist the new clause they will be exhibiting a head-in-the-sand attitude.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has already mentioned representations from the National Farmers Union south of the border and from the Country Landowners Association. I wish to put on record the support of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. In order to answer the points raised against the new clause by Conservative Members, I reiterate that, although the EEC directive has been approved, it does not take effect until January 1991. The Scottish NFU quite specifically addresses that point by saying that under the new clause the opportunity arises to bring forward by 18 months what has already been acknowledged should happen at that time. The union states:
      "In view of the widespread public concern on this particular issue, the Union would ask you to support this initiative on an issue which is of such importance to producers and consumers alike".

      871
      In Scotland the impact is being felt although the herds are almost exclusively free from this affliction. Scottish farmers want the protection of being able to say to the world, "We are doing the most rather than the least"." However, the Government refuse to address that.
      The point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is dismissed in the union's letter. The Scottish NFU would not write to every Scottish Member asking us to argue in favour of the new clause if its membership was opposed to it or complacent about it. The Scottish NFU treats it as a matter of urgency because it at least knows what is happening in Europe and in the shops and is aware of the views of its members. The Scottish NFU wants the Government to act. It wants the Government to be seen to be doing the most rather than the least to meet the urgent threat that exists.
      Mr. John Greenway: I am sorry about the way that this debate has been conducted because I do not think that there is any difference of opinion in the House about the long-term goal or the need for improved labelling of the ingredients of food rations. Far from helping farmers and beef producers, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) indulged in the continuing scaremongering that is emanating as much from the Opposition as from the British press. That undermines what our beef producers are trying to achieve.
      I went to the meeting in York, which is close to my constituency, and listened for three hours to what farmers had to say. The hon. Member for Caerphilly is right. There is widespread concern about the future of agriculture as a consequence of what has been said in the media about BSE. There is no scientific advice to back up much of what the hon. Gentleman said.
      Last week, I went to a major feed manufacturer—one of the biggest in the north of England—in my constituency. I discovered that, whereas the Government banned the use of ruminant protein in cattle feeds in 1988, this feed manufacturer voluntarily stopped using it in 1986 in response to requests from farmers. I have spoken to several feed manufacturers today and they have asked me to make it clear that if a farmer is not happy with the food ration, there is an opportunity for him to say that he does not wish certain ingredients in the feed for cattle, pigs or poultry. This is happening more and more often.
      We all want to see labelling of foodstuffs, but there is a problem, apart from the need to ensure that any action is on a European Communitywide basis. If there is one lesson that we should learn from what has happened in the past two or three days and our efforts to get the French and German ban on English beef lifted, it is that there are higher standards on husbandry, animal welfare and food hygiene and animal feed hygiene in Britain than on the continent. There is no point in our legislating without bringing the rest of the European Community with us. That is why it is important that we have a European Communitywide arrangement.
      My second point has not yet been made. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues at the Ministry will consult widely over the arrangements. There are major difficulties in dealing with some of the matters that have been raised. There is no disagreement on what we wish to see achieved, but when the hon. Member for Caerphilly starts scaremongering, he destroys the British beef farmer.
      9 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I sympathise with the mood of the House and its wish to ensure that food producers are provided with the detailed information that they need on important inputs such as animal feedingstuffs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) used a good phrase, "informed consumer choice". That appeals to me and to the Government. However, I have made it clear in earlier debates, first, that such matters are properly dealt with in regulations made under the Agriculture Act 1970 rather than in a food Bill dealing with human food, and, secondly, that in this sector, conditions are being introduced for the European Community as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was right to stress that point.
      The new clause specifies six categories of information that should be required of feedingstuff manufacturers. For the benefit of the House, I shall set out both existing arrangements and the provision of the recently-approved EC directive. I think that it will be seen that we have either already introduced or are well on the way to introducing practically all the requirements of the new clause.
      The first two requirements set out that the species or category of animal for which the feedingstuff is intended should be stated and that directions for the proper use of the feed should be given. Both these matters are existing requirements of the Feedingstuffs Regulations 1988. Further categories of information covered by the new clause are the date of manufacture, the minimum storage life and the details of the person responsible for the accuracy of the information. The present regulations already require the latter to be set down and, while declaration of the date of manufacture and storage life are optional, the recent directive will make it obligatory to supply this information also. In the case of four of the six categories, therefore—categories (a), (b), (e), and (f)—the information sought is either already obligatory or well on the way to being made obligatory.
      We are left with ingredient listing and a declaration of energy value, and the latter is difficult and complicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale alluded to that. There is no agreement in the Community on the best approach to the necessary calculations, but I assure the House that the UK is in the forefront of the work that is proceeding and we shall be pressing urgently to continue the work at all speed. However, it would be unrealistic, and I do not want to give the House the impression that it would be possible, to expect that early agreement that would allow for the declaration of energy values on a uniform basis will be achieved.
      The essential element, in any case, is ingredient listing. Here a considerable step forward was taken when the new directive was agreed in January. It provides for obligatory listing, either of specific ingredients or of categories of similar ingredients.
      Mr. Wilson: We all know about the directive and know that it is taking effect from 1991, but the precise point of organisations such as the National Farmers Union for Scotland, and its English counterpart, getting in touch with Opposition Members is to say that that is not good enough, as there is an 18-month gap. The NFU at least recognises the urgency of the position, having said:
      "The declaration of ingredients of manufactured livestock feeds has to be made compulsory as soon as possible."

      873
      Is the Minister saying that 18 months is "as soon as possible"?
      Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman knows all about it, why table an amendment to the Bill? This is largely a matter of EC competence, and a matter for the Feedingstuffs Regulations 1988.
      As I have said, a considerable step forward was taken when the new directive was agreed in January. It remains for the experts to work out the categories that may be used to draw up the necessary reference list of ingredients that will permit manufacturers to make their declarations on a common basis across the European Community.
      The Opposition should appreciate that there is a great deal of complex technical work involved. It is not a matter of sticking the names of half a dozen ingredients on a bag; hundreds of ingredients could be used and named. We must get the definitions correct if the legislation is to mean anything, is to be enforceable, and does not disadvantage Great Britain in relation to other countries.
      I can assure the House that, like my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I want to be sure that the work is given the impetus that it deserves. We shall be actively pressing for rapid progress, so that ingredient listing can be introduced as early as possible.
      I urge the House not to accept the new clause. Regulations on animal feed are a matter for the Agriculture Act 1986, and we shall use the powers in that Act to implement the labelling requirements in due course. In view of the assurances that I have given tonight, we shall press ahead with the details as soon as possible. This Bill is not an appropriate place for animal-feed labelling regulations—much as we want them—and I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will not press the new clause to a vote.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I shall make two brief points. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) thinks that our comments about public confidence in the food industry are equivalent to scaremongering. Opposition Members argued that the Government should ban bovine offals for human consumption nine months before such a ban was introduced. We argued 12 months in advance that 100 per cent. compensation should be given for infected animals. However, despite pressure from Opposition Members, the National Farmers Union and others, the Government took 12 months to be persuaded of the rightness of such a move. I resent the attitude that implies that drawing attention to matters of public concern and pressing the Government to adopt policies to safeguard the public interest is equivalent to scaremongering, and I hope the hon. Member for Ryedale will reconsider his views.
      I understand the wisdom of seeking Europewide measures, if only to prevent a recurrence of the practice that, until last month, we were carrying on in our trade with France. I am sure that the Minister is aware that every month we were sending boat loads of meat and bonemeal from this country. That very meat and bonemeal was banned from ruminant feed in this country, but it was being incorporated in the rations being fed to French cattle. Under our trading arrangements with France, there was nothing to prevent the products of those cattle being shipped back to this country. That was happening until last month. That, if anything, demonstrates the need for Europewide action.
      874
      Having said that, let me add that the Minister gave a generous—and, I believe, genuine—assurance that he recognises and shares our concern, and intends to treat the matter with urgency. As I take his assurances at their face value, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 9

      INSPECTION AND SEIZURE OF SUSPECTED FOOD
      Mr. Gregory: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 7, line 44, after 'value', insert
      `and other costs, claims, damages and expenses incurred or suffered by the owner directly'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss Government amendment No. 10.
      Mr. Gregory: The House will recall that new clause 7 was withdrawn after a debate in Committee on 3 April. Its purpose was to extend the compensation to businesses whose goods had been wrongly seized. It was rejected by my hon. Friend the Minister on the grounds that companies could complain to the Local Commissioner for Administration, that they could insure themselves against any loss, that any increase in compensation would deter action by local government enforcement officers arid that it would weaken consumer protection. I have carefully considered the arguments, but I do not think they are valid, which is why I have tabled the amendment.
      Complaints to the local commissioner can be made only where there is maladministration or where a local authority has acted ultra vires. The amendment addresses costs arising out of genuine mistakes by authorities that are outwith the local commissioner's competence. Insurance for the sort of trade risk dealt with in the amendment is not obtainable, nor is it likely to be. I have carried out a review, in conjunction with the Food and Drink Federation, of the important matter of insurance. It is a new area of risk, falling between liability and business interruption. Insurance cover is not currently available.
      Although such cover would be available in principle, in practice it is not attractive. Accordingly, it is the general view of those consulted that it would be difficult to secure that sort of cover, except at a very high and therefore unattractive premium. It may be possible for very large companies to press their insurers to devise a special policy, but that is unlikely to be the case for smaller companies. That view was clearly expressed in letters from the Association of British Insurers and from the Lloyds broker Willis Wrightson. On the important matter of insurance liability, Willis Wrightson said:
      "We would anticipate that the cost and extent of additional insurance cover is likely to be analogous to the present market for Malicious Product Tamper Cover …since the effect of the two incidents would be similar—adverse publicity, loss of consumer confidence and loss of sales.
      In the Malicious Product Tamper market premiums are very high in relation to the limited cover available and therefore many companies do not insure this risk. The effect of a Notice being issued, although later withdrawn, could be particularly damaging to the smaller business who may suffer an irrevocable loss of sales and for whom the cost of insuring such as incident is prohibitive."
      I am sure that many hon. Members have such businesses in their constituencies. The letter continued:
      "In conclusion, if the Bill passes through Parliament in its present form, if a Notice is issued and withdrawn, many

      875
      businesses may find themselves with inadequate compensation and unable to purchase adequate insurance cover for this risk."
      The highly respected Association of British Insurers was consulted after the Committee stage of the Bill. Its assistant liability and accident manager wrote to the leading trade association, the Food and Drink Federation, saying:
      "I am not surprised that your members have experienced a lack of enthusiasm from insurers …
      Whilst we cannot rule out any of our members providing part or all of the cover in question, or that Lloyds or 'fringe' companies may be a little more positive, it is clear from my enquiries that, in general, company insurers would not wish to offer terms.
      Exceptions could be made, however, to substantial and well regarded policyholders but this would be very much for the individual insurer to decide on a case by case basis and would not be generally applied."
      Those quotations from a leading Lloyds broker and from the Association of British Insurers show that, having checked the points made in Committee, it is frankly not realistic to insure against that important risk.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To reinforce what my hon. Friend says, even if the damage was directly due to maladministration by a local authority, the local government commissioner's findings are not binding. That is not merely a theoretical consideration; they are often ignored by the local authority against whom a finding of maladministration lies.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, in his wisdom, makes that additional point.
      I do not believe that the additional compensation being sought would act as a deterrent to enforcement officers. I would be concerned if that were to be the case. If the Government believe that it would, they should be prepared to underwrite the cost of any such additional compensation.
      My hon. Friend the Minister has argued, and I accept, that there is a price to be paid for ensuring public safety. However, under the Bill as presently drafted that cost will fall randomly and disproportionately on innocent manufacturers who are unfortunate enough to be the victims of mistakes by enforcement authorities.
      Amendment No. 22 would not result in a single penny being paid in compensation to the guilty; it would result only in extra compensation going to innocent companies which have suffered loss directly as a result of wrongful seizure of goods.
      Dr. David Clark: Amendment No. 22 and Government amendment No. 10 raise some of the ideological and philosophical aspects of the Bill. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has clearly thought about the matter. I listened to him speak in Committee, and I listened to him carefully again today as he made a reasoned case.
      The Opposition considered amendment No. 22 carefully. It caused much anguish. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's words, spoken in a gentle tone, about deterrents to local authorities. The advice that we are getting from local authorities is that the additional compensation would act as a deterrent. Environmental health officers have written to me asking me to support amendment No. 10, not amendment No. 22.
      876
      The point was made pertinently this weekend in my constituency in connection with the shellfish scare off the north-east coast of England, with which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was involved. The local authority, South Tyneside metropolitan council, received notices from the Department of Health that some molluscs were incredibly dangerous and should not be eaten, and the appropriate notices were served. Similarly, the Department of Health was concerned—rightly—about the possible health risks from some crustaceans—lobsters, crabs and prawns—and warned the local authority.
      Under the current law, the local authority could not take any action, although it may be able to under the new law. For one week, crabs, lobsters and prawns throughout the north-east were withheld voluntarily by the fishermen at some considerable cost to themselves. I say voluntarily because the environmental health officer in my authority said that he could not officially impose any restriction on the sale of those products for the simple reason that he would then be liable to be sued because there was no evidence that there was any contamination in those particular kinds of shellfish—prawns, lobsters and crabs. There is routine testing of the molluscs, but there is no routine testing of crabs and lobsters. That is an example of where the present law is not right and I hope that the future law will be better.
      Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note for the sake of clarification that the lobsters never did pose any danger and that the Ministry has now made clear that lobsters hygienically stored after being caught during that period are now regarded by the Ministry as safe to eat.
      Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman and I have worked on that topic together, and I know that he takes a slightly different view. I think that the Department of Health was right. My feeling is that, if any doubt exists, public health must be the first priority. I personally support the Department of Health in its original decision. The hon. Gentleman is right in his comment about the lobsters, but it is made with the benefit of hindsight. However, I make the point that we have not yet received clarification in respect of crabs. My latest information is that crabs are still banned because there was at least one fairly high reading.
      At the same time, I have great sympathy with the fishermen concerned. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will agree that the lesson to be drawn is that the Department of Health was not at fault but the Ministry of Agriculture. Although the Department of Health was responsible for issuing notices and giving advice, the Ministry of Agriculture had the responsibility for making the tests on the shellfish. The confusion that arose between the two Departments was outrageous. I shall indicate the extent of the confusion by quoting verbatim a Department of Health spokesman:
      "The poison levels are very high. If people eat infected shellfish, they could end up in a large box being carried by six people."
      That is a fairly explicit and graphic warning. On the same day, the Ministry of Agriculture said that it was not treating the outbreak as a serious scare. I merely put those two statements to the House. Need I say more?
      The Department of Health warned my local authority on Saturday 26 May that lobsters, crabs and prawns could

      877
      present a potential health hazard. The Ministry of Agriculture was telling fishermen in my constituency that there was nothing wrong with lobsters, crabs and prawns.
      Mr. Dorrell indicated dissent.
      Dr. Clark: That is what was said. The Ministers may deny that, and they may deny the official statements from the two Departments concerned as well. However, if they check, they will be able to confirm my claim. The statement from the Department of Health is even pinned up on the wall of the press office there because they are so proud of it, it was so clear—and I think that it was a particularly good statement.
      Although my local authority, through the generosity of the fishermen, had samples of lobsters, crabs and prawns available, it was told by the Ministry of Agriculture that those samples could not be sent to Weymouth to be analysed because it was a bank holiday. They could not be despatched until the 6 o'clock train from Newcastle station by Red Star the following Tuesday. Here we are, talking about a matter of life and death, as the Department of Health acknowledged, yet there was no means of transporting samples from Newcastle to Weymouth because it was a bank holiday. It was farcical. It is about time that the Government got their act together.
      Worse still, the Ministry of Agriculture told my local authority that, if the samples were received by Tuesday, as they were, it could have the results the following day and then clarify the position with the local fishermen. However, although the results of the test were given to the press on Thursday night, they were not received by my local authority until 14.18 hours on the Friday. For seven working days, although samples were available, there were no results of tests to be had. The fishermen, who voluntarily withheld their stocks, lost a considerable sum of money.
      I accept that the Department of Health's action was right, but when there are mix-ups of the kind I have described, and when two Departments work at odds with each other, there is an incredibly strong argument for ex gratia payments. I hope that the Government will examine that aspect.
      I laboured that point, and went through it in some detail because it highlights the sort of difficulty that the hon. Member for York put forward, but there are better ways of tackling the problem than the way that he is suggesting.
      I am sometimes accused by the Government and Conservative Members of not always seeing eye to eye with the Government. That is no surprise.
      We considered how the new arrangements would operate if there was a serious food scare, such as Chernobyl. It is clear that if clause 14 had been operative in 1986, we would not have had any restricted areas after the Chernobyl incident and that would have been a mistake.
      My judgment and that of the Labour party is that, after reflection, the insertion of clause 14 in the other place was a mistake. I say unequivocally that we feel that the Government are right to seek to withdraw the clause. We shall support the Government on amendment 10. It is sensible and it puts the balance where it belongs—on the side of public health—and we support that.
      Mr. Gill: In supporting amendment No. 22, 1 must declare an interest in the food industry. My hon. Friend
      878
      will be aware of the serious concern in the food and farming industries that clause 14 should remain part of the Bill. It was inserted with all-party support in the other place, and has one straightforward principle—when the Government impose emergency restrictions to protect the public from a food or health hazard, any person who can subsequently show that their products were not affected by pollution or contamination should be compensated in respect of losses caused by emergency restrictions.
      A recent example is the case of contaminated cattle feed. A number of farmers are likely to have suffered losses as a result of restrictions placed on them by Government emergency orders, yet can show that they were not in receipt of any of the contaminated feed.
      I am not saying that the Government should be inhibited in any way from making full use of emergency powers to protect public interest. My concern is to protect the interests of those persons who inevitably get hurt in emergencies, but who subsequently are unable to establish a legal claim to recover their losses.
      Clause 14 is all about compensation for producers and processors who may suffer losses as a result of Government emergency action to protect food safety. It would require the Government to pay compensation to a producer who could demonstrate to a justice of the peace that he had been incorrectly included in Government emergency action to protect food safety, and had suffered losses as a result.
      Clause 14 is intended to ensure that Government powers are accompanied by Government responsibility in cases in which it is established after the event that action has extended to persons unconnected with any public health risk. For example, the Government may throw down a blanket of emergency action, much wider than sources of health risk, and in the process smother businesses totally unrelated to the risk. Such businesses should be entitled to compensation.
      As it stands, the Bill makes provision for compensation for any depreciation in the value of food wrongly seized, but makes no allowance for any additional cost that a company might incur to replace the consignment seized. If food with a long shelf life is wrongly seized, the company may receive no compensation because no depreciation is allowed, but could incur substantial extra costs fulfilling an important order. It could have a major impact on businesses which, due to the seizure of the goods, would be unable to fulfill an export contract which might have been put against specific letters of credit. The company would not only lose the value of that order, but could sustain significant damage to longer term sales development in the fiercely competitive international food market. A similar situation applies in the domestic market, where retail and domestic customers require continuity. In many instances stocks could be replaced in the short term, due to the required incubation period of some products.
      I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will argue that the industry could take out insurance cover. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has instanced the evidence of the Association of British Insurers which has pointed out that such insurance would be difficult to arrange and extremely expensive. He compared it, appropriately, with trying to purchase malicious product tamper cover.
      In summary, I urge my hon. Friend to state clearly that he accepts that it is inherent in the use of emergency powers that innocent parties may suffer irrecoverable

      879
      losses, that he is prepared to consider the matter further and does not rule out the possibility of future legislation on the matter and that in the meantime he will look sympathetically at any cases which may arise in the use of emergency powers with a view to making ex gratia payments.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Beith: concerned to learn that the Government get rid of clause 14, which was added to the her place. Obviously, there is a case for looking some aspects of clause 14—the specific way in of damage is shown and the scope of the clause would extend the scope to cover the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) which arose in the fishing industry during the recent scare, which still continues, although I hope that the stormy nights will clear the algae completely and will end the red tide and the mussel poisoning for quite some time. On that basis, I am prepared to put up with a couple more stormy nights.
      The fishermen did not simply withhold stocks from the market; they saw the market drop severely for some time. It is inevitable that such incidents have a considerable effect on the market. The greatest problem was that the traditional ban on mussels, which occurs when the Government become aware of high toxins in mussels and quite rightly give quick notification, was extended much more widely than usual. It was extended by the Department of Health in quite strict and formal terms to crustaceans such as lobsters, crabs and prawns, although the Ministry had no evidence that there were high levels of toxins in any of those crustaceans. It is still not clear that there were high or dangerous toxins in lobsters, crabs or prawns, but fishermen were unable to market those products although there was no danger to human consumption and the levels of toxins which were found were still within the accepted safety levels. Therefore, there is at least a case to be considered that the advice went far wider than was necessary.
      Perhaps the terms of the clause would not cover that, as advice was given on some products that were not covered by formal notices. But the effect is the same and the damage to fishermen's interests was considerable.
      When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was unfortunately described as one of the Minister's aides when he appeared in a photograph captioned:
      "The Agriculture Minister surrounded by his aides",
      went to York on Saturday, no doubt he had to answer the question that has been put to me: why is it that, when a Minister makes a statement arid gives a misleading impression of the extent of salmonella in eggs with a disastrous effect market, the Minister resigns and compensation producers, but when advice is given which than appears to have been necessary and suffer damage to their livelihood no whatsover is paid and the Government find inconceivable? I was glad that the clause was raised for discussion tonight because it gives Ministers an opportunity to offer some explanation, as fishermen will look at the Bill and say that we need such provisions and that they should apply in such cases.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That must manifestly be the case because many producers are one-person businesses or very small groups of fishermen with no capital resources to carry them over a week or two to complete loss of income and having to throw away their catches.
      Nobody is saying that the Government should be immune from making mistakes. Of course, they could not be. Nor is anybody saying that the Government should not take action to preserve and safeguard public health for fear of making mistakes.
      The proposition is different. It is that, because there is bound to be a certain amount of error in safeguarding the public health, the cost of that should fall on the public purse and not on the private resources of the individuals or small groups of producers who are the victims of error.
      In putting clause 14 into the Bill, the House of Lords recognised that such a situation exists and that it cries out for remedy. If there were a Government amendment to prescribe a different form of valuation for loss, we should be prepared to consider it on its merits. However, I cannot find on the amendment paper any substitute, but merely a bald removal of clause 14, and that is not acceptable.
      Mr. McCartney: For the past two and a half years, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and I have been involved regularly in cross-party matters in relation to consumer safety and to general consumer issues. We have been working with the manufacturers of products in attempting to improve the presentation and quality of materials in products. Where that has not been satisfactory, we have worked with Government Departments to improve the regulation of certain activities to ensure that the consumer is purchasing material that is safe to use.
      Amendment No. 22 has been accompanied by a considerable amount of correspondence from those of us who have food producers in our constituencies. One of the biggest food producers in Europe, if not the world—Heinz—has a food processing factory in my constituency. Less than two years ago, the company went through the trauma of malicious tampering with its products. I tend to use the phrase "food terrorism". There was a criminal attempt to extort from that company and others several million pounds. I cannot go into detail about the action taken in case a court case is pending.
      The company lost several million pounds of sales. It had to introduce new production techniques and equipment costing millions of pounds. The factory had to provide failsafe measures; it had to introduce new caps for baby food, and new training and security measures for staff in the factory. Even now, all that has not led to a complete restoration of the company's market share for the products involved. Those events led to copycat actions against Heinz and other companies.
      I have a great deal of sympathy for those in the industry who argue that when malicious action is taken, whether it is committed for personal gain or through a failure to follow procedures in legislation, there should be some recompense. Such malicious action is light years away from criminal activity and from the activities of professionally trained, well-organised members of staff who are promoting food safety work, such as environmental health officers and members of professional associations. I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for York said about what can happen as a result of criminal activity and about what can happen when a

      881
      Government have to take emergency action and, in doing so, catch in the net people who were not involved. However, that is dealt with under clause 14.
      Amendment No. 22 deals with attempts by local authority officers to maintain the highest possible standards of inspection and, when necessary, to seize food that is suspected of being unfit for human consumption. Local health authority officers will be involved in two types of activities, one of which relates to tinned and non-perishable goods. An officer must prove that there is good cause for the action that he is taking and give positive proof that there is a danger to the public. When there is positive proof, it is important that he tries to obtain the voluntary withholding of goods until further action is taken to prove whether the goods pose a danger to public health.
      However, matters are more difficult when it comes to fresh and perishable goods. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, when action is taken in relation to tinned foods there is not the same loss if a product is found to be safe at a later date, because tinned food is not perishable. With fresh and perishable foods, as the hon. Member for York said, if an officer's decision is proved to be wrong, manufacturers may attempt to seek compensation. I have worries about the way in which that case has been put forward.
      I have always been interested in consumer and food safety, from the point of view not only of consuming food but of the good name of the companies concerned and the dramatic effect on companies if they fail to follow proper failsafe procedures. If a local authority must take action, there will be a consequent effect on the company's good name. If there is any doubt, an officer can take some goods for proper checking, with the consent of the company. Only if a company does not voluntarily take its product off the market should an officer use seizure powers.
      Seizure powers are not new to this legislation—they have been available since 1956 under the Food and Drugs Act. I have heard no evidence this evening—perhaps hon. Members who support the amendment can provide it—that, since 1955, local authority officers have misused their powers in such a way that seizures have had adverse effects on companies. I know of no major case in which a local authority had acted irresponsibly or unreasonably in relation to its seizure powers under the 1955 Act to protect the public from exposure to food that was unfit for human consumption. It is up to the hon. Member for York and his colleagues to provide evidence of abuse if I am to have sympathy for their case.
      It is important also that good professional officers should endeavour to encourage companies voluntarily to impound products pending further investigation. On the very few occasions that such action must be taken, it is important that officials work with companies on a confidential and voluntary basis to ensure that the local authority's action is prudent and in the interests of consumers and is not detrimental to a company's good name or activities.
      In my view, only if a company is unreasonable and refuses to co-operate with the local authority officers should those local authority officers take the powers available to them under the current Act to protect the public. It is vital that local authority officers are not encumbered and that public safety measures should put the public and the consumer first.
      882
      Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the views expressed by Conservative Members—and some Opposition Members—I believe that the amendment would be detrimental to the work of those professional public safety officers who do not work in the same way as criminals who attempt to attack companies for their own financial gain. Those public safety officers work with companies every day to try to protect the public from any contaminated food reaching the shelves of our shops. That should be a major priority for those who support the consumers and the companies that sustain employment in our constituencies. The best thing for their future development is public confidence in the products that they produce. That is best achieved by a regular, professional working relationship between the companies and the local authority departments. The amendment does nothing to enhance that relationship. It builds a barrier between us and them on the pretext that local authority health workers are in opposition to the food production companies. That is not my experience, and I do not believe that it is the experience of any hon. Member.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. John Townend: My only connection with the food industry is as a hotelier, but that gives me a vested interest in safe food.
      If this debate had taken place three weeks ago, I should not have had the slightest hesitation supporting the Government's proposals to remove clause 14, which was inserted in the other place. However, unlike the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and in support of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) our experience of the way in which the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have over-reacted with regard to toxins caused by algae in mussels has made me come to the conclusion that provisions such as clause 14 are needed to protect farmers, fishermen, traders and even restaurateurs from the overcautiousness and in some cases the misjudgments not only of the Department of Health, but of any other Ministry or public body. In such circumstances, traders, farmers and fishermen have the right to protection.
      In my view, the two Ministries went over the top in this case by giving public health warnings not only for mussels, for which I readily accept that there was ample justification and evidence, but for all shellfish, including prawns, lobsters and crabs. They included other shellfish before they had the slightest shred of evidence that those species were affected by toxic levels that would cause poisoning to the public and before tests had been carried out.
      That is a dangerous precedent. If we ban food before we have evidence of any danger, the French could—and have—done the same thing. They could ban our food saying, "We think that there is something wrong with it. We do not have any evidence, but we shall ban it until we have proof."
      We have had a problem with algae in the north-east for many years, although until recently it has not come as far down as the Humber. I understand from Professor Edwards, who was, I believe, a scientist with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before moving to the. Shellfish Association of Great Britain, that there have. never been any cases of such toxic poisoning from lobsters, prawns or crabs.

      883
      The problem has been the enormous amount of publicity on food safety. We have had salmonella and mad cow disease. I think that the Ministry panicked and issued warnings about lobsters and prawns which have subsequently been proved to be completely unnecessary. In such cases, Her Majesty's Government have a moral responsibility to compensate fishermen, traders and restaurateurs who have suffered financially from that overreaction.
      We are told that traces of the toxins have been found in a few crabs. Last week, because of the problems of fishermen at Bridlington, I rang the Ministry of Health every day for a daily report. I can confirm one thing that the hon. Member for South Shields said: one does not get far on a bank holiday weekend. It perturbed me that after the bank holiday weekend I tried to get through to the Ministry on Tuesday. There was no reply from the private office. Everyone was on holiday, so I rang the duty officer. I could not get through to the duty officer. I got through to the telephonist who said that there were five calls holding. I said that I would leave my number for him to ring back when he was free. She said that she had instructions not to do that and that the officer could not ring people back. I said, "But I am a Member of Parliament." She said that it made no difference.
      If the Government had thought that there was a possibility that for the first time ever the toxin would affect lobsters, crabs and prawns in addition to mussels, they should not have made an announcement but should immediately have taken samples and had them analysed within 24 hours. If they had obtained evidence of a public danger, it would have been right and proper to issue a public warning.
      We must be careful that we do not become obsessed with food safety. People have stopped eating beef because of mad cow disease, chickens and eggs because of salmonella, soft cheese because of listeria and now we have a public warning about shellfish. On Saturday night I had a dinner party at which I served scallops and good English roast beef and no one was any the worse for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "So far."]
      Every day that I rang the Ministry of Health, it was still testing crabs and still had not found toxin levels above the danger limit. It seems that having made a mistake, the Ministry desperately continued testing more crabs to prove that it was right. I was told by Professor Edwards that 400 crabs were tested and only four or five were found to have a level of toxin. If those figures are wrong, I shall be grateful if the Minister will give the right figures to the House.
      The two Ministries have not acted satisfactorily on this matter. It will never come out, but I have the feeling that if it had been left to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food there would have been a warning on mussels and nothing else. I believe that the Department of Health went over the top.
      I do not see why the mistakes and overreactions of the Government should be at the expense of my constituents, particularly fishermen. Opposition Members who have fishing constituencies know that fishermen on the north-east coast have had a bad year because the quotas have been reduced. This is the last straw. I believe that there should be some compensation in this case. I hope
      884
      that the Government will consider it. The legislation does not exist to deal with that. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the matter would not be covered by the new clause. I shall not support the Government in removing the new clause that was inserted in another place unless they give an undertaking to provide an alternative to it.
      Mr. Martlew: I shall be brief. I am always worried when spokesmen on the two Front Benches agree and the Back Benches on the Government side begin to fill up. I can usually smell vested interests and that is the case now. We are having a strange debate. The Government took a decision. I wonder what would have happened if they had decided to say nothing and people had died. I wonder what hon. Members would have said. If one of his constituents had died, I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would have said exactly the opposite of what he said tonight. That is typical of a Liberal. He wants it both ways.
      Mr. Beith: Can the hon. Gentleman give a single case of anyone who died as a result of eating lobsters or crabs which had ingested toxins as a result of algal blooms at any time in history?
      Mr. Martlew: It obviously makes the hon. Gentleman very bad-tempered. I can give an example of an alternative scenario involving corned beef. It was in Aberdeen. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is being crabby but we shall have to put up with it. Someone said that there was an outbreak of salmonella, but in fact it was typhoid. About 20 people died and the corned beef industry was destroyed for a generation. If action had not been taken on shellfish and people had died, the crab and lobster fishing industry would not have suffered a hiccup; it would have been destroyed. That would have been a crime.
      If there was any neglect on the Government's part in not having the tests carried out, the fishermen affected should be compensated, but we must always err on the side of caution to protect the industry in the long term as well to protect the consumer.
      People argue that if a mistake is made in the advice given, the private sector should not be expected to pay; rather the public should. I accept that, but the public already pay for the inspection of factories and the tests that are carried out when things go wrong. I believe that the food industry should pay for the inspections carried out on their factories and any illness suffered by the public from their products. Often those companies do not volunteer to pay money to people who have suffered from food poisoning. The argument always seems to be that if it has anything to do with business the public should pay, but when it comes to social security people are expected to manage on what they receive.
      I believe that the Government acted in the best interests of the industry in the long term by being cautious. The day that environmental health departments hold back or Ministries delay in case their decision might cost money will be the day we have a tragedy.
      Mr. Richard Alexander: I have some difficulty coming down on one side or the other having read all the briefings. I have reached a conclusion, but it has been difficult having heard the arguments on both sides. It is not an easy or simple matter, as one must have already concluded from the speeches of the hon. Member

      885
      for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), whose views were diametrically opposed.
      On balance, if I were the Minister, I would be seeking to have clause 14 removed from the Bill. In food emergencies the Government are in a no-win situation. The shellfish example demonstrates that. I have a great deal of respect and affection for my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington, but I profoundly disagree with him in this instance.
      The Government are often criticised on food matters for not taking a robust enough line. But some hon. Members, regardless of party, may say that they have taken an unnecessarily robust one. On balance, the Government must be able to introduce emergency food measures uninfluenced by whether compensation may have to be paid if they make a mistake. They must act on the advice of their food scientists uninfluenced by how much it will cost the taxpayer to provide compensation. The Government would be thought to be acting in bad faith if they took no action bearing in mind the fact that compensation might follow. Their critics would argue that they had taken no action, not because of bad advice, but because of the possible financial consequences.
      Often the necessary action that is taken immediately might, with hindsight, be proved to be more than absolutely necessary. Recently we have been in dispute with our European partners about beef. Our food exporting industry requires and demands that we take action on food safety grounds alone. If clause 14 was in place, that confidence would be undermined. Sometimes action must be taken which, with hindsight, would be excessive, but we must not leave a Minister feeling that he cannot responsibly take a certain course because of the consequences.
      If the Government are found to be acting capriciously, that is a matter of maladministration, a matter for the ombudsman and a matter for ex gratia payment. I hope that when he replies, the Minister will say that, should that be the case, ex gratia payment would follow.
      Where I part company with what I believe to be the views of the Minister is in his hope that the matter can be covered by insurance. The NFU rightly says——
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting the Food Safety [Lords] Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Fallon.]
      As amended ( in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Alexander: We understand from the NFU that there is no appropriate compensation against losses of the sort contemplated. The insurance industry says that compensation is possible, but that there would be a very heavy premium. If the NFU recognises the Minister's dilemma, will he, in turn, recognise the NFU's and possibly introduce a fund or scheme which may compensate producers who are in the position that would otherwise be dealt with by clause 14? The producers' campaign must be seriously addressed. Discussions must take place with the Country Landowners' Association and the NFU to resolve the problem. In that light, I shall be supporting the removal of clause 14.
      Mr. Dorrell: I have seldom agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) so much as I did when he said that the issues raised by this debate were difficult for the House to decide. The matters which we have been discussing for the past 45 minutes or so raise some difficult and fundamental issues with which I will deal in as orderly a way as possible.
      I must at the outset separate the three issues that the House has been addressing in this debate. The first is that raised by the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory)—whether the compensation payable under the terms of clause 9 should be restricted in the way proposed by the draft or whether they should be extended in the way proposed by my hon. Friend. The second issue is whether the Government should be liable for compensation for emergency orders issued under clause 13. The third is the handling of the shellfish issues in the past fortnight.
      First, on the two compensation issues, the Government have considered carefully the matters that were raised in Committee. Despite the important arguments that were advanced, we have decided to seek the consent of the House to the Bill as originally drafted and that compensation should, therefore, be limited to the amount by which the food depreciates during the time that it is subject to the order issued by the environmental health officer.
      The amendment seeks to extend the scale of compensation payable by allowing the owner of food to claim other costs, damages and expenses incurred directly. The first question raised by that concept is what is covered by the definition of "direct cost." Before coming into the House I was employed in business and was present at many theological debates about the nature of direct cost. To include in a statute the provision that the owner of food should be entitled to compensation based on direct cost raises problems and poses more questions than it answers.
      The Bill contains important safeguards about the way in which an environmental health officer should use the powers granted to him by the Bill. The most important of those safeguards is that no action that he can take under clause 9 can be made to stick unless he can convince a justice of the peace to support him within 21 days. If he cannot so convince a JP, compensation under the limited terms provided by the Bill becomes payable. That is an important safeguard.
      My hon. Friend the Member for York said that he does not think that the risk of the wider definition of cost would be insurable. The Government have taken advice from the insurance industry and our advice is to the contrary. The insurance industry assures us that in principle these risks are insurable and that the industry is willing to listen to any serious and properly backed proposition which the food industry will make for insuring the wider risk that my hon. Friend seeks to cover.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As a letter read out by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) made clear, what may be available to a very large firm which is already insured, as an extension of that insurance, is wholly different from what may be available to a fisherman or a small group of fishermen who have not been insured for risks of this kind before and are trying to do so per de novo. What is the Government's advice about that? I am not talking about finance.
      Mr. Dorrell: I accept the force of my hon. Friend's argument. It is, of course, true that an insurance broker will assess the risk of each proposition that is put to him. No broker can accept on the same terms all risks that are put to him. The advice stands that in principle the risk is insurable. That is the key point that the House should bear in mind.
      Mr. Michael Stern: I have an indirect interest in this matter because I am a partner in a firm which has an insurance interest. My hon. Friend says that an insurance broker will quote for a risk. Most insurance brokers can quote for any risk, but they can make sure that no insurance is offered by quoting a premium which makes the risk totally uninsurable. Will my hon. Friend the Minister write to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) giving the range of insurance premiums that have been quoted to him?
      Mr. Dorrell: I hesitate to set myself up as a sort of poor man's insurance broker, because I am not sure that that is a proper course of employment for a Minister of the Crown. This is not the only basis on which we are seeking to persuade the House to reject my hon. Friend's amendment. The key point is that this is an insurable risk, but that it would be on different terms for different customers.
      Mr. Gregory: My hon. Friend lays great stress on the point that this is an insurable risk. Before coming to the House I was careful to check my sources, the Association of British Insurers and a Lloyd's broker. Will my hon. Friend reveal to the House his sources in the insurance market because they are plainly at variance with the leading insurance association and the Lloyd's broker? This is an uninsurable risk. My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about direct costs. Surely that is a matter not for the House but for the interpretation of the courts.
      Mr. Dorrell: The source of our advice on the insurability of risk is members of the council of Lloyd's. I take my hon. Friend's point about the definition of direct cost, which has some force, but before putting it on the statute book the House should consider how easy it would be to apply such a proposition.
      It is also right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government are committed to setting up an implementation advisory committee which will be asked to advise on the code of practice for enforcement authorities covering the detention of food. Interested parties will be able to comment on the draft code before it is finalised and the code will cover use of the powers contained in clause 9.
      The other issue covered in the debate was whether the Government should be liable to compensate for losses arising as a result of the exercise of their powers under clause 13. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the support that he offered for the Government's central case on this subject, but he also charged that there was confusion between my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as a result of the shellfish incident which started over the bank holiday weekend. I was involved in the consultations over that weekend and the following week. There was no confusion between Departments. Those who attack the way the Departments acted on the grounds of confusion often cannot define whether they want to attack us for
      888
      sloth or for being over-zealous. That charge cannot be levelled against my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). He is clear as to why he is unhappy about the way in which the powers were used, as was the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
      It may assist our deliberations on these issues if I announce that we are withdrawing our warning against the eating of crabs caught between the Humber and Montrose. This decision has been taken in the light of further extensive tests by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on crabs caught off the coastline from the Humber to Montrose, which have shown in the majority of cases that there is no measurable toxin present. In about 10 per cent. of samples where toxin was found in crab meat, it was at levels that posed no risk to human health. The Department of Health's advice on not eating crab is therefore withdrawn.
      Further tests on molluscan shellfish have shown that current levels of toxin are such that the public must, until further notice, continue to refrain from eating them. Consequently, the warning about molluscan shellfish such as mussels, winkles, whelks, oysters and scallops caught between the Humber and Montrose remains.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: What about cockles?
      Mr. Dorrell: I think that cockles are covered by the warning. The Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office are continuing to monitor the situation closely and will lift the warning on molluscan shellfish as soon as it is safe to do so.
      Mr. Beith: I am grateful for that welcome announcement. Although the Ministry may have acted in good faith in believing that it was prudent to warn against eating all these species, as it is now clear that it was not at any time dangerous to do so, will the Under-Secretary ask the Ministry to consider again the point that the fishermen are making?
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed misses the point. When the warning was issued we could not reasonably have reached that conclusion. The hon. Gentleman has asked—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington—why those species were included in the warning. That was because they eat shellfish such as mussels, and could therefore ingest the toxin. We felt that that was the prudent course of action, and was in the interests of the health of the public. Besides, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) pointed out, credibility is in the long-term interest of the industry.
      10.15 pm
      In the interests of the public, we concluded that it was right to issue warnings covering crustacea, as well as mussels and other shellfish. I ask the House to consider what the attitude of hon. Members and the public would have been if we had later found out that those species contained high toxin levels, and our explanation was that we had not found an example on that bank holiday Saturday. It is well known that crabs and lobsters feed on the species that were the subject of the warning and it would have been irresponsible of the Government not to include those species in the original warning.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: Our point is not that the Government acted irresponsibly in being cautious about crabs and lobsters. Opposition Members have made it clear that we accept that the precautionary principle should apply when there is an element of doubt. However, nearly two weeks have passed. Can the Minister confirm that at no time have levels of toxin in crabs been over the danger level in that period? Will he futher confirm that there was a delay of seven days in testing samples of crab meat? On that basis, the fishermen deserve an ex gratia payment.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington have asked about toxin levels in crabs. As the House knows, the safe level—established over many years—is 400 units. Toxin levels of up to 317 units were found in crabs during the testing period in 10 per cent. of the samples taken. In the case of lobsters, toxin levels of up to 227 units were found in 10 per cent. of the samples taken. Both those figures are under 400, but are levels of toxin that could give some cause for concern. After all, no level of toxin is a particularly nutritious food.
      Given the background of risk—that those species feed on other species in which very high levels of toxin were found—I feel that the Government have taken the correct decision.
      Mr. John Townend: Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will learn from the experience this year, and that, if next year high levels of toxin in mussels again require a public warning, such a warning will not be given for lobsters, prawns and crabs unless tests have been made that show levels of toxin that are dangerous to the public?
      Mr. Dorrell: I am happy to give an assurance that Ministers will always try to learn from their experiences. I cannot give a blanket assurance that we will never again issue a warning in similar circumstances against lobsters and crabs, but we shall seek to learn from the experiences of the past fortnight.
      Government amendment No. 10 would remove clause 14 from the Bill. There are several reasons for that. First, I ask the House to consider the position in which the Government would be if the Bill were passed unamended. They would be in an extraordinary position: if they issued an order that was ultra vires, no compensation would be payable. It is well known—and has been for many years—that compensation is not payable in those circumstances. If we issued an order beyond our powers, no compensation would be payable. However, if we issued an order within our powers which was later found to be unjustified, compensation would be payable. It is rather odd to pass legislation that puts the Government in a better position if they act beyond their powers than if they act within their powers.
      I take seriously the argument that the Bill, if unamended, would be a serious disincentive to action by Ministers. We must preserve the position of Ministers acting when necessary to protect the consumer. One Opposition Member made the rather telling point that we must deal not only with the substance, but with the appearance. If the Government, in a marginal case, did not issue an order, the suspicion could always be roused—even if it were unfounded—that that decision was reached because of the fear of the cost consequences. We must be
      890
      clear that no Government would fail to issue an order, which otherwise they should issue, simply because they were concerned about the compensation consequences.
      There is a distinction between the obligations of central Government and those of local government in the context of paying compensation. It is already an established precedent under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, where a clear distinction is made. Local authorities are liable to compensation in certain circumstances, but central Government most certainly are not. Furthermore, it is not true to say that there are no existing remedies for innocent parties who suffer loss. It will often be possible to require the person responsible for the threat which was the cause of the action to pay damages. It is for the courts to decide the extent of liability. Of course, where the Government have made an error, ex gratia payments to cover losses those subject to restrictions can be made.
      My hon. Friend the Member asked whether we would be prepared to under which ex gratia payments could be ironic that, at that very moment, my right, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury came the door behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. I wonder were he to agree to such a scheme, he might impose a cash limit upon it. I do not think that my hon. Friend's proposal is the right way to deal with ex gratia payments. They need to be dealt with on the merits of each case, without being bound by the rules of a scheme. Government action is also subject both to judicial review and to examination by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration when maladministration is .
      I hope that I have advanced arguments that will persuade the House, that it would be wrong to accept amendment No. 22. I hope that the House will feel it appropriate to support Government amendment No. 10, which would eliminate clause 14.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 12

      EMERGENCY PROHIBITION NOTICES AND ORDERS
      Mr. Robert Hicks: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in pagt 10. leave out lines 21 to 25.
      Mr. Speaker: With, this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 10, line 27, leave out 'such an officer' and insert
      `an authorised officer of an enforcement authority'.
      No. 17, in page 10, line 34, at end insert
      `and any person to whom such notice is given shall, if he attends before the court or sheriff upon the application, be entitled to be heard and to call witnesses'.
      No. 18, in page 10, leave out lines 39 to 43.
      No. 19, in page 11, leave out lines 6 to 11.
      No. 20, in page 11, line 12, leave out 'emergency prohibition notice or'
      No. 21, in page 11 leave out lines 25 to 38.
      Mr. Hicks: The atilendment stands in the name of 25 right hon. and hon. Members and -Myself. I declare an interest, in that for the past 15 have acted as the parliamentary adviser to the Restaurants and Caterers Association. I also a constituency
      in which the tourist a significant
      contribution to the local .

      891
      The amendments relate to the proposed procedures outlined in clause 12 for dealing with food business premises if it is suggested that they present an imminent risk of danger to health.
      We are all conscious of the need for a high level of food safety and high standards of hygiene. The public demand that and Parliament is right to respond. The small minority of dirty caterers must be eliminated. They endanger the health of the nation and they do their industry no good whatever.
      However, I, along with a number of my hon. Friends, question the envisaged change in the procedures which is designed to secure the objectives that we all seek. Under existing legislation, local authority enforcement officers have to obtain a court order before a food business may be closed. That is completely consistent with long-established legal procedures.
      However, clause 12 seeks to reverse those procedures. Under the proposals, an enforcement officer may serve an emergency prohibition notice on the proprietor of a food business if he is satisfied that it represents an imminent risk or a danger to health. Subsequently, that officer must apply to the magistrates court within three days for an emergency prohibition order and he must give the proprietor at least one day's notice of his intention to do so. The proprietor will then have the right to appear in court and to call witnesses to contest the application.
      I accept that if the enforcement officer does not make the application to the court following the issuing of the initial notice, or if the court refuses to make an order confirming the prohibition notice, the local authority has to compensate the proprietor for any loss that he has sustained as a consequence of complying with the closure notice. But how is the level of that compensation to be determined? It would clearly be inadequate if the figure were simply to be on the basis of loss of earnings during the three days in question. In practice, there could be longer-term losses. If premises have to be closed, there will be adverse local publicity. For example, the enforced closure of, let us say, Stephen's bistro could have long-term effects on that business.
      In a parliamentary answer dated 5 April 1990 the Department of Health provided figures which show that over the past decade the percentage of successful prosecutions for breaches of the food hygiene regulations in the hotel and catering industry varied from 94 per cent. in 1980 and 1987–88 to 75 per cent. in 1986–87. Put another way, the average annual rate of unsuccessful prosecutions over the past 10 years had been one in 10 and in 1986–87 it was one in four. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that that gives rise to genuine anxieties and emphasises the need for a second opinion from the magistrates before an establishment may be closed down.
      10.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Minister stated that it is his intention to establish an implementation advisory committee on codes of practice designed to produce even standards of enforcement of the Bill's provisions. If he is not prepared this evening to reverse the proposed procedures—and in his letter to me of 3 May my hon. Friend's predecessor as Minister acknowledged that
      892
      environmental health officers will be given strong powers, which he described as a very powerful weapon—the role of the advisory committee will become even more critical.
      It is essential that there is consistency of application and important that the circumstances in which the powers might be used are clearly and tightly drawn. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give me such a reassurance this evening.
      My hon. Friend's predecessor also indicated that he would be happy to include the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association in the consultation process for determining the codes of conduct. The association welcomes that, but would feel far more confident if it was represented on the advisory committee itself—as the Institution of Environmental Health Officers will be. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will give that request sympathetic consideration.
      All that the amendments would achieve is that the proprietor of a food business will be given an opportunity to present his case to a magistrates court before his business can be closed.
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is understandably concerned about the draconian power included in clause 12 to close a business without reference to the courts. I acknowledge that it is an extremely severe power, and we must ensure, as my hon. Friend said, that it is used only in tightly controlled circumstances.
      Under clause 12, an environmental health officer may serve an emergency prohibition notice on the owner of an insanitary food business if it presents an imminent—and that is the key word—risk to health. The prohibition notice takes effect immediately, but the EHO must apply to a magistrates court, or to a sheriff court in Scotland, within three days for an emergency prohibition order, and must give the proprietor one day's notice of his intention to do so.
      My hon. Friend's amendment would insist that the environmental health officer applies to the court before the notice comes into effect. I shall seek to explain to the House why that is not the correct way, and why it is important that the power contained in clause 12 proceeds on to the statute book.
      If any EHO does not apply to the court within three days the notice lapses, and then the right to compensation arises. If the EHO applies, the proprietor will have the right to appear in court and to call witnesses to contest the application. If the court refuses to make an order confirming the prohibition, the authority is required to pay compensation. If the notice does not for any reason convert itself into an order, the owner of the food business will be entitled to compensation.
      My hon. Friend asked how the compensation will be calculated. Clause 12 provides for compensation for "any loss suffered." Any dispute will go to arbitration, and if the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, it will fall to a High Court judge to appoint one under the conditions of the Arbitration Act 1894. The key point is that compensation will be payable if it later transpires that the power was used in circumstances that a court would not support.
      The second point to emphasise is that the power is necessary because we are talking only about circumstances where there is an imminent risk to health. Also, in most circumstances, where an environmental health officer believes that there is an imminent risk to health, he will not need to use these powers because experience suggests that

      893
      he will be able to get voluntary agreement from the operator of the business. However, occasionally, when the operator of the business will not agree, the EHO must have the power to take the necessary action to close an insanitary business if there is an imminent risk to health.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) also asked about the details of the implementation advisory committee, which I referred to in the previous debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) announced on 23 November last year that we would be setting up that committee to advise on statutory codes of practice for enforcement officers, designed to ensure even standards of enforcement throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East has recognised that that committee and the codes of practice that it will issue are very relevant to the proper concerns that owners of food businesses have about the implications of the clause.
      The membership of the implementation advisory committee has now been decided, and consists of seven members nominated by local authority associations, two members nominated by the professional organisations most involved, and five representatives from the Government Departments most involved: the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, and my Department.
      My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of representation for people representing the hotel and catering industry, but I think that he will realise from the membership that I have announced that this is an internal committee, within the Government, which will clearly consult widely when exercising its powers. Indeed, it will produce draft codes which will be subject to consultation.
      The committee will also consider some issues where input is needed from others who are not full members. In such instances the committee will be able to establish sub-groups to deal with particular issues, and they will be able to co-opt representatives of other organisations where that is appropriate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East also asked about the Committee's terms of reference. They will be to advise the Departments on draft codes of practice to be issued for consultation under section 41 of the Food Safety Bill—covering the execution and enforcement of the Act and regulations and orders made under it.
      I hope that on the basis of the wide terms of reference given to the committee, the fact that it will issue codes of practice governing the exercise of powers under clause 12, and the other points that I have made, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Hicks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his response and especially for his helpful remarks about the terms of reference and workings of the implementation advisory committee. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 14
      COMPLAINTS ABOUT EMERGENCY CONTROL ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 10, in page 12, line 25, leave out clause 14.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
    Clause 19

      SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR PARTICULAR FOODS ETC.
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 15, line 5, leave out
      `or novel food sources'
      and insert
      ',or food sources from which such foods are intended to be derived,'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8.
      Mr. Maclean: This series of amendments clarifies the scope of clause 19. I explained in Committee that we proposed that foods produced by genetic modification should be subject to a positive approval system, based on advice from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, before marketing. I agreed to look at the provisions again.
      The amendments will ensure that all foods produced by genetic modification are brought within the scope of clause 19. The amendments specifically provide for regulating the carrying out of commercial operations with such food and I hope that the specific reference to genetic modification on the face of the Bill will be helpful to clarify our intentions.
      The House will recall that our announcement in Committee was warmly welcomed by the National Consumer Council, in a press statement from its chairman, Lady Wilcox. It is a sensible series of amendments.
      Mr. Morley: I regret that we are discussing such an important issue late at night with little chance to examine the enormous implications of developments on the frontiers of science that affect food and society.
      I served on the Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill and the matter was discussed in great detail, although it was allocated insufficient time because of scheduling. The discussion on genetically modified organisms occurred late at night arid there was insufficient time to consider the matter in great depth.
      Genetically modified organisms have major implications as well as considerable advantages. Clause 19 provides powers to control the use of food which contains genetically modified organisms or which had been modified. Will the Minister explain how his advisory committee will link in with the proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill? Will he be guided by the release committee? Are the powers in clause 19 fall-back powers to be used as a last-ditch defence, or does he expect the research work and clearance to be covered under the regulations set out in the Environmental Protection Bill?
      That raises another question: genetically modified foods may be safe, but are they desirable? Is the Minister confident that such issues are covered by clause 19? Another matter that has been discussed, especially in Europe, involves the so-called fourth hurdle—assessing whether a genetically modified food is safe, meets a particular need and is desirable. We have discussed the way in which BST can increase milk yields, but does society need BST?
      One genetically modified food organism has been allowed to go on sale for public use in Britain—genetically modified yeast. I do not doubt that that yeast has undergone the proper vetting procedures and has been considered very carefully, but although it is safe, was that

      895
      form of genetically modified yeast needed or desired? I understand that it was designed for the baking industry. I am informed that the industry never made any request that that form of yeast should be accepted.
      Genetically modified organisms raise wider issues for the Food Safety Bill and food regulations. For example, work is already being carried out to modify the naturally produced sugar in plants to produce sugar such as high fructose corn syrup which can replace cane sugar in many food processes. That raises the question whether implications on Third world countries and the sugar cane industry should be taken into consideration. I accept that some issues are outside the scope of the Bill, but we have not given them the detailed consideration that they deserve and we should carefully examine all the implications and consequences.
      The amendment deals with IVF. The Government included that issue to make it clear that IVF is an accepted practice within the food industry and should not be caught by the new regulations. However, I am sure that the Minister will accept that much of the research into genetically modified organisms is aimed at animal husbandry and the development of particular animals. Animals may be developed that contain genetic modification and there may be artificial insemination with animals that have not. Is the Minister confident that the amendments will cover the use of sperm that has been genetically modified or is from a genetically modified source in IVF? Under the Bill, that may be acceptable. It is important that that is covered in regulations.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I can give the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) the assurances he seeks. He asked whether everything was covered by the amendments. It is because we wanted to ensure that everything was covered that we have brought forward these revisions and improved wording.
      There are two parts to the role of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. It is concerned with novel foods—that is, foods not previously consumed here—and with novel food processes and food produced by such processes. Novel foods are covered by clause 19 and we are now making specific provision to ensure that all foods produced by genetic modification are covered by that clause. Processes involving novel processes and the food produced by such processes could be regulated if necessary using the separate powers in clause 17(1) (c) and (f).
      The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked about our interface with the other committees on genetic modification. I assure him that there is interface and that our provisions slot in nicely with their role. If he wants more detail, I shall be happy to write to him with specific details on how we envisage the way in which the other committees will operate and how they link with the ACNFP.
      The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe also asked me whether sperm would be covered by the group of amendments. Yes, they are. That is a good example of something further back in the chain that is covered.
      The one point on which I will not give the hon. Gentleman assurances is on the so-called "fourth hurdle",
      896
      and the vague and subjective definition of socio-economic need. The amendments are not concerned with that. The role of ACNFP and the role of the amendments is to ensure that genetically modified organisms that may be a food source are safe. I do not want the role of the ACNFP to change radically to include making distinctions on whether it is socially good or nice for consumers to want to have certain products. It should be left to consumers to decide whether they need or want to use a genetically modified yeast. It is the job of the Government to ensure that it is safe; it is the job of consumers to decide whether they want it. I hope that those reassurances are satisfactory to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 15, line 6, after `regulations', insert—
      '(aa) for prohibiting the carrying out of such operations with respect to genetically modified food sources, or foods derived from such food sources, of any class so specified;'.
      No. 7, in page 15, line 9, leave out 'either' and insert 'each'.'
      No. 8, in page 15, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—
      '(4) For the purposes of this section a food source is genetically modified if any of the genes or other genetic material in the food source—

      (a) has been modified by means of an artificial technique; or

      (b) is inherited or otherwise derived, through any number of replications, from genetic material which was so modified;

      and in this subsection "artificial technique" does not include any technique which involves no more than, or no more than the assistance of, naturally occurring processes of reproduction (including selective breeding techniques or in vitro fertilisation).'—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 29

      PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR EXAMINATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 11, in page 20, line 26, leave out
      'in England and Wales, or a regional or islands'
      and insert or a regional'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 31

      ANALYSIS ETC. OF SAMPLES
      Amendments made: No. 12, in page 21, line 17, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
      '(3) If, in any case where a sample is proposed to be submitted for analysis under this section, the office of public analyst for the area in question is vacant, the sample shall be submitted to the public analyst for some other area.
      (4) If, in any case where a sample is proposed to be or is submitted for analysis or examination under this section, the food analyst or examiner determines that he is for any reason unable to perform the analysis or examination, the sample shall be submitted or, as the case may be, sent by him to such other food analyst or examiner as he may determine.
      (4A) A food analyst or examiner shall analyse or examine as soon as practicable any sample submitted or sent to him under this section, but may, except where—

      (a) he is the public analyst for the area in question; and

      No. 13, in page 22, line 9, at end insert—
      'and where two or more public analysts are appointed for any area, any reference in this section to the public analyst for that area shall be construed as a reference to either or any of them.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 32

      REGULATION OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 29, in page 22, line 12, leave out
      `Regulations made under this section'
      and insert
      'Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under that subsection'.
      No. 14, in page 22, line 28, after 'examinations',
      insert—

      `(ff) the circumstances in which a food analyst or examiner is to be precluded, by reason of a conflict of interest, from analysing or examining a particular sample or part of a sample;'.

      No. 30, in page 22, line 30, after 'examination', insert '(i)'.
      No. 31, in page 22, line 32, at end insert
      'or
      (ii) to a person determined by or under the regulations."—[Mr. Dorrell.]

    Clause 61

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 24, in page 37, leave out line 26 and insert
      `paragraphs 12 to 15 of Schedule 2 and, so far as relating to those paragraphs,'—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 4

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 51, line 38, leave out `coming into force' and insert 'commencement'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Order for Third Reading read [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wale's Consent on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall signified.]
      10.48 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am confident, and I am sure that all hon. Members will be confident, that we now have before us a Bill that will see us well into the next century. It provides us with a strong and flexible framework that will allow us to tackle specific new problems as they arise. Our main objective has been to ensure the safety of food. We have also taken care not to stifle innovation in food or impose needless burdens on the many small businesses in the food chain. The Bill will, however, require industry to look more critically at its operations, with the safety of the consumer in mind. That is in everyone's interests.
      The Bill is of great benefit to consumers. We have introduced tougher penalties. We have taken stronger powers. We have powers to detain batches of suspect food for further investigation and to close premises where there is an imminent risk to health. It is a worthy Bill and I commend it to the House.
      10.49 pm
      Dr. David Clark: I had hoped that I would be able fully to endorse everything that the Minister said. However, there was one, I hope, slip of the tongue. In his hyperbole he said that we shall be lifting the burden from small businesses. I make it quite clear that, no matter the size of a business, if public health is at risk——
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) indicated assent
      Dr.Clark: The Minister is indicating that he is with us.
      The Opposition did not vote against the Bill. We had a constructive Committee stage. However, the Bill does not go far enough. As the Minister said, it is an enabling Bill and much progress can be made under it. When we have a labour Government, we shall go even further.
      10.50 pm
      Mr. Cohen: I am sorry to spoil Conservative Members' attempts to get this debate over quickly, but I shall make a couple of important points. The Bill misses many opportunities to protect the consumer—for example, an independent food safety agency and a licensing scheme. My two brief points are about the resources to implement the Bill and the distribution of those resources.
      First, the Government claim that they will provide about £30 million of what they call real money to implement the Bill. All the local authority associations have said that they need a minimum of £40 million. I still do not think that the Government have cleared up that point. The money that they will provide could easily be swallowed up in the poll tax mess next year—we have a poll tax mess this year—and not go to environmental health officers to enable them to implement the Bill.
      Secondly, local authorities with many food production premises such as restaurants and takeaway establishments should have a higher proportion of the money, but that should not be the only basis on which the money is distributed. It certainly should not be distributed purely on a population basis, which would not take into account the special needs of certain areas. Distribution should be based on deprivation and poverty indicators such as housing, unemployment and other social issues. Those indicators reflect the standard of food premises in an area. I ask the Government to take that matter fully into account. I refer in particular to ethnic minorities and food handlers whose first language is not English. More money must be spent on training and on leaflets in other languages. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Agricultural Council
  10.53 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): The House will be aware of the illegal ban on British beef exports imposed by France, Germany and Italy, and of the very vigorous response by the Government and the Commission to this unilateral action.
  I attended a special meeting of the Council, called at the request of the Commission, to address this intolerable situation which had grave consequences for the Community institutions and their reputation.
  The Council met on 6 June to consider advice from the Commission's independent scientific veterinary committee. Mr. MacSharry—the Agriculture Commissioner—stated clearly that this advice, reached unanimously, repeated the committee's earlier judgment that existing Community rules on bovine spongiform encephalopathy fully protected public and animal health. There is therefore no reason to prevent the free circulation of British beef on the basis of the measures already taken by the United Kingdom and the Community.
  It was clear from the meeting that some member states were not prepared to stand by the best scientific advice—even when proffered by experts from across the Community. We therefore were faced with a range of trade-distorting and protectionist demands which we discussed throughout Wednesday night and this morning. I am pleased to tell the House that we achieved a successful settlement much to Britain's advantage.
  The main features of the settlement are, first, the commitment by all member states to lift at once their import restrictions; secondly, British beef is to be accepted in all markets of the Community and that agreement is to cover calves, carcases, and boneless meat; thirdly, the Commission will take up immediately with third countries the need immediately to remove any trade restrictions that are still in place; and, fourthly, the Commission will take up the case for extending our ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminants. The Netherlands has already followed suit. Denmark implements tomorrow and the French have said that they are likely to take a similar step. That is a major change which will defend and protect people's health throughout the Community.
  Fifthly, there will be a research programme, which is designed to explore the likelihood of BSE occurring in Community countries other than the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
  The Commission has undertaken to extend the coverage of beef intervention in this country. In large measure the export arrangements for British beef remain in place. We shall reinforce our control systems—particularly in the marking of calves. Importers of carcases from the United Kingdom have pointed to the fact that our cutting arrangements are not always duplicated in their plants. They are not therefore able to give the consumer the assurances that we give at home regarding the removal of all specified material. To provide some measure of similar assurance for consumers in other member states, we have agreed not to send bone-in carcases from holdings which have recently had BSE cases.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not that apply to Britain?
  Mr. Gummer: There is no limitation of the export of bone-out British beef—[Interruption.]—precisely because Britain is covered by tougher regulations and the British housewife is better protected. The hon. Gentleman's constituents in Bolsover are better protected than people in any other Community country. He should know that and not undermine British beef.
  All Community countries now express themselves fully satisfied on the export of British beef. The scientific veterinary commitee has reiterated its clear statement on the safety of British beef. The Commission has wholly vindicated the British position and we have averted an extremely damaging trade dispute—in a matter of a single week. Unilateral action should not have been taken. Tonight that action has been rescinded.
  Dr. David Clark: I thank the Minister most sincerely for coming to the House at such a late hour after spending so many hours locked in deadlock in negotiations.
  We very much welcome the lifting of the ban on the trade in British cattle, but having listened to the Minister with great care, I thought that he delivered a deliberately carefully constructed statement that concealed more than it revealed—[ Interruption.] When hon. Members have had time to study and assimilate it, they may come to the same conclusion. Therefore, may I ask the Minister several specific questions arising from it and perhaps relating to it? If it was such a successful outcome, why did he spend 26 hours fighting most of the proposals and why did he flatly reject the certification proposals when they were put forward by the Germans six months ago? Why did he say then that they were inoperative and, indeed, unnecessary? We demand, and have a right to, an answer to that point.
  Secondly, will he confirm that there remains a total ban on all British cattle over the age of six months to every one of the European member states? Will he also confirm that there is a ban on all calves born of BSE cows to every one of the EEC states? We need to know the answer to that one. Will he also confirm to the House that the result of the triumphal statement that he made is that in effect we have extended the German ban on bone-in beef to every other Community country? I believe that that is the case. Has he assessed the capacity of meat cutting and packaging firms in Britain? Can they cope with all the deboning that will be necessary as a result of the agreement?
  Will the Minister clarify another point that worries many people? Both the British and the French housewife will buy beef from British cows, but is there not a distinct difference between what they will buy? Are there not now two markets for British beef in Europe? Will the Minister confirm that following his cave-in today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—beef will be allowed to be sold to the British consumer which cannot be sold to the French consumer? [Interruption.] This is a very serious point and people have the right to know about it. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not be interested in what is on offer to their electorates but I certainly am and most Opposition Members are. I repeat the question. Is it true that beef will be sold to the British consumer which it would be illegal to sell to the French consumer? In short, is not the British consumer being treated as a second-rate citizen in that respect?

  901
  Finally, we welcome the fact that we have had the ban lifted. Will the Minister accept that he has merely bought breathing space? Will he take a major initiative to reassure the British consumer?
  Mr. Donald Thompson: Cheat, cheat, cheat—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Dr. David Clark.
  Dr. Clark: It is interesting that when I ask purely factual questions—[ Interruption.] When hon. Gentlemen read Hansard tomorrow they will find that I have not proffered any opinions but merely asked questions. If the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) wants to shout from a sedentary position "Cheat", that is up to him. I know that he is in the butchering industry and that he has a vested interest in that respect. Conservative Members may not be interested in the long-term interests of the beef industry and the consumer, but we are—[ Interruption.] It is important that we save our beef and farming industries.
  Will the Minister take some initiatives to get reassurances not only at home but abroad? Will he urge the EC to establish a committee of medical experts to complement that of the veterinarians to examine the human aspects related to beef? [ Laughter.] I wonder why Conservative Members laugh. Are they afraid of the scientific evidence? [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."]
  Will the Minister now introduce the random sampling of routinely slaughtered cows to judge the extent of the disease? As part and parcel of that and his certification policy, will he introduce the tagging of cows and herd movement books to assist the tracing of individual animals? If the Minister feels that it is necessary to introduce legislation along the lines of that operating in Northern Ireland—introduced correctly by the Government——
  Mr. Roger Gale: Does the hon. Gentleman have a doctorate in defamation? Why does he not stick to subjects of which he has some knowledge?
  Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman would care to get up I shall happily give way, but I wish that he would shut up or get out.
  Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I realise, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate. The hon. Gentleman must ask his questions to which he will get the answers.
  Dr. Clark: It is always a sure sign that the Opposition are rattled—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time.
  Dr. Clark: With the opinion polls showing Labour 23 per cent. ahead, we all know who will be the Opposition. I should point out that one can have a lower case as well as an upper case "o" with the word opposition.
  Sensible arrangements have been introduced in Northern Ireland for the tagging of animals and movement books. Such arrangements are a prerequisite to any system of certification. If the Government feel that it is necessary to introduce such legislation we shall facilitate its movement on to the statute book.
  902
  The Minister mentioned scientific knowledge. Is he prepared to make facilities available to all bona fide scientists, at home and overseas, so that they can try to tackle and overcome the serious and dangerous problem of BSE? The first thing that we must aim to do is to eradicate BSE from the British herd. Only then can we restore the full confidence in our beef and cattle industry that we all want.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman began by asking why we had taken 26 hours to achieve this decision. It is because we started with demands which were extremely unacceptable to Britain. The extent of the discussions—I put this in the mildest way I can—was much greater because I constantly had to counter the repeating to me by those with whom I was negotiating the wild statements supported by the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Clark: Name one.
  Mr. Gummer: I do not need to repeat them, because the hon. Gentleman repeated a whole range of them during his questions. I will not lower the debate to the kind of party-political debate I have seen on television tonight. Let me make a direct comment to the hon. Gentleman. When we have a solution that is backed by all 12 nations, for the hon. Gentleman to talk about temporary arrangements and about our returning again—in the way he talked on television tonight—can do nothing but undermine the agreement that has been reached by those nations in Brussels after 26 hours of negotiation.
  The arrangements are those of the whole of the Community. It is not a special deal with Germany, which is what the Germans were seeking, and that is why it is entirely different. It means that we are selling into Germany beef that we were not able to sell in before. It is wholly wrong to say that this agreement applies only to bone-out beef. That is precisely what was being tried on us, with people pushing for that. In fact, this allows for bone-in beef carcases to spread throughout the Community, including into Germany, where they had been stopped by unilateral action for some months.
  The British housewife is protected, and her confidence is supported, much better than is the case in any other country in the European Community, because our cutting arrangements for beef with bones, as well as bone-out beef, make sure that all the specified material is removed. With exported carcases, that cannot be assured in the importing country, so we are giving a secondary assurance that is not as extensive as that which we provide now for the British consumer. Opposition Members who suggest otherwise cannot have the interests of the consumer or of the farming community at heart. I put the consumer first. I wish that Opposition Members would do the same.
  If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to talk about European Community committees, I gladly do so. I have upheld the European specialist committees and fought for them to be upheld, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should still be proposing that I do things that scientific committees in this country and abroad have said we should not do, or have recommended that we should no longer do, because we should use the resources elsewhere. I have told the hon. Gentleman those facts time and again. He still repeats, on television and elsewhere, the statement that he made, and he must be careful lest someone accuses him—though I would never do so—of misleading the British people. I must tell Labour Members that it is

  903
  becoming increasingly clear that the interests at their heart are not the interests that we would seek to propose but the interests of party politics.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members to put single questions to the Minister, please?
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: To an even greater extent—because of the extraordinary and deplorable comments of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—I ask my right hon. Friend to accept the congratulations and gratitude of beef farmers in Hampshire and throughout the United Kingdom. I also ask him to pursue further the proposition that his sterling efforts to promote, protect and further the interests of British agriculture have been utterly undermined by the negative and destructive attitude of Labour Members, in this House and in the European Parliament.
  Mr. Gummer: It is a pity if we cannot be pleased when we have achieved something that is to the benefit of the British consumer and British farmer. Once upon a time hon. Members on both sides of the House were keen to do that. In any event, let us accept that we have done what we set out to do. The bans are now raised. The Community has solved this problem within a week, whereas in the past it has taken months. Had we gone to court, however quickly it had been done—and the Commission instituted very fast measures—it would have taken much longer. We have come back with the best deal that could be achieved and a deal which is highly satisfactory for the nation.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: On this occasion I hold the view that hon. Members on both sides of the House, never mind the party to which they belong, should back the Minister and the Commission to the hilt. I congratulate the Minister on his stand against the Germans and the French. Perhaps many Opposition Members are not aware that the beef industry in Wales is worth £253 million, and that it is also important to England, Scotland and Ireland. Over eight or 10 weeks irresponsible statements have been made by politicians in this country, by a few scientists and by some sections of the media. I hope that after this episode the people who have been responsible for such scaremongering will pull themselves together to safeguard the interests of agriculture and consumers.
  I have two questions for the Minister. First, was compensation discussed? Secondly, can he assure our beef producers that exports of beef will be back to normal within the next few weeks?
  Mr. Gummer: Certainly, the other countries have accepted that the ban must be raised immediately. I am perfectly prepared to be reasonable about the time at which the messages go out, although I see from the veterinary arrangements of the Federal Republic of Germany that notices to the Lander went out even before the final agreement was reached. That shows that the Federal Republic fulfilled its commitment honourably.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation. We were not prepared to discuss that because we were discussing the principle of trade within the Community. There was some attempt by some people to suggest that we
  904
  could be bought off, out of the business of trading. That was entirely to try to protect their own farmers. I am not prepared to go in for such discussions and would not countenance them. As I said in my statement, the Commission has agreed to extend the coverage of intervention so that it covers an area which other countries appeared to have and which we have not had up to now in the context of what I understand are referred to as 03 steers. This is not a vast matter, but it is an important matter of fairness and equality which I am pleased we were able to sort out.
  Sir Hector Monro: May I add my warmest congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister on his outstanding success in the interests of the consumer and the farmer? Was he able in his long night to cover the issue of the export of live breeding cattle to the continent? The performance of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), has been a disgrace to the nation and has greatly let down the farmer and the consumer.
  Mr. Gummer: I believed that we ought to start the negotiations by accepting the scientific veterinary committee's advice, which was almost exactly the advice that it had given to us before on two separate occasions. Therefore, this was not the time to discuss with the Commission whether its past decisions ought to be changed. We were in the business of accepting the Commission's statement that it had already clearly protected the public and that we did not need to move from there. That was a proper basis.
  I have made certain alterations, all of which are consistent with scientific advice. I was not prepared to be pushed down the route which I am often asked to go down by the Opposition and by those on the continent who took up the same arguments about going down routes that are not scientifically defensible. Once one does that, one cannot stand anywhere. As soon as one accepts a non-scientific answer, there is no reason not to accept another such answer. To do that would mean that we could not stand where we have been standing. I am proud that the Government are able to say that we have taken the necessary measures before the scare arose and are still taking them and have not added to them because there is no scientific judgment that would lead us to do so. However, if the scientists asked us to take additional measures because there was a change in the information that they received, I would of course take them. That is a sensible basis on which to operate, rather than rushing after any old hare that happens to arise.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: The beef industry is most important in the Northern Ireland economy, and worth some £300 million to us. There is rightly resentment in Northern Ireland at the ridiculous, outrageous and hyped-up media coverage of this issue. There is disappointment about the statements from the official Opposition. I regret to have to say that, but it is a fact. On behalf of the Ulster Unionists, I pay tribute to the Minister for having robustly defended the industry. We appreciate what has been achieved in difficult circumstances.
  As we in Northern Ireland can identify each animal in each herd, do we not have an opportunity to export both bone-in and bone-out meat? Should there be some

  905
  difficulty in getting the market to stabilise, will the Ministry continue to provide intervention support until the market does stabilise?
  Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. The intervention support will continue while the market continues as it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, intervention is automatically triggered through the management committee on the basis of the market situation in any three regions of the Community—in this case, Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Both that and the promotion support going through the various organisations will continue.
  There are great opportunities for British beef, from whatever part of the United Kingdom it comes, because we produce some of the best beef in the world. One of the reasons why it felt so satisfied about the agreement is that it allows carcase meat to continue to be sold throughout the Community. That is important to Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the robust way in which the north of Ireland organisations, the Secretary of State and the farmers' organisations have supported me in this. They could have sought an independent arrangement, but were determined that this should be a United Kingdom answer, and that is what we have.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The farming community and the meat industry in Northern Ireland have heaved a sigh of relief because the Minister has succeeded in getting this illegal ban, which was put on unilaterally and in defiance of the single market arrangement, lifted. The House knows my attitude to the Common Market. There are those who pay lip service to the single market, but when it comes to their national individual interests are prepared to flout it. Have not these people done serious harm to our industry and put a shadow over British beef? Under the rules of the Community, should not they be made to pay for what is a crime under the laws of the treaty?
  Are not United Kingdom consumers better protected than those of any other country in the Community? For example, we are not subjected to meat that has been produced from cows that have been fed with concentrates. Yet these very nations that are crying out against Britain are still feeding offal concentrates to their animals. Therefore, our beef is better.
  Would not it be monstrous if the Republic of Ireland, which has BSE, could freely export its meat to Europe? The Minister knows that cattle know no border in the island of Ireland, but Northern Ireland could be discriminated against.
  Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do not normally agree with him about much, but this time we can be as one.
  I strongly support the concept of the European Community and the single market, and I am a believer in closer relationships between the countries of Europe. That is why I considered this unilateral action so wrong, and why I was able to argue so vehemently against it. It is very noticeable how people who talk easily of solidarity and Community arrangements shift from foot to foot when confronted by those who not only talk of those principles but uphold them.
  I pay tribute to the supportive chairmanship of the Minister from the Irish Republic, who was extremely helpful in the negotiations—as, indeed, was Mr.
  906
  MacSharry, the Commissioner. We tend to vent our wrath sometimes; let me say how much both helped us to achieve our end.
  Although I might have put much of what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) less robustly, I agree that we need to stop the Community descending into old-fashioned retributive arguments when it fears that its markets have been imperilled by the products of certain nations. We have to put up with it: I have stood at this Dispatch Box and refused the Opposition's demands for illegal action on imported eggs in relation to salmonella, and I could argue the case on the strongest ground.
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I think that the whole House—and at least some parts of the Opposition—will appreciate that the Minister has sought a communautaire approach to the problem—
  Mr. Skinner: Sold out.
  Dr. Thomas:—and has not responded to the old-fashioned, unilateralist, nation-state nationalism exhibited by others. I am also grateful to him for expressing appreciation for the role played by the Irish Minister and Mr. MacSharry.
  I ask the Minister to respond to the feelings of many of us that the official Opposition have used the issue as a handle to attack the Government. They have not based their attack on the needs of consumers, or the needs of United Kingdom agriculture; they have simply used the matter as another stick with which to beat their opponents. That has prevented them from addressing the real issues.
  Will the Minister, for instance, tell us a little more about the Commission's decision to take up the case of the ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminants? What will that mean Community-wide? He also mentioned
  "a research programme … to explore the likelihood of BSE occurring in Community countries other than the UK and the Republic of Ireland."
  That is clearly part of the ongoing Community-wide solution to the problem, which will prevent us from becoming involved in sterile arguments about bans imposed on nation-state borders that are part of the old Europe rather than the new Europe that all of us are anxious to build.
  Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I think that this must be a communautaire answer: after all, we are talking about selling our products throughout the European Community, and we must therefore have a common regime governing how they are sold. We must also base that regime on the clear scientific evidence that British beef is perfectly safe. It needs to be sold, because much of it is some of the best in Europe. I said on French television today—in rather strong terms—that I hoped that French people would now be able to eat the best beef in the world, some of which will come from Wales.
  The support of the Welsh industry has been very helpful, and I have been able to attend the negotiations with clear support from the nation as a whole. Although I do not want to pursue all the points made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), the House must realise that most countries come to Community debates representing the entirety of their Governments and Oppositions: they are not faced with

  907
  quotations from others by those with whom they are negotiating. We must give serious consideration to that aspect of the matter.
  Of course we shall look carefully at the Commission's proposals relating to the ruminant ban. We know that the Dutch have supported us all along, having imposed a ruminant ban much earlier. The Danes are doing so tomorrow; the French asked to be allowed to do so in advance of any decision by the Community in their case, and can do so as long as they do it in a particular form. It appears to me that they will take that view.
  My view is that of all the issues that appear to be certain, one is the very real belief that the reason for this disease is the contamination of feed. It is much more sensible that ruminant feeds should not be fed to ruminants. Many of us believe that there is a natural business of that sort—but leaving that aside there is some pretty clear evidence that we should follow, and we shall press the Community on that.
  The Community will carry out the research because many worry lest there may be cases that are not so clearly notifiable as they are in this country. We protect our public very much better than any other country does because we face the issues. We have the largest incidence and we have put into place all the measures that the scientists have recommended. That is why we can, with real confidence, support what the chief medical officer says about the safety of British beef.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: The British livestock industry has faced a severe crisis during the past 10 days, and therefore the consumer has also faced a severe crisis—despite the sour grapes of the Opposition. One would think that they did not know what had happened. My right hon. Friend deserves the gratitude of this country—and not only in the short term—for his salutary manner, which means that this will not easily be repeated.
  Can my right hon. Friend confirm that herds that suffer this tragic disease will not in any way be penalised, as was suggested in earlier reports from Brussels?
  Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend and can confirm that there were proposals of the sort to which he referred. We cannot provide the same protection as we provide for our home produce because we do not do the deboning and cutting up of the carcases when they go in carcase form. Therefore, we have agreed to measures which do not provide the same level of protection—they cannot—but which will help in the ability to sell abroad. The measure will help producers in a number of parts of the country. Everyone recognises that Britain protects everybody by taking every animal with BSE out of the food chain and destroying it, and taking the insides and any specified material out of every animal, even though it is healthy. That is something that we can do for the British consumer that cannot be done by countries that do not have the same cutting practices.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is it not clear that the European Council of Ministers has failed to endorse the Minister's claim that all British beef is safe? It said—the Minister agreed with it—that 95 per cent. of British beef is fit enough to be exported. Has not the right hon. Gentleman replaced a total ban on exports with a creeping
  908
  ban? The rate of spread of BSE is doubling every six months. It now affects 5 per cent. of our herds. Within a year it will affect 20 per cent. and within two years all our herds will be affected. Has not the Minister agreed today to a creeping ban? Why does he not take decisive action to eradicate BSE? European countries have their doubts about vertical transmission, which is why the Minister reluctantly agreed that calves of cows with BSE would not be exported. Why does he not introduce a slaughter policy for the calves of BSE-affected cows with 100 per cent. compensation for farmers?
  Mr. Gummer: There have been a number of interventions from Members from the Principality, but that was the least helpful one to the consumer or to the farmer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents hear exactly what he said. I shall not do what the hon. Gentleman proposes because the expert scientific committee, the Tyrrell committee—I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a doctor of chemistry—has said that that would not be helpful.
  Mr. Williams: Show me the report.
  Mr. Gummer: I have published the report and it is in the Library, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Mr. Williams: One page.
  Mr. Gummer: It may be only one page but there is a great deal more truth on that one page than we have heard from the hon. Gentleman today.
  The hon. Gentleman must accept that what he has said is not based on fact at all. He must also come to terms with his conscience and decide whether he is prepared to bear the burden of the sort of things that he is saying when they are wholly contrary to the expert advice that has been given. That must question whether what he says is helpful to consumers or to farmers.
  Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of Conservative Members and all thinking Opposition Members? Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are only 10 Back-Bench Labour Members behind the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and only four of his trouper friends next to him? Despite every detail of every incident being theirs for the asking during the past four years—if the Opposition did not know to ask, they did not know what was happening—they have made up their mind to destroy the small British high street butcher and the small British farmer, all because they think that they will cull a few votes from the consumers who woo them every day for lunch in London. Again, I add my congratulations to those from the packed Conservative Benches and the packed ranks of the miserable 12 Members on the Labour Benches.
  Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The real issue is that we should not put the interests of farmers, butchers or anyone else ahead of the consumer. Nor must we ever damage the interests of the consumer because we wish to push a particular personal or party point. The real argument here is that the interests of the consumer demand that we publish and act upon the best scientific advice. I clearly committed myself to publish and give the information and I have done so in every particular. I do it day in and day out, but I am always accused by the Opposition of not doing so. I would

  909
  certainly not resile from that commitment because if everybody knows the facts, they need have no fear, and that is how to support the consumer.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not care tuppence for the French and the Germans and the Common Market, and I have listened to farmers on "News at Ten", some of whom are not very happy about the deal. Can the Minister explain why the French, Germans and others in the Common Market will have beef that has a seal of approval, while the British consumer will get the scrag end?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. He knows that he is wrong. He heard my comments, and he only makes the remarks he does because he thinks that he might get the odd bit of support in the country. Every consumer in Britain is better protected than any consumer in the whole of the rest of the Community. We have in place a much more comprehensive protection system than it does. The hon. Gentleman may refer to himself when he speaks of scrag end, but he does not refer to the high-quality beef provided for British consumers and cut for British consumers in Britain.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister, particularly on behalf of the Cheale family in my constituency, which is one of the largest exporters of British beef in this country—and whose business has been grievously damaged by the action of our so-called partners on the continent.
  The Cheale family informs me that it is inconceivable that the problem does not exist among continental herds. That is confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is himself a beef farmer. I was interested by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister about investigating the problem on the continent. Is he aware of the link between BSE and rabies? Apparently, the physical symptoms manifested by an animal with BSE are very similar to those of rabies. In countries where rabies is endemic, animals are often put down because they are suspected of having rabies when they are probably victims of BSE. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he begins his investigations, so that there is no cover-up of continental cases.
  Mr. Gummer: It is certainly true that the United States of America is reconsidering a number of cases of bovine rabies to establish whether they were misdiagnosed and might have been cases of BSE. We must wait to see the results of that work.
  I am not one of those who want to understate the seriousness of the problem in Britain by saying, "BSE is found elsewhere as well." I am concerned about the protection of the public. If one wants to protect animal and human health, one must take the best measures possible. One of the measures that we have taken, as have the Dutch and the Danes—it is one which we hope the French will take—is to get rid of ruminant feed for ruminants. I am sure that that is a good step. I hope that the rest of the Community will take the steps now applicable to them in their particular circumstances—because this is a Community decision—if incidents of BSE are found in other countries.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Minister confirm that there have been more than 11,000 confirmed cases of
  910
  BSE in England and Wales alone, and that the number is rising? Is not it the case that bone-in beef from non-infected herds only will be exported to Europe? Does not that mean that a higher proportion of beef from infected herds will remain in this country? Will the Minister answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that one standard of beef will not be exported but will be made available to the British consumer?
  Mr. Gummer: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand anything at all about BSE. It does not involve infected herds. It is not like foot and mouth disease. BSE is caught by eating contaminated feed. 'We have always proceeded on the basis of the worst possible case, which is that there might be some kind of maternal transmission. Although we have been unable to prove that, I have always thought it best to take that possibility into account. However, it is not a sensible proposition that BSE affects herds in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The hon. Gentleman should not say such things. If he does, those people who think that he knows about such matters might take his words seriously.
  I confirm absolutely to the hon. Gentleman that the meat provided for the consumer in Britain is better protected than the meat provided for the consumer anywhere else in Europe. Therefore, if there are two standards, ours is the higher.
  Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend accept that all farmers, especially livestock producers in Dorset, have nothing but contempt for the damaging politicking that we have had from the Opposition Benches over the past few weeks? He has agreed today to certain quality controls, and to certification for British cattle. Does he hope and expect that our partners within the European Community will move towards acceptance, on a Community basis, of the same controls, because that will be of crucial importance in the future?
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is the right direction to move in, but it is obviously more important to deal with the problem where there is a large incidence of it, rather than where there is a very small incidence, which is perhaps localised. That is a situation which is found, for example, in the Republic of Ireland. It might be different if one had two or three cases, which perhaps could be traced back to particular circumstances. I am not one of those who say that because we find one case we have to have a whole paraphernalia of controls in a particular country. What is important about this decision is that if another country found itself in similar circumstances, the measures would apply to it, because this is a Community proposal. It merely says that it is at the moment epidemiologically applicable only in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I am clear that what my hon. Friend says is true.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: The House will be aware of my interest in these matters, and I am sure that the whole of the food and farming industry is grateful to my right hon. Friend not only for this achievement—getting the immediate ban lifted—but for the very robust view that he has taken in defence of our great industry during the crisis. Will my right hon. Friend take this

  911
  opportunity to explain to the House that the vast majority of meat eaten in Britain today is prime beef, and is not to be confused with cow meat?
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is true, and of course the better cuts of meat are those that we eat with greatest enjoyment. All beef sold in this country is safe to eat, and all beef sold in this country is better protected than anywhere else in the world.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best response from the British farmer to these circumstances would be to sublimate their understandable anger at continental protectionism into a commercial challenge to the continental producers on their own ground, based on the superior competitiveness, the greater quality and the undoubted safety of British beef?
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is true, especially as we have been able to make a big change in the green pound, which will make it much easier for that to happen. I remind my hon. Friend that the reason that we have been able to get that market for our beef is the Community institutions, and it is a triumph not only for the work done by the Commissioner and the President but for the Community itself. It was very nearly a disaster for the Community, but has turned out to show that its institutions can work.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that beef producers in Sussex haye reason to be very grateful for his tenacity and determination in defence of their industry? Does he think it reprehensible of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), to have encouraged needless anxiety about BSE for imagined political gain, when the Government have taken the best available professional advice, followed it to the letter, and informed the public scrupulously throughout the whole episode?
  Mr. Gummer: I believe that my hon. Friend is right to say that the encouragement of fear when there is no need to be frightened is something that we should all avoid. In so far as it has not been avoided, it has not helped the consumer or the industry.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the farmers of Yorkshire, who will be delighted by this evening's news, that the media have been misled by the mischievous comments of misguided scientists, particularly in West Yorkshire? As he has referred specifically to the EC, is he arguing tomorrow with the EFTA countries so that the ban will be removed there in the interests of great British beef?
  Mr. Gummer: I just think that we ought to make a distinction between scientists and pundits. The scientists who are represented on all the committees in the European Community and in Britain have wholly supported the Government's position because the Government have followed their advice in all particulars. Therefore, we must hold the scientific view and not the view of those who seek to put forward their idiosyncratic views by way of the media rather than giving their information to the scientists, their peer group, who can judge it.
  Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the major beef exporters in my constituency to whom I have spoken this evening, as considerable damage was being inflicted on their business and had the ban not been lifted there would have been many bankruptcies among farmers and livestock exporters? In his discussions with the French Minister, was he able to get a guarantee that there will be no other action by French farmers such as blockading ports to prevent our beef from reaching French shops? Did he discuss with him sending our our own veterinary experts to look into the problem of la vache tremblante?
  Mr. Gummer: No doubt the problem of la vache tremblante, if it exists, will be examined by the Community under the arrangements that I announced earlier. My discussions with the French Minister were sometimes rather sharp and clear. I made clear what I thought about the entire procedure of acting unilaterally and not going to the Community to get this result without the action that took place. When one has reached a conclusion which has been supported across the board, it is better to forget about that and proceed from there. Therefore, I have made it quite clear that we expect vigorous action to lift any blockade attempted on the port of Cherbourg.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The statement has now been running for nearly an hour, but I will call those hon. Members who wish to speak. I ask them not to repeat what has been said before. With respect to the Minister, he has received sufficient congratulations, so I ask that we have questions now.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: May I thank my right hon. Friend for standing up for British consumers and farmers in the face of the French allegations against British beef? Does he agree that it had more to do with placating the French farmers than with British beef? Will he confirm that those French senior vets that came here last week to discuss BSE were junior officials who knew nothing whatsoever about the disease?
  Mr. Gummer: I think that we can now draw a veil over the situation which we have now suitably ended. The French equivalent of the National Farmers Union made it clear that it considered the ban to be the result of its own pressures which were entirely to protect the French market for itself. That is what we said and the ban has now been lifted. I hope that this will never occur again.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on us all to play a part in restoring confidence in beef production and consumption? Furthermore, will he confirm that today's meeting in Brussels revealed that there is no evidence whatsoever that this dreadful disease is transmitted horizontally within herds and, therefore, no decisions should be made that will act to the detriment of those herds which unfortunately have had an affected animal?
  Mr. Gummer: I can confirm that the scientific committee made it absolutely clear that the evidence showed that no such decisions ought to be made, so there is no question of that. But it would be quite wrong to attempt to raise people's confidence in British beef unless we were utterly sure that that confidence was properly placed. We are utterly sure. We have the chief medical

  913
  officer's clear statement. We have the clear statements of the Tyrrell committee and the Southwood committee and we have a Government who have carried out all that they have asked us to do to protect public health. That is why we can try to restore the confidence and why we can, with some realism, ask those who have taken a different path in the past now to accept their responsibilities.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the farmers in Kent will not merely thank him for what he has done, but will applaud his stand on behalf of the farming community, as will the consumers applaud his assurances? Does he agree that the negotiations have revealed two points? First, they have stripped away the veneer on the Opposition Front Bench and revealed the opportunism and treachery that lie there. Secondly, they have revealed that this country is the good European and that, in this case, the French, the Germans and the Italians have sought to break the law. Is it not time that the Commission sought to enforce the existing directives before applying others to the Community?
  Mr. Gummer: The last point is not necessarily the result of the negotiations. The negotiations have shown that when countries have tried to act unilaterally, the institutions have eventually enabled them to come together to find an answer. That is what we have done. The answer is satisfactory to us and the others have agreed to support it. The Community emerges stronger in the end than it was before. I see no reason why those things that are better done together should not be done together. There are many things that we do not yet do together which we could do together.
  If we decide to do something in common, we must accept that that means that we do it even when it is embarrassing and unhappy because our farmers do not like it. That is why it was wrong for the others to take action. They were saying, "We keep to the Community rules in fair weather, but if there is a bit of rockiness and there are a few sheep in the streets of Paris, we take different measures." They have resiled from that position and I am pleased about that. We must now move on without referring to the matter further.
  Mr. Alistair Burt: In his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see this week's edition of Farming News, which came out today? It is a weekly that has sometimes been fierce in its criticism of the Government, but today it carries a survey showing that 60 per cent. of farmers questioned expressed full confidence in my right hon. Friend's policy. Does not that speak volumes for the way in which he has defended the agriculture and consumer interests in the crisis? Is it not in sharp contrast with the failure of the Opposition to defend either agriculture or the consumer? Is that why they have been so poorly supported tonight? They made miserable efforts, once again, to undermine my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Gummer: I had seen the article and it was rather cheering because the latest poll suggested that the figure was 6 per cent. It is at least a considerable improvement and we can, perhaps, manage the other 40 per cent. some time. It is important for farmers to recognise that they cannot be supported against the consumer. The only way in which the farming community can be properly supported is if we put the consumer first and foremost
  914
  because the consumer is the market that the farmer has to get. That is why I believe that the Ministry is a consumer Ministry and why we must put the consumer first.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he deserves the appreciation of the whole House for the way in which he has held up the interests of British farming in the attacks against it by many foreign farming communities, whose standards are considerably lower than ours? Nevertheless, does he agree that there has been damage to the beef exporting industry and that that damage has been caused primarily by the fact that the French took action that was illegal, opportunistic and cynical, and that had nothing to do with the health regime, as they pretended? It was purely to try to protect their own farmers. If the Single European Act means anything, is there not a strong case for at least some compensation from the French Government to British farmers who have suffered as a result?
  Mr. Gummer: The most important thing is to get the trade back and sell the beef. That is our objective, arid that is why we sought to do it as quickly as we have done. The best thing for British farmers now is to make up in the coming weeks the market which they have lost in the past. They will benefit very much from the united support of the House to rebuild the confidence that there should be in beef. The real message is "Let us get together to ensure that the consumer recognises the truth and the facts and, therefore, buys the beef."
  Mr. Michael Stern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I rarely intervene on his statements because I represent consumers rather than producers? Nevertheless, I thank him for his action today, which has protected the favourite meat of the majority of my constituents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only the farmer but the taxpayer has suffered as a result of the illegal and regrettably typical action of the French, German and Italian Governments in this matter? Will he continue to pursue through the Community the possibility of compensation to the British taxpayer for the extra costs that will fall on the British taxpayer through the Community contribution to support the beef market that was illegally damaged by the action of those Governments?
  Mr. Gummer: It would be difficult to apportion the cost that my hon. Friend is talking about. There must be many others, too, who probably feel today that they have contributed towards that reduction in the market. Now that we have the clear scientific evidence in Britain, in the European Community and from the chief medical officer, we should base our actions and statements on it and not seek to give credence to the personal views of one or two individuals.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: The House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on remaining in such sparkling form after battling with the Community for two whole days and answering questions for more than an hour tonight. What would have been the outcome had the delegation been led by the official spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)?
  Mr. Gummer: I must say that I am not given to contemplate either the impossible or the intolerable.
  Mr. William Hague: May I, in winding up, ask my right hon. Friend to assure farmers that he and his Ministry will keep a close eye on the French and Germans to ensure that they do not seek to prevent British beef from entering their shops by means that are more underhand or less publicised than those attemped so far?
  Mr. Gummer: I am in the business of making sure that the agreement that we have works. I repeat that this is one of those things that shows that Community institutions can and do work. As we have large markets in the rest of Europe for our agricultural products, I prefer to encourage the whole industry to go out and sell British beef, dairy products and farm products generally. Many parts of the industry are not yet doing as well as they could, and I want them to go out and show the rest of Europe that 1992 is the year in which we expect to make our farm products the best and most widely used in Europe.

  Rates (North Yorkshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Chapman.]
  12.3 am
  Mr. Michael Alison: My starting point in this brief debate is to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), to recognise that, prima facie, there is something odd about the revaluation in North Yorkshire. The top 20 rating authorities, in terms of boosts shown in rateable values for the whole of England and Wales, contain no fewer than five such authorities—one quarter of the total—from just one county, North Yorkshire. Of the other 15 high fliers, 14 are in the south or west of England. It would be easier to be reconciled to these five northern high fliers if they were a north of England phenomenon as a whole. But they are not. They are a unique North Yorkshire phenomenon.
  Go a bit further north—Darlington, Middlesbrough, Gateshead—and one immediately finds that the revaluation increases are half those in North Yorkshire. Go a bit further south—Leicester and Derby, for example,—and one finds the same: revaluations among the lowest in England and Wales, and half those in North Yorkshire. It really will not do to say that the Selby revaluation, for example, started from a very low base. Lower than Gateshead and Middlesbrough, or Leicester? I doubt it.
  The kind of North Yorkshire revaluation boosts I am complaining about can be vividly illustrated. The most striking example comes from a small engineering business—literally a cottage industry—in the village of Bishopsthorpe, near York. One of this business's separately rated premises, a unit of 114 sq m—say the size of four lock-up garages—has undergone a revaluation from a figure of £43 in 1973 to £6,750 in the latest list. Have rents in Main street, Bishopsthorpe, for tiny business premises of this kind, really been driven up by some unimaginable, maniacal competition of frantic entrepreneurs, by 157 times what they were in 1973? It seems inherently unlikely and implausible.
  Another bad case comes from Selby town itself, where a butcher with a back-street premises, not a prime town site, has found his 1973 rateable value of £236 boosted to £5,500. To make matters worse, the same butcher has two shops in Selby, and the other one has undergone an increase from a higher original figure—£245—to a new lower figure of £2,500.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way for just a moment in this important debate. Does he accept that part of the problem is that the Labour party undertook to carry out a revaluation five years later and fudged it? I am sorry that no Labour Members are present. The problem stems from the original point that Labour should have carried out a revaluation five years later, but did not. The family businesses to which my right hon. Friend has referred in his constituency and those in my constituency of York, adjoining my right hon. Friend's constituency, could, like those in Ryedale, benefit enormously from the suggestion that I have already made to my hon. Friend the Minister, whereby family businesses could pay at a lower rate based on corporation tax, as already exists.
  Mr. Alison: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. The revaluation and the long delay are Labour responsibilities and are at the root of the problem. It is a good thing that all parties are now agreed that the revaluation should have taken place.
  If North Yorkshire revaluations are so uniformly and uniquely high in the north of England, how come one can get such inexplicable variations for similar premises in such a tiny urban compass as the town of Selby as in the case of the two butcher's shops that I have just described? The chief executive of the Selby district council has supplied me with a list of 57 business premises in and around Selby where the multiplier is 25 times the 1973 rateable value.
  I am bound to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that these atypical boosts in rateable value are a very serious matter in the Selby district and in north Yorkshire generally. One reason for which rents may have risen in the district and the county is that rates in earlier days were low—thanks to frugal Conservative authorities. Rents therefore tended to rise, because there was, as it were, some cost-slack in the overall economics of businesses, thanks to low rates. But now the valuation officer comes along and builds a new, far higher ratable value on those inflated rental figures—piling Pelion on Ossa, to use the classical phrase—as it were. The only way in which this vicious circle can be broken is for the trader to go out of business, and for rents to adjust downwards. But the newcomer to a tenancy, of course, gets no transitional relief. So we seem in North Yorkshire, uniquely in the north of England, literally to have fashioned an engine of economic depression by the revaluation, ironically so beneficial in Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole.
  I should add that my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and for York (Mr. Gregory), who just intervened, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) all corroborate what I am saying. Indeed, they have all helped me to prepare my case by giving examples from their constituencies. I make the case for them as well as for myself. I should also add that the chairman of the Selby and district chamber of trade, Mr. J. D. Lofthouse, has told me that, since the new business rates became known in the Selby district, 140 businesses in the district have either closed or transferred or are on the market.
  There is one particularly vulnerable group in the Selby district, and more widely in North Yorkshire. I refer to small business premises, particularly those where the proprietor lives "over the shop", and has a rates liability apportioned between community charge and business rate. Many of these small businesses, as my hon. Friend knows, survive on low turnover and small profit margins by dint of long hours and unremitting service. They are a section of the commercial world which the Government have singled out by all sorts of initiatives and incentives in the small business field, to support and encourage. But the North Yorkshire revaluation is having precisely the opposite effect: it is depressing them. I single out in particular the small corner shop and the sub-post office.
  The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has been kind enough to furnish me, from its Yorkshire office, with some samples of complaints and representations that it has received from North Yorkshire members about the new valuation lists. From a bundle of about 30 such letters that
  918
  I have seen and that I have here, no fewer than 11 refer to the possibility or likelihood of their packing the job in, and going out of business.
  The Appleton Roebuck sub-post office, for example, finds that its ratable value has risen from £51 to £1,600, an increase of over 30 times. Have rents really risen 30 times in this small village since 1973? Another example—from Scarborough—shows a ratable value increase of similar proportions, from £157, for a small village post office, to £3,250. Many similar cases can be cited. And my hon. Friend will know that the special vulnerability of sub-post offices is that they cannot simply raise prices to defray costs. They labour under the fixed price regime of the Post Office tariff. No wonder many are contemplating closure.
  Against that background, I urge my hon. Friend to consider four points and courses of action. First, he should double-check with the York valuation office that it has got things right. To err, after all, is human; to correct is a ministerial prerogative. I urge my hon. Friend officially to encourage small businesses in North Yorkshire to appeal, and to encourage the York valuation office to go out and meet the appellants halfway and more than halfway.
  Secondly, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which provides for local authorities to reduce, or remit entirely, the uniform business rate, where hardship is threatened. I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that that provision is there precisely to temper the wind to such businesses as struggling sub-post offices and village corner shops and that he will today explicitly encourage local authorities to make generous use of those powers.
  Thirdly, I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that transitional relief, welcome and essential as it is for businesses in the Selby district and in North Yorkshire, is set for a long innings on the statute book, and not just for the next four years until the 1995 revaluation.
  Will my hon. Friend consider whether some fundamental exemption provision under the uniform business rate might not be desirable and feasible for smaller businesses, akin to the exemption provided to smaller businesses in relation to VAT? There is no rationality in providing admirable small business incentives and exemptions, as with VAT, with the right hand if the left hand promptly takes them all away through rating.
  This debate has not been a criticism of the uniform business rate itself, or of the recent revaluation associated with it. I have already observed that that has been endorsed by all parties in the House. The uniform business rate and the revaluation have been substantially beneficial to Yorkshire and Humberside. No, my complaint and that of my hon. Friends is about the quirks and anomalies of the revaluation uniquely to North Yorkshire. It is that to which I hope my hon. Friend will apply his mind.
  12.16 am
  Mr. John Greenway rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the agreement of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the Minister?
  Mr. Alison indicated assent.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope) indicated assent.
  Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on securing the debate. I am grateful to him for allowing me to endorse briefly some of the points that he has raised.
  Ryedale is one of the five North Yorkshire districts to which my right hon. Friend referred. He mentioned the district valuer in York; I should like to pay tribute to him for the co-operation he has shown in meeting traders from my constituency. I know that that is also true of my colleagues in neighbouring constituencies.
  One statistic concerns me and goes to the heart of the problem. The district valuer, on his own admission, expects that, of the 15,000 or so business premises in his valuation area, no fewer than 10,000 will appeal. Such is the scale of the problem.
  Many of the examples that my right hon. Friend cited are equally prevalent in my constituency. An increase of three or four times above the present level of rates is all too commonplace, and many small shops have been badly affected.
  The Minister should please, please think again about phasing the transitional arrangements beyond five years. An early announcement about that could help confidence in small businesses a great deal. Will the Minister also look carefully at the arrangements for small village shops, especially sub-post offices to which my right hon. Friend drew attention, where people live on the premises? Many such shops consist of one room in the house and we should re-examine the de minimis provisions to ensure that the shops that we are trying to support in every other way are not put out of business. The amount gained from such small businesses represents a small contribution to the overall business rate fund, but it is crucial to those businesses.
  Can my hon. Friend also assure us that there will be a review of the valuation in North Yorkshire if the early appeals suggest that the tone of rent has been misjudged? Will he also recognise that many owner-occupiers face ratable values that are based on rental values that no small business could possibly hope to afford were they expected to pay them? Will he also consider allowing the transitional relief to be available to the new owner of a business? That should be done on the property basis and not just on the owner basis.
  We are the party of small business and are proud to be so, but many of our most loyal supporters are beginning to doubt it. They need strong reassurances that they have not misjudged the situation.
  12.20 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for giving me the opportunity to respond to what I know are long-standing and real concerns about the effects of the new business rating system, and particularly the revaluation, in North Yorkshire. I hope that I shall be able to allay some of those concerns.
  As my right hon. Friend recognises, the key factor for businesses in North Yorkshire has been the revaluation of properties on the basis of rental values at 1 April 1988. Indeed, the increases for businesses in all districts except York are entirely attributable to that revaluation; locally set poundages in those districts in 1989–90 were between
  920
  3 per cent. and 9·5 per cent. above the national average. In York itself, where the locally set poundage in 1989–90 was just I per cent. below the national average, the revaluation accounts for all but the smallest part of any increase.
  With the retention of non-domestic rates, ratable values had to be kept up to date. That was why the revaluation was carried out. It had, as my right hon. Friend recognises, widespread and all-party agreement. It was indefensible that businesses were still being taxed on 1973 property values as recently as March of this year, 17 years after the base date for that valuation. To continue to ignore changing circumstances would have been to expect businesses in the less prosperous regions to go on subsidising indefinitely those in more buoyant areas.
  Given the lapse of time since the last revaluation, it is inevitable that there are some large increases in ratable values, as well as large reductions. I know that my right hon. Friend accepts that that is the natural consequence of the extent to which market rents rose between 1973 and 1988, but I understand his concern that the percentage increase in values in North Yorkshire has been greater than elsewhere. I believe, however, that there is a clear explanation for that.
  While it is true that all the local authority areas in North Yorkshire have above average revaluation factors for most property types, especially for shops, it is equally true that they start from a very low base because, relative to other parts of the country, non-domestic ratable values in the area in the 1973 valuation list were low. I can best illustrate that with some examples.
  In Selby, for example, although shops throughout the district have an average revaluation factor of 13·9 compared with the national average of 9·5, the average new ratable value is still only £6,777, which is 53 per cent. of the national average of £12,762. I understand that, in the town of Selby itself, the revaluation factor for shops is only just above the national average. The same point can be made about offices and warehouses in the district.
  A similar picture emerges if one looks at the other districts in North Yorkshire, with the exception of York, which has both a high revaluation factor and high average ratable values, attributable to the considerable rise in open market rent levels in that city since 1973.
  Taking North Yorkshire as a whole, despite an average revaluation factor for all properties of 12·1, compared with the national average of 8·1, the average new ratable value of £10,978 is only 60 per cent. of the national average of £18,081—lower than the shire county average of £15,011, lower than the Yorkshire and Humberside regional average of £11,826, and lower than the average for 27 of the 38 other shire county areas.
  My right hon. Friend expressed doubts about whether the ratable value base in North Yorkshire in 1973 was lower than that of Gateshead and Middlesbrough or Leicester. Most definitely that was the case. The average ratable value for business premises in North Yorkshire in 1973 was just over £900, whereas the equivalent figures for Gateshead, Middlesbrough and Leicester were around £1,600, £1,850 and £1,975 respectively. What has happened since is that rental values, and hence ratable values, have risen more than average in North Yorkshire and by significantly less in the areas that my right hon. Friend mentioned.
  My right hon. Friend has also highlighted a number of cases in his constituency where rates have risen significantly. There is not time to go into all the cases, so

  921
  I shall deal with the first one mentioned by my right hon. Friend—the small engineering business in Bishopsthorpe. My right hon. Friend said that they appeared to have experienced an increase in ratable value of 157 times. As I understand it, that is not the case, because the base from which the value has risen to £6,750 is more properly £388. The figure of £43 mentioned by my right hon. Friend is attributable to only a part of the premises prior to a merger which produced the property that was subsequently revalued. That illustrates the difficulty of taking individual cases and using them as a basis for saying that there has been a dramatic increase. Obviously, there has been a substantial increase, but it has been nothing like the increase of 157 times that my right hon. Friend's figures indicate.
  The increase that has taken place means that the rate liability has gone up from about £1,050 in 1989–90 to £2,350. However, with transition, this year's bill will be only about £1,300—an increase of about £250 in the first year. While I do not deny that the property is facing a significant increase as a result of the revaluation, the picture is not quite as black as my right hon. Friend has painted. Threfore, I hope that he will agree that, in relative terms, businesses in North Yorkshire, with the understandable exception of York, do not face as great a burden as he had feared.
  While I cannot, of course, say that no individual ratable value will be found to be excessive, I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is no reason to believe that values generally are incorrect. He also asks me to encourage small businesses to appeal against their ratable values and to encourage the district valuer at York to meet them halfway, or, indeed, more than halfway. In view of what I have just said, I know that he will not expect me to advocate a wholesale challenge to rating lists in North Yorkshire.
  I understand, however, that the district valuer at York has already had meetings with the Greater York chamber of trade, the Selby small businesses association and the Selby chamber of trade—a meeting which my right hon. Friend attended. As we have heard in the debate, there has also been a meeting in the Palace of Westminster to discuss the revaluation with my right hon. Friend and some of our hon. Friends. I know that the district valuer is happy to continue to meet district associations. However, if ratepayers remain convinced that their new ratable value is unfair, they may propose to the district valuer before 1 October this year that it be altered. If the district valuer does not accept the proposal, it will be transferred to the local valuation and community charge tribunal as an appeal. They should do this rather than seek to pursue their case informally with the district valuer in order to protect their right to have the matter decided by a VCCT if agreement cannot be reached.
  Although rates have gone up for most businesses in Selby and elsewhere in North Yorkshire, we have to take into account the transitional arrangements. The whole purpose of those arrangements was to ensure that the impact of the new bills did not have to be faced overnight. The arrangements phase in the higher increases and I know that the details of the phasing arrangements are familiar. The small business transition scheme will benefit between 77 and 87 per cent. of business premises in the county, with the exception of York, where 65 per cent. will benefit. That shows that a high percentage of businesses in
  922
  York and North Yorkshire will benefit from the transitional arrangements which, at 15 per cent. in real terms, affect smaller businesses.
  These arrangements will last for a least five years, and we have powers to extend them beyond 1995. I remind hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House on 25 April that the Government would be
  "prepared to extend the transitional period if, after the next revaluation, small businesses face a steep increase on top of the 15 per cent. tranches of increase that will have occurred in the intervening period."—[Official Report, 25 April 1990; Vol. 171, c. 359.]
  My right hon. Friend has argued that, between 1973 and 1990, rent levels reflected lower rates in North Yorkshire, but he is concerned that increased rates will not result in lower rents. He is right to make the connection but he should not worry that the link will suddenly be broken. Any property expert could confirm that there is an inverse relationship between rent and rates, because businesses usually take a view of the overall occupancy costs that they can afford; so if rates rise, this will exert downward pressure on rents. This does not necessarily mean that rents will fall, but they are certainly likely to increase less than would otherwise have been the case. This should help even businesses with leases containing upward-only rent reviews, because it would moderate the rent increases which they would otherwise face.
  Lower rental levels in comparative terms should feed through to produce lower ratable values at the 1995 revaluation. The result may be that many of the bigger increases emerging from the revaluation will never, in practice, take effect. I know that that will be consolation to the businesses affected.
  My right hon. Friend has asked me to encourage local authorities to make generous use of their powers to reduce or remit rates on grounds of hardship. I can certainly confirm that such powers could be used to protect businesses such as sub-post offices and village shops from closure, but local authorities alone can make decisions of this sort, and they are required by law, before doing so, to have regard to the interests of their community charge payers.
  The purpose of the uniform business rate and the non-domestic revaluation is to remove distortions in the competitive position of business caused by widely varying rate poundages and the long delay since the last revaluation. The aim has been to redistribute the burden of business rates more fairly, not to increase it in real terms. To achieve this we have set the uniform business rate for 1990–91 at a level of 34·8p, which will ensure that we raise broadly the same amount of rates in real terms from private businesses and the nationalised industries as a whole as in 1989–90.
  Under the new system, all businesses will benefit from the assurance, written into statute, that the rate poundage cannot rise each year by more than the rate of inflation, and may rise by less. This compares with the old system by which, between 1979–80 and 1989–90, non-domestic rate poundages rose by around 37 per cent. more than inflation nationally and by between 34 per cent. and 45 per cent. more than inflation in North Yorkshire. This cannot happen in future and all businesses are getting a good long-term deal from the new system, since they are now protected from real increases in the cost of local authority

  923
  services. These will now fall on the community charge payer, to whom authorities are accountable through the ballot box, or to the Exchequer.
  We estimate that, if the old system had been in place this year, in the light of the local authorities' spending decisions, there would have been an additional burden on
  924
  businesses of about £1 billion. That is the extent of the savings from which businesses will be able to benefit in the first year of the new arrangements.
  I hope that I have been able to allay some of my right hon. Friend's concerns.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Higher Education
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the numbers of people who applied for higher education, by higher educational establishment, for each of the last five years.

  UCCA Applicants1

  Year of entry

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Home domicile

  157,085

  152,588

  152,520

  156,981

  171,802

  Overseas domicile

  19,468

  21,191

  23,726

  26,633

  24,285

  Total

  176,553

  173,779

  176,246

  183,614

  196,087

  PCAS applicants2

  Year of entry

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19883

  19894

  Home domicile

  130,230

  130,329

  134,811

  159,522

  Overseas domicile

  n/a

  8,647

  9,578

  11,329

  10,157

  Total

  —

  138,877

  139,907

  146,140

  169,679

  Sources

  UCCA—UCCA Annual Reports.

  PCAS—1986–88: PCAS Annual Reports.

  1989: Statistical Supplement to 1988–89 Report.

  1Candidates applying for admission to UK universities (excluding the Open University and the University of Buckingham) through UCCA for full-time undergraduate first degree or first diploma courses.

  2The PCAS admissions scheme started with entry for 1986 and covered 30 polytechnics in England and Wales offering full-time and sandwich first degree and Dip. HE courses.

  3 For 1988 entry, institutional coverage extended to include eight of the larger colleges of higher education in England.

  4 For 1989 entry, the scheme was extended to cover entry to full-time HND courses.

  Undergraduate Courses
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures for applications to undergraduate courses beginning in September 1990 and September 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  By 31 March 1990, there had been 851,693 applications through the Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA) from UK domiciled students for admission to UK universities at undergraduate level and 603,105 applications through the Polytechnics Central Admissions System (PCAS) for admission to undergraduate courses including HNDs at polytechnics and colleges in England and Wales. Information on applications deferred to 1991 is not yet available.

  Sources: UCCA and PCAS

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Nazi Regalia
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he is giving to granting consent for proceedings under part III of the Public Order Act 1986
  668
  Mr. Jackson
  Complete information on the numbers of candidates applying for entry to individual institutions, each of which will typically make applications to several institutions, is not held centrally.

  Many candidates applying for admission to an higher education course through the Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA) and the Polytechnics Central Admissions System (PCAS) make use of both schemes, and the candidates are included in both instances in the table as appropriate. Just over 92,000 candidates for entry in 1989 were common to both schemes.

  Information on the numbers of people applying for higher education through the two central admission agencies is as follows:

  against the owners of Cutdown, formerly of 40 Ridinghouse street, London W1 in connection with the alleged sale of Nazi regalia.

  The Attorney-General
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman very shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  IGM Polsotersystene AG
  Mr Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the operations in the United Kindgdom of IGM Polsotersystene AG; and what action he intends to take.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. I shall be replying soon to the hon. Member's letter of 24 May about a non-UK company, which may be the company he has in mind.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements he proposes to make for licensing under the Telecommunications Act 1984 existing cable television relay systems which do not at
  669
  present require to be licensed under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, should the proposals in the Broadcasting Bill receive parliamentary approval.

  Mr. Forth
  Relay systems of any size carrying only the four terrestrial TV channels will be covered by a class licence under the Telecommunications Act. Other relay systems, not requiring a licence under the Cable and Broadcasting Act at the date the new proposals come into force and not at that date carrying all four terrestrial TV channels and all five DBS channels will be allowed to continue to carry those channels that they carried on that date also under the terms of a class licence. Any subsequent upgrading will be treated for licensing purposes as a new system and the right of first refusal for existing broadband cable licensees or local delivery operators will apply where appropriate.

  Relay systems of any size which carry all four terrestrial TV channels and all five DBS channels on the date that the new proposals come into force will thereafter be authorised to carry any TV or radio services other than those proscribed under provisions contained in clause 165 of the Broadcasting Bill. Those restricted to a single building or to adjacent dwelling houses will be covered by another class licence. Larger systems will, however, require an individual Telecommunications Act licence for which they will need to apply in advance of the new regime.

  Such licences granted in respect of systems covering fewer than 1,000 homes will be on the same terms as those for new systems of the same size. Unlike licences for new systems, the award of these licences will not be subject to the right of first refusal procedure. Multiple licence applications will not, however, be accepted in respect of systems that had previously been connected to form a larger system of over 1,000 homes. Further details about the licensing arrangements will be given later this year.

  Systems of the type described in the previous paragraph, covering 1,000 homes or more and lying within a cable franchise area will, under the terms of the Bill, be deemed to have a Cable and Broadcasting Act diffusion service licence with an initial life of five years. Each such system will also receive a concurrent Telecommunications Act licence.

  Systems covering 1,000 homes or more and lying outside any cable franchise area will, under the provisions of the Bill, be deemed to have a local delivery licence, with an initial term of five years. These will also receive individual Telecommunications Act licences, similar to those in the previous category and, in particular, not granting the licensee powers under the telecommunications code.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements he proposes to make for licensing cable television systems covering fewer than 1,000 homes under the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  Mr. Forth
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office confirmed on 2 March 1990 at column 351 that subject to parliamentary approval of our proposals, cable TV systems covering fewer than 1,000 homes will not require to be licensed by the Independent Television Commission. All such cable systems will, however, continue to require licensing under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.
  670
  Systems restricted to single buildings or to two adjacent dwelling houses will be covered by a class licence which will authorise them to carry any TV or radio service not specifically proscribed under provisions contained in clause 165 of the Broadcasting Bill. We would be prepared to consider extending this class licence to cover groups of up to, say, five terraced houses if there proved to be a significant demand for such systems from groups of neighbours. Individual licences will be granted in respect of other systems passing fewer than 1,000 homes subject, in areas where a licence has been granted to a broadband cable or local delivery operator, to the right of first refusal being given to that licence holder. These individual licences will contain similar authorisations to those in the class licence and run for 10 years. They will be renewable.

  The first refusal procedure will operate only if the system lies wholly or partly within a cable franchise area licensed under the Cable and Broadcasting Act by the Cable Authority before its abolition, or within that part of a local delivery operator's area for which the operator has undertaken to provide a service. The cable or local delivery operator will be given the right to provide an alternative service to that proposed unless he is in default of his build timetable or has failed to honour a previous commitment to provide an alternative service elsewhere in the cable/LDO area. Any operator that qualifies for this right will be given 20 working days in which to offer to provide an alternative service. We would expect the service to be fully operational within four months from the date my Department offers the operator first refusal. The service must provide a similar or superior service to that proposed by the SMATV applicant, at a reasonable price, and, in particular, include at least the same major satellite and terrestrial channels and a similar range of alternative channels. In the case of cable franchise areas, the alternative system should be capable of being upgraded to a broadband service without further internal rewiring.

  If the cable operator/LDO waives the right of first refusal or fails to honour his commitment to provide an alternative service, the SMATV operator will be granted an individual Telecommunications Act licence of 10 years' duration and renewable. The licence, would, however, be liable to revocation if the promised service was not provided within four months of the licence being issued.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Population
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent it is estimated by his research unit that demographic trends reduced the number of people entering Her Majesty's prisons in the last five years; and what is the projection for the next five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal representation is available to those who seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is open to asylum seekers in the United Kingdom to approach solicitors, law centres or other organisations who may make representations on
  671
  their behalf. Asylum seekers are eligible to apply for legal aid. Representations from any source are considered carefully before a final decision is taken. When we are minded to refuse an applicant who is not legally represented and who does not have a right of appeal exercisable in this country, the case will normally be referred to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service which will consider making representations.

  White Lion Public House, London
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis into the cost, during the past four months, of police time and resources devoted to visits to the White Lion public house, in Central street, London EC1.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Metropolitan police officers have visited the White Lion public house in Central street, London EC1 on a number of occasions over the last four months as part of ordinary police duties. Information is not available to enable the costs of these visits to be calculated.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stage of development the demand reduction task force, the setting up of which was announced by the Prime Minister at the world ministerial drugs summit in April, has reached.

  Mr. Mellor
  An interdepartmental steering group is actively considering how to take forward this initiative and other actions following on from the summit. We hope shortly to announce how the task force will be organised and will approach its important work. In the meantime, my right hon. and learned Friend is discussing with the Secretary of State for Health where the co-ordinating group for the task force might best be located.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been set aside to help with the setting up of the demand reduction task force.

  Mr. Mellor
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the funding of the task force will be £257,000 in the current financial year and £500,000 in subsequent years.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will be receiving a reply to the letter he wrote on 22 March regarding the television concessionary licence and Walsall council.

  Mr. Mellor
  I replied on 5 June.

ENERGY

  British Coal
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the future external financing requirements of British Coal have yet been determined, as indicated in paragraph 93 of Cm. 1005.
  672
  Mr. Baldry
  British Coal has reviewed its external financing requirement (EFR) for 1990–91 in the light of the final outcome of its negotiations with the electricity supply industry, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to its proposal that its external financing limit (EFL) for 1990–91 should be set at £905 million. This is consistent with British Coal achieving profitability this year. Within this figure my right hon. Friend has also agreed that the corporation's capital allocation for 1990–91 should be £445 million. This compares with the provisional EFL and capital allocation figures of £385 million and £490 million respectively shown in Cm. 1005. This increase in the EFL will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. A supplementary estimate for restructuring grant, deficiency grant, and loans on vote in order to finance this increased EFR will be presented shortly. The EFRs and capital allocations for later years remain under review.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether suppliers of renewable energy in Scotland who have a contracted use of the interconnector can sell electricity to England and Wales as part of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his earlier question on 8 February 1990,Official Report, column 724.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to ensure that contracts to supply electricity under the non-fossil fuel obligation are of sufficient duration to secure the viability of capital-intensive wind energy projects.

  Mr. Baldry
  The terms of the contracts concluded in order to meet the requirements of the non-fossil fuel obligation are a matter primarily for the public electricity suppliers concerned. I am satisfied that sufficient flexibility exists under the NFFO arrangements to secure an adequate number of viable projects. In addition my right hon. Friend proposes to set a tranche of the NFFO next year specifically for wind projects.

  Wave Power
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether disciplinary action is to be taken against any Atomic Energy Authority staff or civil servants who produced misleading comparisons of the cost of wave power; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Peter Morrison
  The question of disciplinary action does not arise, since no misleading comparisons have been made. A series of research reports has been published in recent years each contributing to the understanding of wave power. There is considerable uncertainty about the costs of wave power and this is reflected in the range of assumptions incorporated in the reports.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what studies have been undertaken of the incidence of leukaemia in the children of people working for the Atomic Energy Authority;
  673
  (2) what studies have been made of the incidence of leukaemia in the children of people working in nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I am advised that no studies have yet been undertaken specifically to examine the incidence of leukaemia in the offspring of people working at nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom or at Atomic Energy Authority sites. However, in February of this year, a report from the Medical Research Fund epidemiology unit at Southampton (Professor Gardner et al) was published in the British Medical Journal. This study documented a statistical association of leukaemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma in children living near the Sellafield reprocessing plant and the employment of their fathers at the plant.

  In view of the importance of this complex matter, the Government referred Professor Gardner's study to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) for its urgent consideration and preliminary advice. On 2 April my hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, announced to Parliament that the Government had received COMARE's preliminary advice and accepted all its recommendations. The relevant Government Department's bodies have set up arrangements to enable them to take this work forward as speedily as possible.

  In its advice, COMARE recommended that high priority be given to a study which it had recommended at an earlier stage to consider any possible health effects on the offspring of parents occupationally exposed to

  £ million

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Emergency Aid

  0.244

  1.056

  0.070

  0.436

  1.541

  Project Aid

  3.298

  2.713

  5.604

  3.651

  5.421

  Programme Aid

  0.206

  0.005

  0.016

  17.126

  12.626

  Technical Assistance

  2.867

  2.784

  3.510

  6.392

  6.766

  Other

  2.556

  2.018

  2.979

  1.374

  2.046

  Total

  9.171

  8.576

  12.179

  28.979

  28.400

  Global Warming
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what he estimates to be the third-world population at risk from a loss of agricultural income if global temperatures rise by(a) 0·5 deg, (b) 1 deg, (c) 1·5 deg, and (d) 2 deg, by 2030;

  (2) what studies or research his Department has commissioned on the effect of global warming and sea level rise on developing countries;

  (3) what estimates are available of the area of land in developing countries that would be flooded by a sea level rise of (a) 20 cm, (b) 50 cm, (c) 70 cm, and (d) 1 m;

  The project aid figures include funds invested through the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The 1989 figures are provisional at this stage.

  The majority of the emergency aid has gone to the northern and eastern parts of Uganda. Project aid has largely been disbursed in the Kampala, Entebbe, and Jinja region on the rehabilitation of Owen Falls power station, certain key roads and Mulago hospital, and on support to the police force. Programme aid has been allocated mostly to transport, industry and agriculture; no data are readily available on its distribution by region.
  674
  radiation. I understand that the UKAEA and Nuclear Electric are fully committed to assisting with any independent studies recommended by COMARE and accepted by Government.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Angola
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he will respond to the appeal by the United Nations Secretary-General for emergency assistance to Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are making available £500,000 for emergency supplies to help alleviate the consequences of drought in southern Angola. We are already discussing with British and international relief agencies the most effective uses to which our assistance can be put.

  Uganda
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown of (1) emergency aid, (2) project aid and (3) programme aid to Uganda for each of the last five years, giving details of the regional distribution and sectors supported.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Gross British bilateral aid to Uganda over the five-year period 1985–1989 was as follows:

  (4) what estimates he has of the number of people who would be forced to relocate by a 1 m rise in the sea level in (a) Bangladesh, (b) Egypt and (c) the Maldives;

  (5) what estimates are available of the number of people in developing countries who currently live on land that would be flooded if the sea level rose by (a) 20 cm, (b) 50 cm, (c) 70 cm and (d) 1 m; and if he will estimate at expected population growth rates what these populations are likely to be in 2030;

  (6) what is the estimated global cost of building sea defences in developing countries to protect land against a sea level rise of (a) 20 cm, (b) 50 cm, (c) 70 cm, and (d) 1 m;

  (7) what estimates are available of the effect of (a) a 1 deg and (b) a 2 deg rise in temperature on agricultural output in (i) west Africa, (ii) east Africa, (iii) southern Africa, (iv) south Asia, (v) south-east Asia, (vi) central America and (vii) Latin America.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The scale and effects of sea level rise and changing agricultural productivity arising from global warming on people in developing countries remain uncertain. The most detailed study is that carried out by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), now nearing completion. Copies of the IPCC's report will
  675
  be placed in the Library of both Houses when it is published. Last year the ODA commissioned a study on options for limiting CO2, emissions in developing countries. I will place a copy of the report in the Library of both Houses.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment has been made of the results of the World Health Organisation's tobacco and health programme aimed at helping countries elaborate on their tobacco control policies;

  (2) whether his Department has been approached by any developing countries asking for advice about (a) anti-smoking education and (b) information gained from epidemiology of smoking-related diseases;

  (3) what is Britain's contribution to the World Health Organisation tobacco and health programme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The World Health Organisation's tobacco or health programme was approved by the World Health Assembly in May 1989 based on a plan of action for 1988–1995. A meeting of the director-general's technical advisory group on tobacco or health was held from 28 to 30 November 1989 to evaluate the first year of practical implementation of the plan of action and to study and advise on issues concerning the various aspects of the programme. This group will continue to review the content, scope and activities of the programme. The United Kingdom supports the World Health Orgnisation's tobacco or health programme through its assessed contribution to the total regular budget of the World Health Organisation. Our budgetary contribution is paid by the Department of Health and totals £9.041 million in the 1990–91 biennium. About 0·18 per cent. (US$1·197 million) of the total WHO regular budget for this biennium is allocated to the tobacco or health programme. The United Kingdom has received no requests from developing countries for assistance with anti-smoking education or the epidemiology of smoking-related diseases under the United Kingdom aid programme.

  Kenya National Parks
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the request from the Government of Kenya for equipment to improve the communications system in the Tsavo and Meru national parks.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The draft project proposal was discussed recently with the Kenya wildlife service. A few details remain to be settled, but we hope to agree the project with it shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessments she has made of Her Majesty's Government's financial assignment for helping preservation of the rain forests; and what study she has made of proposals to give intellectual property rights to indigenous peoples.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.
  676
  British aid for tropical forestry is continuously monitored and assessed by the ODA. On intellectual property rights, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Industry wrote to the hon. Member on 24 May. ODA officials met Dr. Darrell Posey on 16 May and the issue is under study.

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

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at present no plans to do so.

  High-tar Tobacco
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the impact on public health in the third world of the expenditure by the European Economic Community on the production and dumping of high-tar tobacco; and if she will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are concerned at the grave consequences on health of smoking cigarettes and other forms of tobacco both in Europe and in the third world. We have long been critical of the Community's CAP tobacco regime. We have consistently argued that support for this crop should be reduced. We were successful in securing the introduction in 1988, of measures to reduce expenditure and discourage the production of the less-marketable and higher-tar varieties, for example through the stabiliser mechanism. Further reductions in support for certain of the less-marketable varieties were agreed in this year's price-fixing negotiations. Our objective is less production, reduced intervention and less subsidised export, of the higher-tar varieties. We shall take every opportunity to continue to pursue this policy in future negotiations.

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on co-ordination between the Department of Health and the Scottish Office on the provision of air ambulances.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for health authorities in England and the Common Services Agency, of which the Scottish ambulance service is a division, in Scotland, to decide the level, nature and extent of patient transport services required taking into account their resources and the competing demands upon them.

  Engagements
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
  677
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given an address at the luncheon of the North Atlantic Council at Turnberry. Later today she will begin a visit to the Soviet Union.

  Brymbo Steelworks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit Brymbo steelworks to meet steelworkers.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 22 February,Official Report, column 871, what is the latest information he has on the number of Panamanian civilians killed as a result of the invasion of Panama by the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no independent source for such figures. We understand that information from the Panamanian Institute of Legal Medicine suggests a figure of 202. Other estimates range between 200 and 300.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 568, if he has any proposals to provide further reinforcement for the United Kingdom diplomatic missions in eastern Europe following democratisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Sixteen new diplomatic service and 28 locally engaged staff posts have already been authorised to reinforce our embassies in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union since October 1989. Further strengthening is currently under consideration.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if British nuclear tests will be affected by the agreement between the United States of America and the Soviet Union of verification protocols to the threshold test ban treaty and the peaceful nuclear explosions treaty and the ratification of those treaties.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  For many years the policy of the United Kingdom has been to test nuclear devices within the 150 kiloton yield limit imposed by the US-Soviet threshold test ban treaty. Because our nuclear tests are conducted at the Nevada test site we have agreed that the verification measures, which will allow each party to monitor the yield of certain tests conducted by the other, can be extended to British tests. We are satisfied that these arrangements will not significantly affect British tests and that there are no security implications.

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Environment Council will meet on 7 and 8 June. The Presidency hopes for agreement on the amended waste framework proposal to amend directive 75/442 which establishes the basic structure for waste management in the Community; on the proposal on the labelling, use, content and disposal of batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substances, and on a resolution to establish policy targets on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Council will also seek to conclude a Community negotiating position for the London ozone layer conference in June. There will be a discussion and possible agreement of the proposal to add four substances to annex II to the directive concerning the discharge of dangerous substances to water, and the Presidency hopes for agreement on the proposal to establish a committee to facilitate amendment of existing directives on drinking water, bathing water and surface water quality. There is likely to be detailed discussion about the protection of waters from pollution by nitrates, and about the proposal to consolidate Community anti-pollution standards for all sizes of motor car. The Presidency will report progress on the proposal concerning the protection of habitats and of wild fauna and flora and on the proposal to treat municipal waste water before discharge into the environment.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 11 June to discuss multilateral surveillance of member states' economies and the possible development of economic and monetary union beyond stage 1. On 8 May 1990 the Commission published its technical proposals for VAT, mutual assistance and intra-EC trade statistics, based on the agreements reached at ECOFIN at the end of 1989. Initial discussion of these proposals is expected. The Council is expected to discuss the investment services directive, and may also discuss the package of three tax measures to encourage cross-border co-operation between companies (mergers directive, parents/subsidiaries directive and arbitration procedure) and hear a statement by the Taxation Commissioner on the Commission's corporate taxation policy.

  The Consumer Council will meet on 13 June. After lengthy and inconclusive discussion on the directive on general product safety at official level, Ministers will be asked to give a clearer direction for future negotiations. They will be particularly concerned with the main areas of contention, notably the scope of the directive, its overlap with other directives and the procedure of handling emergencies at Community level. A draft directive on unfair contract terms is in preparation within the Commission and a progress report is expected. The French have requested a discussion and are expected to press the Commission to step up efforts in this area. The Commission has asked the Dutch Consumer Safety Institute to lead a working party to undertake a review of achievements of the European home and leisure accident surveillance system (EHLASS), and its report is to be tabled at the Council on 13 June. There is likely to be a presentation in the margins by the Commission on a three-year plan for future priorities in consumer policy, which has been agreed and is in the public domain. An

  679
  item on the package travel directive has been included at the suggestion of the French. However, the Commission has recently accepted a number of substantive amendments proposed by the European Parliament. No revised text will be available from the Commission in time for the Council discussion, although the Council could still act by unanimity to adopt the common position text agreed at Internal Market Council in February 1990.

  At the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 and 19 June, Ministers will discuss preparations for the 25 and 26 June European Council (including political union; economic and monetary union; the free movement of people; and co-operation against drugs and international organised crime). The Commission will present a draft mandate for approval by the Council on the opening of negotiations to create an enhanced free trade area with the EFTA countries, and will present a new strategy for strengthening economic relations with the Mediterranean countries in general. The Council will propose ways of enhancing the EC's co-operation agreement with Yugoslavia and the association agreement with Turkey. There will be an orientation debate on the Communities' relations with central and eastern Europe, and discussions of voting rights in local elections and of the situation in the occupied territories. Ministers will consider the current state of play in the GATT Uruguay round, and preparations for the Houston economic summit on 9 to 11 July. The food aid directive and Community policy on the generalised system of preferences 1991–2000 may also be discussed. Ministers will also discuss political co-operation subjects.

  The Transport Council will meet on 18 and 19 June. Ministers will discuss aviation matters which cover the components of the second liberalisation package. It is expected that restrictions on market access and the approval of fares will be further relaxed. Air traffic control discussions should centre on increasing capacity in Europe by integrating air traffic control systems and optimising the traffic route network. On shipping cabotage Ministers hope to establish a basis for a balanced agreement on liberalisation acceptable to all member states. Regarding prevention of accidents causing pollution, we advocate strict compliance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972. The Council will support all appropriate measures to improve passenger safety which may be tabled. On road haulage, Ministers will discuss crisis measures to ensure corrective measures will be available to reduce the impact of any possible disruption resulting from increasing liberalisation. It is proposed to fix the Community quota for 1991 and 1992, hopefully increasing the proportion of operations under Community authorisations and ensuring smooth transition to a fully liberalised road haulage market. Discussion on vehicles hired without drivers should ratify abolishing restrictive clauses. The road safety resolution is likely to be discussed, and we strongly support it as drafted because it is in line with United Kingdom views in pressing for early EC agreement on improved construction standards as a means of significantly reducing road haulage casualties. The high-speed network may be discussed under any other business, and we will support the concept of co-ordinating plans, but consider that the case for additional links must be assessed on a commercial basis. Ministers are also likely to discuss fiscal harmonisation of road haulage and infrastructure cost coverage for goods vehicles.
  680
  The Internal Market Council will meet on 20 June to discuss a number of measures relevant to the completion of the single market.

  The European Council will meet on 25 and 26 June in Dublin. Heads of Government are likely to discuss political union, economic and monetary union, the 1992 programme, the environment, drugs, German unification and the EC's external relations.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 25 and 26 June and is likely to discuss poultry meat marketing standards, non-food uses of agricultural products, foot and mouth disease, the veterinary fund, animal health (horses), trade in live animals, Aujesky's disease, poultry hatching eggs, enzootic bovine leukosis, pesticide residues and pesticide approval. It may also discuss pathogens in feedingstuffs, welfare of calves and pigs, veterinary medicines and organic farming.

  The Fisheries Council will meet on 27 June and is likely to discuss technical conservation measures, Mediterranean fisheries, negotiations with third-world countries, seasonal price adjustment for herring, allocation of additional quotas at Greenland, structural measures for small-scale fisheries, submission of data on landing of fishery products, and EC/USSR. It may also discuss revision of 1990 TACs and quotas for 1990.

  At the Telecommunications Council on 28 June Ministers will discuss the open network provision (ONP) which sets out to define the terms and conditions under which telecommunications administrations will be required to give access to users in general and private service operators in particular to the telecommunications network infrastructure and certain specific services. The proposed directive on ONP does not itself specify any detailed ONP conditions but sets out a legal framework within which subsequent measures dealing with specific areas are to be drawn up. A common position on the proposal was reached as a result of a political agreement on two market measures to open up the Community telecommunications services markets to competition and the Council may be expected formally to adopt the directive. The Presidency may seek to obtain political agreement on aspects of the mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunications terminal equipment proposal, which aimed at ensuring the mutual recognition of type approval procedures for telecommunications terminal equipment as between different member states and as a necessary step to the creation of a single market in those equipments. Ministers may discuss the integrated services digital network (ISDN), based on the 1989 progress report on the implementation of Council recommendation 86/659/EEC on the co-ordinated introduction of ISDN in the European Community. The progress report presents several proposals for discussion on further activity at the Community level in respect of ISDN. A proposal for a resolution has not yet been received from the Commission. The Council may hold orientation debates on co-operation with eastern European countries in the telecommunications field, and on proposals for a directive and a recommendation aimed at establishing the necessary conditions for the commercial exploitation of digital European cordless telecommunications (DECT) technology throughout the EC. Ministers will also discuss the resolution on frequency management which lays down policy guidelines on management of the radio frequency spectrum aimed at strengthening European co-ordination

  681
  of the allocations of radio frequencies, taking full account of the role of the conference of European post and telecommunications administrators in this field.

  The Research Council will meet on 29 June. It is expected that common positions will be agreed on the EURET (transport) and EUROTRA II (machine translation) research programmes. The human genome research programme may be adopted. The Research Council will have a preliminary discussion of the Commission's papers on scientific and technological collaboration with third-world countries and eastern Europe and will also discuss a draft Council resolution on the participation of central and eastern European countries in COST (European co-operation in the field of scientific and technical research). The Council may also discuss general issues arising from the proposals for specific programmes of the recently adopted framework programme for R and D, 1990–94.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits in Kind
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the yield of national insurance contributions would be increased if all taxable benefits in kind were treated as earnings.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the yield of national insurance contributions would be increased if all taxable benefits in kind were treated as earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Any increased yield of national insurance contributions would depend on the effects of the employees' upper earnings limit and the various earnings limits for employers' contributions. Because of these factors, the information available about the value of taxable benefits to individual employees compared with their levels of other earnings is insufficiently precise to enable an accurate estimate of additional contributions to be made. However, based on predictions about the total of taxable benefits in kind that are likely to be made available to employees during 1990–91 it is thought that the additional yield could amount to some 1 to 2 per cent. of national insurance contribution income.

  Action Credit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how participation in action credit affects eligibility for housing benefit(a) while a claimant is on a part-time placement and receiving the income support disregard and (b) when a claimant remains unemployed after the scheme and is receiving accrued wages and income support disregard.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A person on income support is entitled to maximum housing benefit and maximum community charge benefit. This applies both during participation in action credit and if a person remains on income support after the end of such participation in the scheme.

  Benefit Payment
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make arrangements for it to be possible for payments made by his Department to be a cheque on the request of the claimant or his accredited representative.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Arrangements exist for benefit payments to be made by girocheque where an immediate payment is necessary or payment is for a short period only. Regular payments of benefit are normally made by order book encashable at a post office.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Adelaide Hospital, Dublin
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make representations at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Ministerial Conference to have the present Protestant medical ethics at Adelaide hospital, Dublin, retained in the proposed new hospital to replace it.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no present plans to do so, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that his actions will have ensured that the Irish Government will be aware of his concerns.

  Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the 1990–91 running cost limit for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments.

  Mr. Cope
  The running cost limit for 1990–91 for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is being set at £592·6 million. Further details of provision for individual Departments are set out in the appropriate estimates volumes.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rates bill as a proportion of earnings for a one-earner family with two children on 75 per cent. average earnings in 1989–90; and what he estimates the proportion of income going on the poll tax will be for the same family in 1990–91.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rates bill as a proportion of earnings for a one-earner family with two children on 75 per cent. average earnings in 1989–90; and what he estimates the proportion of income going on the poll tax will be for the same family in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  I shall write to the hon. Members.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much, in cash and as a percentage of local government income, was met by(a) revenue support grant, (b) uniform business rate and (c) community charge in England in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures are given in the table.
  683

  £ billion

  Per cent.

  1989–90

  Rate support grant

  9·6

  33

  Non-domestic rate income1

  9·5

  33

  Domestic rate income2

  9·7

  34

  1990–91

  Revenue support grant

  9·5

  29

  Non-domestic rate income

  10·4

  32

  Charge income3

  12·7

  39

  Notes:

  Figures shown for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are not on a comparable basis because of extensive changes to the system of local government finance.

  In 1990–91, local authorities also received special transitional grants totalling £187 million.

  1 Net of disabled non-domestic rate relief grant and enterprise zone grant.

  2 Net of domestic rate relief grant, but including domestic rate rebates.

  3 Including community charge benefits and household transitional relief grant.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions officials from his Department met officials of Westminster city council in December, January, February and March to discuss matters relating to the community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance was given to local authorities and what allowance was made in standard spending assessments for provision for bad debts and non-payment of the poll tax; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on what local authorities should allocate for this provision.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for each charging authority, in setting the community charge for its area, to make such reasonable provision for non-collection as may be necessary in the light of its individual circumstances. Since there are approximately twice as many charge payers as ratepayers, the absolute number of slow payers can be expected to he greater, but there is no reason why the cash volume of arrears should be greater than under the rating system. Losses through non-payment represent a reduction in revenue rather than an item of expenditure, and are therefore not reflected in standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the cost of extending to one year the period during which empty properties are not subject to the standard community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is not available. But charging authorities already have the discretion to extend the prescribed three-month period for which no standard charge is payable. We are currently collecting information on the use which authorities have made of their discretion and, from the evidence so far, it is clear that a number have decided to extend this period to 12 months.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to withdraw the discretion given to local councils to fix the level of community charge on property which is not classed as the main or principal residence; and if he will make a statement.
  684
  Mr. Chope
  We have made it clear that if local authorities do not make sensitive use of the wide discretion available to them we shall introduce more prescription in time for 1991–92. My right hon. Friend will make a statement on this as soon as we have completed the review of local authority standard charge practices.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost of granting an automatic 50 per cent. community charge rebate(a) to all retirement pensioners and (b) to pensioners over the age of 75 years.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Many pensioners are already entitled to reductions in their community charge through the transitional relief scheme or community charge benefit or both. Many of these already pay less than 50 per cent. of the full charge. The cost of allowing all pensioners who currently pay more than 50 per cent. a reduction to 50 per cent. in 1990–91 is estimated at about £600 million. Of this, about £200 million is for pensioners aged over 75.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the cost of basing transitional relief for the community charge, for a full financial year, on(a) £56 and (b) £106, in place of the limit of £156.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: It is estimated that the transitional relief scheme will provide £350 million of relief in 1990–91. This is based on a threshold of £156, equivalent to £3 per week. Reducing the threshold to £2 per week would increase the estimated cost to £570 million; and reducing the threshold to £1 per week would cost £900 million.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost of granting exemption from the community charge for mothers with a child(a) under the age of five years and (b) under the age of 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Assuming an average personal community charge of £363, it is estimated that exempting mothers with children under five from the community charge would mean a revenue loss of £0·8 billion and exempting mothers with children under 10 years of age would mean a revenue loss of £1·4 billion.

  Peat
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the action his Department is taking to safeguard the peatlands from commercial devastation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are committed to assessing the practical operation and implementations of the powers contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and to consider the available options to balance nature conservation against existing mineral extraction interests on key peatland areas. The Government are encouraging research into alternatives for peat and are working with commercial firms in the re-evaluation of alternatives currently available. Whenever appropriate, we are encouraging the use of alternatives.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will review all pre-1948 planning permissions for the extraction of peat which affect sites of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.
  685
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are committed to assessing the practical operation and implementation of the power contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and are considering the available options to balance nature conservation against existing mineral extraction interests on key peatland sites.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the peatland resource data inventory; how many full-time and part-time staff are involved in carrying out the research at the Nature Conservancy Council; what funds the Government have provided for the research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 5 June,Official Report, column 480, concerning the peatland resource data inventory.

  I am advised by the NCC that it is currently recruiting two full-time staff in addition to the three full-time officers currently employed on the survey. It is for the NCC to decide what portion of its grant in aid of £44·069 million should be devoted to this project.

  Ryedale District Council
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will direct the Audit Commission to undertake an extraordinary audit of the accounts of Ryedale district council, north Yorkshire, under section 22(2) of the Local Government and Finance Act 1982 in respect of treatment of receipts from the rent revenue account; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The Secretary of State may direct an extraordinary audit if it appears to him in the public interest to do so. No matters have been brought to his attention which would warrant his making such a direction.

  Palace of Westminster (Cleaning)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the panelling and shelving adjacent to the Members' and Strangers' Dining Rooms were last cleaned; who supervised such cleaning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The cleaning contract requires panelling and shelving up to a height of 5·5 ft to be dusted daily. Direct responsibility for supervising the work rests with the contractor; the Serjeant at Arms or the Refreshment Department are responsible for checking that the work has been done.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the interior of the Palace of Westminster was last thoroughly cleaned; what inspection was made of that cleaning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department is responsible for cleaning only parts of the Palace—generally public areas and meeting rooms. The work is carried out at the frequency set out in the contract specification. Cleaning of floors and dusting for example is a daily task.

  Inspection of the work is the responsibility of the Serjeant at Arms, or Refreshment Department, who bring any shortcomings to the attention of the Parliamentary Works Office's office keeper.
  686
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to ensure a thorough cleaning programme is implemented and supervised in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Subject to agreement of the details with the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, the Parliamentary Works Office will shortly commission a review of the cleaning arrangements. It will look at options for setting up a coherent management structure, to replace the existing fragmented arrangements, and at the means of ensuring a consistently high standard of cleaning throughout the Palace.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the arrangements which he has now made to ensure that the Members' Tea Room is properly cleaned.

  Mr. Chope
  The discussions that I mentioned in response to the hon. Member's earlier question on 10 May,Official Report, column 190, have:

  (a) clarified the existing responsibilities of the Refreshment Department's and Parliamentary Works Officer's cleaning contractors,

  (b) confirmed that the arrangements cover all the cleaning requirements, and

  (c) established new arrangements for reporting any shortcomings in the work.

  These arrangements, particularly the use of the two contractors in one room, will be considered further in the proposed review of cleaning arrangements generally within the Palace of Westminster which I referred to in answer to another question by the hon. Member today.

  Tyneside Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what payments he expects to make in 1990–91 to(a) Newcastle and (b) Gateshead metropolitan district in order to offset forgone uniform business rate in the Tyneside enterprise zone; and what payments he made in 1989–90 in respect of business rate forgone.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1989–90 the payments to Newcastle upon Tyne city council and Gateshead metropolitan borough council in respect of business rates forgone on the Tyneside enterprise zone were £1,845,007 and £12,921,234 respectively. Under the new local government finance system business properties in enterprise zones are exempt from rating. The amount which Newcastle and Gateshead contribute to the national pool reflects this exemption. A figure broadly equivalent to the amount of rates that would have been paid but for this exemption was added to the revenue support grant for England for 1990–91.

  Contracts
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to place contracts for materials and services to his Department with companies and orgnisations that have conducted an environmental audit of their operations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department is currently considering the scope for cost-effective measures to improve environmental performance in purchasing and
  687
  building management. We are also looking at further ways of encouraging industry to adopt positive environmental policies.

  CITES Inspector
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to match the offer of £30,000 per annum made by the World Wide Fund for Nature towards the costs of the investigation and enforcement officer employed by the CITES secretariat; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if Her Majesty's Government intend to make a contribution towards the operating costs of the investigation and enforcement officer employed by the CITES secretariat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are fully committed to CITES and are considering the World Wide Fund for Nature's request for a contribution towards the costs of the investigation and enforcement officer employed by the CITES secretariat.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties have been transferred to London boroughs or sold to sitting tenants by the London residuary body at less than market value.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), on 30 March,Official Report, column 564.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 1 May,Official Report, column 504, where information is held on tradeable ivory currently in the United Kingdom; and what steps he is taking to monitor it.

  Mr. Trippier
  Details of ivory which may be allowed in trade under current CITES controls will be known only to traders and individuals who possess such ivory. Such information as the Department has is limited to individual records of import, export and sale applications. Records of imports and exports of ivory are maintained by the Department in accordance with article VIII.6 of CITES for the purpose of monitoring international trade.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 23 May, if he will give details of exemptions granted under article 6.1 of EC regulation 3626/82 since October 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Fenn's Moss
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give details of the proposals put to his Department regarding the preservation of Fenn's moss; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if his Department will provide funds for the Royal Society for Nature Conservation to purchase the Fenn's and Whitehall mosses as a national nature reserve; what representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement.
  688
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No proposals have yet been put to my Department. I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that it is considering a number of options to secure the future of the site, including a possible lease or purchase. Neither the Department nor the NCC has however been approached by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation for funds to enable it to purchase the site. Almost 200 representations have been received concerning this site.

  Home Improvement Scheme
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what time scale the Government are working in introducing the new means-tested home improvement scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  The new house renovation grants system will be introduced, under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, on 1 July 1990. A commencement order, bringing into force the relevant sections of part VIII, will be made shortly.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice is being issued to local authorities about the new means-tested home improvement grants.

  Mr. Chope
  Two departmental circulars will he issued to all local authorities in the next two weeks. These will contain detailed advice on all aspects of the new house renovation grants system, being introduced under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations were received in response to the consultation process on the revised procedures for means-testing home improvement grants to people with disabilities; and if he will list those for and those against.

  Mr. Chope
  Ten organisations responded to the consultation exercise on the proposed test of resources for the new disabled facilities grants, being introduced under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Consultees were invited to submit comments on the content of the test of resources regulations and not the principle of resource-testing such grants which had already been approved by Parliament.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money his Department has awarded in housing renovation grants in each of the last 10 years at (i) current prices and (ii) historic prices.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The amounts of Exchequer contribution given by the Department to local authorities towards their expenditure on home improvement grants for the financial years 1981–82 to 1988–89 are shown in the table. Information is not available for years prior to 1981–82.

  Current prices

  Historic prices

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  1981–82

  225,927

  137,522

  1982–83

  284,345

  185,564

  1983–84

  415,401

  283,760

  1984–85

  517,255

  370,871

  689

  Current prices

  Historic prices

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  1985–86

  562,222

  424,702

  1986–87

  588,585

  459,744

  1987–88

  605,780

  498,557

  1988–89

  609,533

  537,364

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money his Department awarded in grants for housing renovation purposes in 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Figures for 1989–90 are not yet available, but the amount of Exchequer contribution given by the Department to local authorities towards their expenditure on home improvement grants for 1988–89 was £537·4 million.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will be sent a reply to his letter of 26 March concerning Mr. P. G. Tolan of Kenilworth.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have replied to my hon. Friend today.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to the letter of 20 April from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth concerning development in the A5 corridor.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I wrote to my hon. Friend today.

  Pollution
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he intends to issue a consultation paper on the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 10 May,Official Report, column 187.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now determined the charges limits for all the statutory water companies.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes. I have placed in the Library a summary of the limits—the "K" factors—for all the statutory water companies up to 1999–2000. Our proposals will allow charges to rise by 6·5 per cent. a year on average in real terms over the next five years and by less than 2 per cent. a year on average in the following five years.

  Shetland Seabirds
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by the marine top predator group under his Department's chairmanship co-ordinating a multi-disciplinary study of seabird and sand-eel breeding interactions, with particular reference to the breeding failure of Shetland seabirds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: The marine top predator group has been making good progress. Its
  690
  first remit was the co-ordination of two major research projects on seabird and sand-eel breeding interactions in the Shetland-Orkney region: a Natural Environment Research Council study to look at seabird dynamics, and a collaborative project funded jointly by Government, NGOs and industry on sand-eels.

  A successful pilot project to assess the best geographical sites for study was funded by this Department last year and the NERC study commenced in the autumn for a three- year period. An announcement will be made on the parallel sand-eel project shortly.

  Methane Emissions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 8 May,Official Report, columns 105–8, why the constant emission factors for methane from coal are higher for (a) domestic sector and (b) power stations than for other sectors.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: Emission factors used in preparing the national emission inventory are derived from the latest data available. Where possible, they relate to specific source categories. Methane emissions from fuel combustion in each source category are affected by the combustion conditions and the fuel mixture.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the airline used, and the destination of each of the overseas visits undertaken, by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts for the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  In the 12-month period from 1 May 1989 to 30 April 1990 the Committee undertook two visits overseas. In May 1989 for a visit to Paris the Committee flew by British Airways, except for three Members who, for the return journey, flew by Air France to London, Birmingham and Manchester respectively. In March 1990 the Committee visited Heidelberg, Grenoble and Geneva, flying from London to Frankfurt and from Geneva to London by British Airways, except that on the outward journey two Members flew by Lufthansa and on the return journey one Member flew by British Airways from Geneva to Manchester.

HEALTH

  Family Planning (Government Expenditure)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the level of Government expenditure for each year since 1979 on family planning services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The available information relates to expenditure on health authority community health services, including overheads, the contraceptive fees paid to general practitioners and the estimated net ingredient cost of contraceptive drugs and appliances prescribed by GPs and dispensed by retail pharmacy and appliance contractors.
  691
  In each year since 1979 for which full figures are available, these components give an estimated total cost as follows:

  Expenditure on family planning

  Year

  £ million

  1979

  37·7

  1980

  46·8

  1981

  51·4

  1982

  58·5

  1983

  65·4

  1984

  71·0

  1985

  76·7

  1986

  81·6

  1987–88

  90·3

  Cancer
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the records of newly diagnosed cases of cancer as submitted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on magnetic tapes, for the Yorkshire region for the last three years for which records are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys collects data on newly diagnosed cases of cancer from the regional cancer registries on an on-going basis, and publishes such data when it is judged that all regions' data for a year are reasonably complete. Receipts from Yorkshire region since 1984 are shown in the table. Nationally the years 1984 and 1985 are deemed to be complete, and are analysed and published. Subsequent years are not considered complete.

  Number of receipts of records of newly-diagnosed cases of cancer1 for Yorkshire region, 1984–901

  Year

  Number of receipts of records

  1984

  17,036

  1985

  17,759

  21986

  16,798

  21987

  16,305

  21988

  6,730

  21989

  11

  21990

  —

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code 140–239.

  2 Provisional as records are still being received.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the third annual report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship has submitted its third report and copies have been placed in the Library. I am very grateful to the committee, and particularly to the chairman, Sir Peter Lazarus, for its valuable work in continuing to monitor the agreements, and for its third report to the United Kingdom Health Ministers and to the Minister for Sport. It shows that, in general, the system of voluntary agreements is working well and that the tobacco companies have continued to honour their commitments.

  The chairman has expressed the hope that the Government and the tobacco industry will soon reach
  692
  agreement on the replacement of old signs without health warnings. My colleagues and I note his comments which in our view are fully justified. We are currently discussing how to update the advertising agreement with the tobacco industry and will press for early progress on this issue.

  RU486
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received in connection with the introduction of RU486 into Britain; and if he will list the total number of(a) organisations and (b) individuals (i) in favour of and (ii) against its introduction.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the past 12 months we have received 86 representations about the drug RU486. Five were in favour of its introduction, 42 against and 39 sought information. Eighty-five were from individuals and one was from an organisation opposed to introduction of the drug.

  Mr Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what directives he has given to directors of social services arising from the recommendations of the report of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland in 1987.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 2 May 1990, c. 548]: The social services inspectorate's inspection of Cleveland is now complete and the report is being published today. The inspection was conducted by the social services inspectorate with advice and assistance from representatives of Her Majesty's inspectorates of constabulary and schools. In addition, the Northern regional health authority made available as advisers a consultant paediatrician and a community unit general manager, both from outside the Cleveland area. The findings of the report are positive and the progress made by Cleveland since the last inspection is encouraging. The inspection has been a valuable exercise and the lessons learnt will be helpful for all agencies that undertake collaborative working for the protection of children from abuse. Copies will be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each five-year period from the year 1960 to the present, the amount spent on the Health Service, expressing it as(a) a percentage of the United Kingdom gross domestic product and (b) for each five years the percentage increase over the previous five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Complete information covering the period requested is not available.

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken with regard to the two smaller milk marketing boards in Scotland following the completion of the study on Scottish Pride quality dairy foods.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department has now completed a study on the relationship between the Aberdeen and district milk marketing board's producer activities and its
  693
  commercial division. Copies of the report are now available in the Library of the House. The study on the North of Scotland milk marketing board will be completed shortly.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has issued any circular guidelines to Scottish local authorities regarding the use of their discretion in waiving small amounts of community charge payments due from persons who are deceased; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Although my right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to issue formal guidance on this question, he hopes that individual authorities, when deciding what their policy is to be towards the collection of community charge amounts that are outstanding at the time of a person's death, will discharge their duties sensitively. In making such decisions, authorities will probably wish to take the advice of their legal advisers and auditors.

  Sand-eels
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has on the recruitment level of sand-eels in Shetland waters in 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: The latest assessment of sand-eel recruitment in Shetland waters—the number of young fish which become available to the fishery each year—is as follows:

  Million

  1986

  48,955

  1987

  2,258

  1988

  1,273

  Insufficient data on the 1989 year class are available so far to give a reliable estimate. The figures refer to "0" group fish—that is, young of the year at 1 July.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of dwellings in each district in Scotland are insulated to the standard required by his Department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: The Scottish Office does not lay down insulation standards for existing houses, but gives guidance to housing authorities on standards where application is made for insulation grant. Information of the type requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally.

  TVEI
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received with regard to the future of the technical and vocational education initiative within Highland region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  Highland region's director of education has written to ask that Highland may start to extend TVEI to all 14 to 18-year-olds in maintained schools and colleges in August 1990. It will do so.

TRANSPORT

  Lorry Tax (West Germany)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the decision by the West German Government to impose a lorry tax on foreign vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  The German Government have announced that from 1 July they will introduce a new lorry tax for all vehicles using German roads. The EC Commission considers this tax to be in contravention of articles 5, 76 and 95 of the EC treaty of Rome. On 10 April the Commission served the German Government with an article 169 letter, the first step in a process leading to the European Court of Justice. On 17 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport wrote to the EC Transport Commissioner Van Miert congratulating the Commission on this positive step. He also wrote to the West German Transport Minister expressing concern at effects on United Kingdom hauliers and pointing out the danger to Community plans to complete the internal market if other states take retaliatory action. On 4 June, Commissioner Van Miert advised that the Commission had sent a "reasoned opinion" to the Germans, requiring a response by 22 June. The United Kingdom strongly supports this action.

  Cross-channel Ferries
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the fire drill regulations for cross-channel passenger ferries.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The international convention on the safety of life at sea 1974 requires that a drill takes place every week on a cross-channel passenger ferry, and that each member of the crew participates in at least one such drill every month. The Merchant Shipping (Muster and Training) Regulations 1986 apply this requirement to United Kingdom-registered ferries.

  British Rail
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss the relationship between rail and car transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  Before the current objectives for British Rail were published last December.

  Jumbo Jets
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations govern the amount of fuel which should be held in reserve by jumbo aircraft approaching Heathrow.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The international standards for fuel and oil supply are contained in annex 6, part 1, to the convention on international civil aviation, at section 4.3.6. The fuel required varies according to several factors, but in general terms, for flights into Heathrow the aircraft must be able to make an approach, then divert to an alternative aerodrome and hold for 30 minutes at the alternate aerodrome, plus a further reserve determined by the state of registry of the operator.
  695
  The international standards are amplified in states' regulations which apply to aircraft registered in those states. In the United Kingdom the Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory responsibility for the regulation of civil aviation and the regulations concerning fuel are contained in the Air Navigation Order at article 26.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority regarding the desirability of an in-flight engineer on board Boeing 747–400 aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No. The composition of flight crew is entirely a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation. I understand that as a consequence of the duty time limitations imposed by the CAA, one or more pilots in addition to the basic two are employed on long-range flights.

  Fire Risks (Tottenham Court Road Underground Station)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the chairman of London Underground as to which of the 126 fire risks at Tottenham Court Road station, as detailed in its fire hazards analysis, have been rectified; if he will list all those which have not been tackled to reduce the fire risk to a level acceptable to the London fire brigade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1988, London Underground commissioned John Brown Engineering to carry out a study of potential fire hazards at Tottenham Court Road station. The consultant made a detailed survey to identify risks arising from combustible materials and how each material might be ignited. The consultant considered that 73 of the potential risks could be dealt with satisfactorily by the provision nearby of fire extinguishing appliances. I understand that action has been taken on the remaining 53 items.

  When the LFB inspected the station on 3 November 1989, it found one item which required attention. I have been assured that London Underground has taken action on this.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The results of the many such studies are measured on different bases and are not aggregated centrally. Improved quality of service may be as significant as savings. The results are reflected in the budgets and targets set out in the annual departmental management plans, and the business plans of the Department's agencies, copies of which are placed in the Library.
  696
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: In the Department and its agencies, which comprise some 60 per cent. of manpower, prime responsibility for identifying and delivering value for money rests with a range of managers with delegated financial authority. Their responsibilities are reflected in the targets and plans included in the Department's management plan and in the business plans of the agencies. These plans, which include specific efficiency targets agreed with the Treasury, are all published and placed in the Library. Managers use a number of mechanisms to satisfy themselves about value for money, including market testing, efficiency scrutinies and management reviews, depending on the type of expenditure. These mechanisms are discussed from time to time with Treasury and are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

DEFENCE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will be receiving a reply to his letter of 26 April regarding a constituent's wish for assistance for his late sister's headstone renewal.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will be writing to the hon. Member shortly.

WALES

  Euro Info Centre
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are the locations of the offices of the Wales Euro Info centre; and whether he has plans to establish additional such offices;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the objectives of the Wales Euro Info centre;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the funding of the Wales Euro Info centre, giving the financial contribution of (a) the European Commission, (b) the Welsh Development Agency, (c) local authorities and (d) other bodies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Wales Euro Info centre is part of an EC-wide service which aims to help small and medium-sized businesses by providing a one-stop shop for information about the European Community. It will enable Welsh businesses to be well informed about such matters as EC directives, grants and tendering opportunities. The centre will also provide a means to inform the European Commission about the needs of Welsh business.

  The Wales centre is operated by WEIC Ltd., a consortium consisting of the Welsh Development Agency, Clwyd county council and the university of Wales college of Cardiff. The European Commission will provide 50,000 ecu (£35,000) in the first year and 20,000 ecu in each of the next two years. The Welsh Development Agency will contribute £65,000 in the first year, with the other two partners contributing library and accommodation facilities. The budgets for succeeding years have yet to be

  697
  determined, although it is expected that an increasing proportion of income will come from charges for services. The Wales centre has offices in Cardiff and Mold. I understand that there are no present plans to open additional offices, but the position will be kept under review.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average rent for new lettings of(a) Welsh Development Agency and (b) Development Board for Rural Wales properties in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 and the average rent for new lettings in 1990–91; and what projections he has made for the financial years to 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is provided in the Welsh Office commentary to the 1990 public expenditure White Paper, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy on the level of rents for new lettings of Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales properties.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Tuesday 5 June.

  Hospitals, Buckley
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will meet members of staff of Dobshill hospital, Buckley;

  (2) if he will meet members of staff of Meadowsla hospital, Buckley;

  (3) if he will visit Meadowslea hospital, Penyffordd, Clwyd;

  (4) if he will visit Dobshill hospital, Buckley, Clwyd;

  (5) if he will make a statement on the future of Dobshill hospital, Buckley;

  (6) if he will make a statement on the future of Meadowslea hospital, Buckley.

  Mr. Grist
  The future role of Meadowslea and Dobshill hospitals is entirely a matter for Clwyd health authority at this time, and at present neither I nor my right hon. Friend have plans to visit them.

  Water Shortages
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what measures he has taken to avoid water shortages this summer; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the investment and public works to avoid water shortages in Wales undertaken since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Comprehensive information on works undertaken to reduce water loss and improve the water supply distribution system is not held centrally but among the most important are the River Wye transfer scheme and continuing work on the mini-grid system in south-east Wales.

  It is the responsibility of Dwr Cymru Cyf to ensure that water supplies within its area can be maintained. The company, in liaison with the National Rivers Authority which has overall responsibility for water resource management, is keeping the present position under review.

  Beef
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the farming unions concerning the problems of Welsh beef producers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations from the farming unions concerning the effects of interest rates and BSE on Welsh beef producers' returns and about the level of suckler cow premium. My agriculture colleagues and I are currently considering the suckler cow premium rate for 1990–91 and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take urgent steps to assist the beef farmers of Wales following the recent difficulties in that sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Beef producers in Wales will benefit from the intervention arrangements agreed in 1989. At the tender which closed on 30 May 1990, all United Kingdom bids were accepted and some 2,045 tonnes of beef will be purchased into intervention in Great Britain over the two weeks ending on 15 June. At the beef management committee meeting on 1 June it was also agreed that a further tender for automatic intervention should be opened immediately.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the farming unions of Wales concerning the impact of BSE upon the farming industry and the consumer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I intend to meet the Farmers Union of Wales to discuss the whole range of issues affecting Welsh agriculture. My officials have already met representatives to discuss BSE.

  Salmonella, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Clwyd salmonella outbreak of 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  The draft report by the Department on the handling of the outbreak was sent to Delyn borough council and Clwyd health authority last month. We have asked for their comments by the middle of this month. The report will then be finalised and published as soon as possible.

  Holyhead-Crewe Railway Line
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his Department's reasons for not supporting proposals to electrify the Holyhead to Crewe railway line.

  Mr. Roberts
  It would be for British Rail to bring foward the necessary investment proposals. The Government are always willing to approve investments put forward by British Rail provided that they are worth while. No economic case has been made however to justify the cost of electrifying this line.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with which chairpersons of health authorities in Wales he or his predecessor has met since 1 January; and on how many occasions he has met each such person during this time.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met chairmen of health authorities in Wales since 1 January; he will, however, meet both DHA and FPC chairmen on 10 July.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with whom he is holding consultations concerning the future membership and terms of reference of Gwynedd health authority following the coming into force of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Grist
  No formal consultation has been held, but suggestions for membership of all reconstituted authorities have been received from various sources.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he began inviting nominations for the chairmanship of Gwynedd health authority for the period following 3 July when his present appointment expires; by what date nominations should be received by him; and whether these same procedures will be applied for the nomination of other members for that authority to fill vacancies which will arise with the expiration of current appointees following that date.

  Mr. Grist
  Consideration is being given to the appointment of chairmen of district health authorities whose appointments terminate on 31 July 1990. Nominations were not invited.

  It is proposed that the appointment of non-executive members of the reconstituted authorities will be made under the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently before Parliament. Anyone who wishes to put his name forward can do so or nominate others.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contribution his Department is making to the funding of the pilot programme of screening for cystic fibrosis which will be carried out at the university of Wales medical school, Cardiff.

  Notifications of Tuberculosis

  Welsh District Health Authorities

  To Week Ending

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  11989

  118–5–90

  Clwyd

  48

  42

  36

  41

  33

  46

  39

  28

  22

  19

  16

  4

  East Byfed

  47

  30

  27

  17

  25

  26

  26

  21

  12

  13

  6

  Pembrokeshire

  18

  19

  10

  10

  18

  7

  9

  7

  8

  Gwent

  49

  56

  41

  49

  42

  29

  32

  34

  44

  25

  37

  9

  Gwynedd

  42

  40

  39

  34

  38

  19

  27

  22

  21

  33

  23

  8

  Mid Glamorgan

  90

  79

  80

  60

  51

  71

  51

  46

  45

  37

  49

  9

  Powys

  12

  14

  1

  5

  5

  4

  2

  6

  4

  1

  3

  2

  South Glamorgan

  80

  68

  62

  52

  50

  70

  49

  46

  44

  37

  37

  18

  West Glamorgan

  50

  44

  36

  37

  44

  34

  38

  23

  24

  28

  28

  17

  Wales

  412

  390

  325

  323

  299

  308

  274

  249

  232

  201

  213

  81

  1 Provisional

  700
  Mr. Grist
  None. I understand from the university of Wales college of medicine that this pilot project is to be funded by the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust.

  Training Agency
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of trainees pursuing(a) mainstream and (b) non-mainstream schemes under the aegis of the Training Agency of each of (i) Gorseinon, (ii) Neath, (iii) Swansea and (iv) Afan colleges.

  Mr. Roberts
  The number of contracted employment training places for each of the colleges is shown in the table:

  Mainstream

  Non-mainstream

  Gorseinon

  160

  5

  Neath

  155

  5

  Swansea

  262

  8

  Afan

  112

  8

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average payment per trainee paid by the Training Agency in(a) the financial year 1988–89, (b) the financial year 1989–90 and (c) the current financial year for (i) Gorseinon college, (ii) Neath college, (iii) Swansea college and (iv) Afan college; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  Details of unit allocations are confidential to the Training Agency and individual training managers.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report, the reported cases of tuberculosis for each health authority in Wales, for each year between 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of notifications of tuberculosis made to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys each year from 1979 to 1989 and for the first 20 weeks of 1990 are shown in the table. Data for 1982 onwards may not be strictly comparable with that for earlier years as the system was revised to enable notification associated with chemoprophylaxis to be excluded.
  701
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the correlation coefficient between the incidence of HIV infection and the incidence of tuberculosis in Wales over the period 1980 to 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  There is no evidence of a correlation between HIV and the overall incidence of tuberculosis in Wales.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss child benefit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I will be meeting representatives of the CPAG tomorrow.

  Charitable Giving
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his proposals to encourage charitable giving.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Budget proposals to encourage charitable giving have been widely welcomed by the charity world.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of the Treasury's incentives upon the level of charitable donations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Since 1979 we have improved and extended the range of tax reliefs for charitable giving. These have helped charitable giving to increase substantially in real terms. For example, the Charities Aid Foundation's estimates show that donations to the top 200 fund-raising charities have doubled in real terms since 1978–79.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the use of interest rates to influence the number of small business start-ups.

  Mr. Ryder
  The best way to encourage small businesses is by creating and sustaining an environment in which they can flourish, and that means defeating inflation. The only way to achieve this is to set interest rates at the appropriate level.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss interest rate policy.

  Mr. Major
  I meet the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact he assesses his interest rate policy has had on the level of unemployment.
  702
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The effects of the Government's interest rate policy were taken into account in the discussion of the prospects for unemployment published in chapter 3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" at paragraph 3.48. The defeat of inflation is essential for economic prosperity and employment.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the effect of interest rates on Scottish economic performance.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the effects of interest rates on Scottish economic performance.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the effects of interest rates on Scottish economic performance.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the effects of interest rates on Scottish economic performance.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  Bank base rates are 15 per cent.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the extent to which high interest rates add to the rate of inflation, other than in the effects from home mortgage rate increases.

  Mr. Ryder
  By curbing demand growth, high interest rates, supported by a firm fiscal policy, will in time reduce inflation.

  VAT
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to review the rate of value added tax on energy efficiency products.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend keeps all taxation under review.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what benefit he expects to flow to small companies as a result of his corporation tax proposals.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Over 20,000 companies—40 per cent. of all companies paying corporation tax at more than 25 per cent.—will pay less tax. The reduction will amount to about £40 million in a full year.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much corporation tax has been paid by United Kingdom branches of United States banks for the six years to 31 December 1988; and how much tax has been assessed and stood over for the same period.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Inflation
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the contribution made by wage and salary increases to inflation.
  703
  Mr. Major
  Excessive wage settlements threaten job prospects rather than sustained higher inflation.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the underlying rate of inflation.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are a number of ways of estimating the underlying rate of inflation. As measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments and the community charge, it was 6·5 per cent. in April.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what distinction he draws for policy purposes between price rises and inflation.

  Mr. Ryder
  Policy is set to bring down inflation, defined as the change in the aggregate price level. It would be entirely inappropriate to seek to control movements in the relative prices of individual goods and services, since these are essential for the efficient working of a competitive economy.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss policy on reducing inflation.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend meets the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect upon the annual rate of inflation he expects the introduction of the community charge to have.

  Mr. Ryder
  The average personal community charge in Great Britain is estimated to be 34 per cent. higher than the analogous rates per head figure in 1989–90 for households covered by the RPI. This increase has added about 1 percentage point to the annual rate of retail price inflation.

  Environmental Considerations
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the decisions on taxation he has taken since becoming Chancellor informed by environmental considerations.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend takes into account all relevant considerations, including where appropriate the effect on the environment, before making any decision on taxation.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost to central Government of support for local government expenditure throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Central Government support for local authorities in 1990–91 is planned to be £41·8 billion.

  Growth Rates
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth rate of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) France during the last decade.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth rate of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) France during the last decade.
  704
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Since 1980, growth has averaged 2·7 per cent. a year in the United Kingdom, compared with 2·1 per cent. in France and 2·0 per cent. in Germany.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected growth for the United Kingdom economy for 1990.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  GDP growth is forecast to be 1 per cent. in 1990, as published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Economic Performance
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss United Kingdom economic performance.

  Mr. Major
  I meet the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Taxation
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings the married couple with one earner on 75 per cent. of average earnings, with two children, paid in tax, treating child benefit as negative income tax, in 1978–79 and in 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  A married man on 75 per cent. of average male earnings with two children would have paid 8·1 per cent. of his gross earnings in income tax in 1989–90, the same proportion as in 1978–79. Over the same period he has enjoyed an increase in real net income of 30 per cent.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to impose any form of taxation upon newspapers, magazines and books.

  Mr. Ryder
  No.

  Mortgage Rates
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet the Building Societies Association to discuss mortgage rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

  Business Investment
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his forecast for the growth of business investment is for 1990.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My latest forecast, published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", projects business investment to fall by 1 per cent. in 1990. Some slowdown in the growth of business investment in 1990 must be expected as growth in the economy as a whole slows; but this follows three years when business investment has grown by over 40 per cent.

  Building Societies (Bad Debts)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from building societies about increasing the provision for bad debts.
  705
  Mr. Ryder
  None.

  Interest and Exchange Rates
  Mr. Yee
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Finance Ministers of the Group of Seven countries to discuss interest and exchange rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend met his counterparts in the other Group of Seven countries in Washington on 6 May.

  Executive Pay
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on current levels of executive pay.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has recently received some letters from members of the public on the pay of company directors and senior executives. Levels of pay are a matter for the parties concerned as only they can know what is right for their particular circumstances. However, the Government have said repeatedly that we are opposed to excessive pay increases since they threaten jobs.

  Village Shops
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he is giving to district valuation officers in respect of the valuation for the purposes of assessing the business rateable value of village shops.

  Mr. Ryder
  Valuation officers are required to determine the rateable value of village shops having regard to the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. An estimate has to be made of the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average inflation rate of countries in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Ryder
  The average inflation rate of members of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS was 4·3 per cent. in March 1990.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Madrid conditions concerning United Kingdom entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system to be met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 26 April at column 475.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual public spending from(a) 1970 to 1979 and (b) 1980 to 1989 as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The averages of the annual ratios of general Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) to GDP for the financial years 1970–71 to 706
  1979–80 and 1980–81 to 1989–90 are 43¾per cent. for both periods. In the earlier period the ratio peaked at 48½ per cent. in 1975–76. The highest level in the later period was 46¾ per cent. in 1982–83; the ratio in 1989–90 was 39 per cent.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much total public spending will be in 1991–92.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Planned general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, in 1991–92 has been set at £230 billion.

  Monetary Growth (Prices)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the relationship between the present rate of monetary growth and the Government's declared purpose of achieving stable prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The role of monetary policy in the defeat of inflation, the central objective of the medium-term financial strategy, was fully described in the FSBR. Consistent with this objective, the FSBR set a target range of 1–5 per cent. for MO's 12-month growth in 1990–91, although the FSBR noted that it could take some months for MO growth to fall within the range.

  EC Contribution
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the net contribution to the EC in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget in 1990 is £2,175 million. This appeared in the recently published "Statement on the 1990 Community Budget" (Cm. 1059).

  Freezones
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the outcome of the Treasury's evaluation of the freezone experiment.

  Mr. Ryder
  A copy of the evaluation report on the United Kingdom freezone experiment (1984–89) by the Treasury's consultants Roger Tym and Partners is being made available today in the House Libraries. Further copies are available from the Treasury.

  The experiment has shown that freezones can be worth while and viable enterprises in the United Kingdom. The Government have therefore decided to offer a further designation for 10 years from August 1991 to the three currently operating freezones at Birmingham, Liverpool and Southampton. In addition, the Government intend to announce later in the year objective criteria against which further similar designations of freezones under existing EC and United Kingdom legislation will be considered by Customs and Excise. Applications from potential freezone operators will be invited at that time and will be judged primarily against the criteria of their commercial viability without public sector assistance and sufficient volume of demand to justify the Customs resources required at the freezone.

  Finally, the Government have decided in the light of the evaluation report to introduce certain improvements to

  707
  the freezone regime. Subject to EC approval, VAT zero rating will be allowed for supplies of imported freezone goods where, under an agreement with the supplier, the customer is required to clear the goods from the freezone. Furthermore, the Customs and Excise guidance on the freezone regime will be updated and consolidated to take account of technical amendments made since the scheme was introduced to ensure that the scheme operates as clearly and simply as possible within the necessary EC and Customs procedures.

  Tax-exempt Special Savings Accounts
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many banks and building societies have expressed an interest in TESSA.

  Mr. Lilley
  Most of the main high street banks and building societies have welcomed this proposal and indicated that they will offer TESSAs.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms exist in the Treasury for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The core mechanism is the annual cycle of delegated budgeting and work programming in which progress against objectives is assessed and forward priorities are established. This is supported by information technology and purchasing strategies, by rolling programmes of staff inspection and reviews, internal audit and market testing and by other efficiency studies.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Total efficiency savings and gains amounted to some £2.2 millon in 1988–89 and £2.6 million in 1989–90. The principal methods of identification were purchasing savings and staff inspections and reviews. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available because of machinery of Government changes.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans there are for the options courses or other restart menu items to be made compulsory.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House on 11 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security intends to introduce regulations later this year which will enable employment service staff to require the attendance at a restart course of those who have been unemployed for two years or more and who, at subsequent restart interviews, refused to participate in any of my Department's708
  employment and training programmes. In some areas, restart courses are known locally as options courses and they will be covered by these regulations.

  There are no plans at present to make attendance at any of the other opportunities offered at the restart interview compulsory. However, the conditions attached to Department of Employment programmes are kept continuously under review.

  Special Needs Training
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specific new measures are expected to be made available for the training of people with special needs arising from disabilities and learning difficulties in each region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The new training and enterprise councils (TECs) are required to set out how they intend to meet the training needs of local people, including those with disabilities and learning difficulties, in their corporate and business plans.

  Subject to approval of these plans, and to certain general contractual requirements, it will be a matter for individual TECs to decide what specific new measures they adopt.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to appoint a TEC director to have explicit responsibility for the disabled and people with learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for each training and enterprise council (TEC) to determine the membership of its board within the broad parameters set out by my Department.

  Collectively, the TEC board will be responsible for identifying and meeting the training needs of people in its area including those of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken to encourage TECs to fund the higher unit cost training of disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils will be expected to offer a full range of training opportunities for people living in their area including people with disabilities.

  TECs will also have access to specialist residential training providers offering places to people with disabilities who need special facilities and support.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many board members are on training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are 175 board members on the 13 operational training and enterprise councils.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have been formed.

  Mr. Eggar
  Thirteen training and enterprise councils have signed an operating contract and a further 63 are in their development stage.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many board members on training and enterprise councils are women.
  709
  Mr. Eggar
  There are 17 women board members on the 13 operational training and enterprise councils.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have a woman chair.

  Mr. Eggar
  To date, one training and enterprise council has appointed a woman to chair the council.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many board members on training and enterprise councils are from industry and what is the make-up from other entries.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are 122 board members from the private sector on the 13 operational training and enterprise councils (TECs). Other board members include 15 representatives from local authorities, nine representatives from trade union organisations, six representatives from voluntary organisations, six representatives from local education authorities, five representatives from educational institutions, two representatives from local health authorities, two representatives from employers associations and two representatives from economic development bodies. Six chief executives are also board members.

  TVEI
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his oral reply to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) of 22 May,Official Report, column 161, concerning the implementation of the technical and vocational education initiative, how much was allocated to the London borough of Newham for the current financial year; and how much is indicated for 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  Newham has been invited to start the extension of its technical and vocational education initiative this year. The precise amount available to it in 1990–91 will be subject to contract and detailed discussion is under way. The amount available for 1991–92 onwards will be reviewed annually so that it can be contained within available resources.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to continue funding the technical and vocational education initiative in Scotland.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: The Government are committed to TVEI and to extending it to all 14 to 18-year-olds in maintained schools and colleges throughout Great Britain.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 14 to 18-year-olds have participated in the technical and vocational education initiative within Highland region since its inception; and what proposals have been submitted to him for participation in further projects.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: Over 700 14 to 18-year-olds have participated so far in the TVEI pilot project in Highland region. A further 200 are due to participate in the next academic year. Highland will start extending TVEI to all 14 to 18-year-olds in its maintained schools and colleges later this year.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the total moneys involved in the 710
  setting up and running of the technical and vocational education initiative in Highland region since inception; what are the costs involved in evaluating, preparing and submitting any proposals for future projects; what are the anticipated costs of such future projects; and when he expects to be able to make an announcement with regard to future projects.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: By the end of March 1990, Highland had spent £1·2 million on the technical and vocational education initiative. The pilot initiative is still proceeding with £0·9 million planned to be spent by summer 1992. The education authority will begin the extension phase of TVEI in summer 1990. Highland is participating in the TVEI-funded modern language Scottish project and Scottish flexible learning project.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to assess the impact on employers of his Department's encouragement not to discriminate against employees on the grounds of age.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department is using a number of means to monitor the effect of our policy of encouraging employers not to discriminate against employees on the grounds of age. A survey of vacancies notified to jobcentres was carried out in 1989 which showed a reduction, as against the previous year, in the number of vacancies specifying age limits. The Institute of Manpower Studies has recently conducted research, on behalf of my Department, into the employment and utilisation of older workers and will report shortly. Research was also carried out in support of the National Economic Development Office and Training Agency report, "Defusing the Demographic Time Bomb", which showed an encouraging number of employers are taking steps to widen their recruitment sources, including initiatives to attract mature workers.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level in money terms from the Government of funding granted to APEX, north-west region, for employment training from 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is confidential to the Training Agency and individual ET training managers.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1990 ]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying value-for-money savings in its operations.
  711
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Mechanisms to identify and track value-for-money savings include internal audit; follow-up of NAO reports; reviews by management services; external consultants; policy evaluations; efficiency scrutinies; internal reviews; energy efficiency; and a purchasing co-ordination unit. In addition, since 1989–90, value-for-money savings on running costs have been identified in management plans for each part of my Department.

  I also expect the establishment of the employment service as an executive agency and of the training and enterprise council network to produce greater value for money in the delivery of my Department's objectives.

  Workshops for the Blind
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many workers are employed by workshops for the blind in England and Wales at the latest date;

  (2) what funding is made towards the upkeep of workshops for the blind in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list the workshops for the blind in England and Wales; and if he will indicate how they are funded.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: The employment service, which is responsible for the sheltered employment programme, 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. Member.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to provide direct funding support for workshops for the blind.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: There are no plans at this time to change the existing arrangements for the funding of sheltered workshops.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the threatened closure of the Birkenhead, Liverpool, workshops for the blind; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 June 1990]: My Department has received representations from the National League of the Blind and Disabled about the decision by the management of the Liverpool Workshops and Birkenhead Society for the Blind to close their workshop from 1 October 1990. I understand that this decision was taken following the withdrawal of support for the workshop by one of the four sponsoring local authorities. Officials of the employment service are working closely with the sponsoring local authorities and with organisations involved in supporting sheltered employment in seeking to find suitable alternative employment for the workpeople affected.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out(a) the failures and (b) the successes of his Department's policies since May 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 May 1990]: Since May 1979 my Department's policies have met with considerable success. This can be illustrated by taking for example the fields of employment, training and industrial relations law.
  712
  In the field of employment, policies to remove unnecessary restrictions and barriers from the labour market and to stimulate enterprise have helped create conditions under which employment can flourish. At over 27 million, the work force in employment now stands at its highest level ever and the number of self-employed has risen by 1·4 million since June 1979, after little change in the 1970s.

  In the training field, we have established ET, the largest adult training programme ever launched in this country, and YTS, which has provided high quality training to thousands of young people and will be further enhanced as the new youth training programme. We have built imaginative and effective links between the worlds of education and work through the technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI), compacts and the enterprise in higher education initiative. Our programme to give local employers responsibility for the design and delivery of training through a national network of training and enterprise councils (TECs) is some two years ahead of schedule.

  A further example of success is our step-by-step reform of industrial relations and trade union law. We have redressed the balance between management and unions, and helped make union leaders properly answerable to their members. It can be no coincidence that these reforms have coincided with a dramatic reduction in the number of working days lost because of industrial action. In the 1970s nearly 13 million working days were lost every year; in the 12 months to February 1990 only 5 million working days were lost, and the number of stoppages in February was the lowest since 1933.

  I am satisfied that my Department's policies and programmes have generally proved sucessful. We keep them under review and are always looking for ways to improve their effectiveness.

  Lambeth Skill Centre
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the sale of Lambeth skill centre to the Training Business Group; what information he has on(a) access for transferred staff to trade unions, (b) proposed redundancies and (c) renegotiation of staff contracts; and whether the Training Agency will meet the owners of the centre to discuss these issues.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The sale of the business at Lambeth skill centre to the Training Business was completed on 11 May. The centre is now in the private sector and issues relating to trade union recognition and any renegotiation of staff terms and conditions are matters for the new owners and their staff. However, I understand that a number of staff at the centre have volunteered for redundancy and I have no reason to believe that the Training Business will not meet its contractual obligations.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Over the past five years energy surveys have been undertaken on 171

  713
  buildings. Because of the large number of surveys and the wide variety of recommendations it is not practical to list the main recommendations for each of the surveys.

  Implementation of the recommendations of the surveys has led to reduced consumption and cost savings.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The Department does not have any full-time dedicated energy managers. Energy management forms part of the duties for those staff engaged in estate management. The total number of person years devoted to energy management in 1989–90 was four.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the numbers removed from the unemployment register since October 1989 as a result of(a) actively seeking work suspensions and disallowances, and (b) disqualifications for refusal of employment.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The employment service 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. Member.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Common Land Forum Report
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to bring forward legislation based on the Common Land Forum Report of 1986.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, it remains the Government's intention to introduce comprehensive legislation, based broadly on the Common Land Forum's recommendations, at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that rather disappointing reply. Does he recall that it is now two-and-a-half years since the Government promised early legislation? In their manifesto of 1987 they said that legislation on the Common Land Forum Report would be forthcoming. A Green Paper was published in May of that year. Is the Minister aware that during the long interval of time that has elapsed many hundreds of commons have been lost through deregistration? Now that the court case concerning Hazely Heath in Hampshire has been settled by a ruling of your Lordships' Judicial Committee, and notwithstanding some reservations on the part of the Moorlands Association, does the Minister not agree that it is high time that we had a Bill? Further, can we hope that repeated ministerial statements that the forthcoming legislation will appear soon really mean soon?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is my understanding that there has been little loss of registered common land in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made reference to the recent decision of your Lordships' House. I understand that the loophole that was considered a risk has been greatly reduced. It is important to remember that in order to achieve a satisfactory result in this matter consensus is all-important. That is why my right honourable friend Che Secretary of State is listening to all the recommendations and appeals that have been made to him.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that it was precisely because there was a remarkable consensus following very long discussions between the various organisations concerned that we hoped that the Government would at last take some action?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, alluded earlier to the Moorlands Association which has an important interest in this matter. The noble Baroness will be aware that the association was not a party to the discussions as it did not exist at the time of the Common Land Forum. I remind your Lordships that the Farmers' Union of Wales also did not concur with the Common Land Forum at that time.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in December 1989 the Countryside Commission said in its pamphlet Common Knowledge that doing nothing was no longer an option? Can he say whether the Government concur with that view? If they do, can he say how far his department has gone with drafting a Bill concerning the rest of the proposals leaving, if necessary, the problems of the Moorlands Association out of it? Can the Minister say whether any progress has been made at all in drafting legislation to meet any of the proposals from the forum?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness of my earlier Answer. It is the Government's intention to produce such a Bill and, responsibly, we believe that that depends on consensus. What matters is preservation in the longer term which would be impossible to achieve by following the example given and producing the wrong legislation.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, there is a great deal of the Common Land Forum Report which is outside the present dispute with the Moorlands Association. I am asking whether any progress has been made on drafting legislation for that.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that a great deal of work has been done by the Civil Service over a considerable period of time. I remind your Lordships' House that the Royal Commission originally discussed this matter in 1953.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, as regards access, is my noble friend aware that in the recent North Yorkshire Moors' plan it was discovered that no less than 85 per cent, of walkers actually wish to walk on footpaths only? In view of the fact that every sport has to limit its activities and not interfere with other people's interests, does my noble friend not agree that it is selfish of many of the walking interests to insist on 100 per cent, access regardless of the detrimental effect on flora, fauna and other people's interests?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend correctly points out that the successful achievement of legislation in this matter will depend on goodwill, balance and common sense.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister—perhaps in collaboration with the Leader of the House—confirm that if such legislation were brought forward it would be within the scope of the Salisbury rules? Therefore, we would not seek to overturn it at Second Reading. Will the Minister

1507
think again about the second part of his supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt? It really is not good enough for the Government to go on saying that this matter needs to be part of comprehensive legislation. Further, does the Minister not agree that this issue could be the subject of discreet legislation which could go through on its own? On that basis, does he agree that it should have a higher place in the Government's legislative programme?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, from all that I have seen of the prospective legislation, if one can describe it as such, there are a large number of technicalities which will involve not so much a discreet and small Bill but quite a lengthy one.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, why does the noble Lord insist on goodwill, balance and common sense as prerequisites for this Bill when the Government have not taken those factors into account concerning any other single Bill they have introduced?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, because the birds do not have votes.

Pensions and Inflation
3.9 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they will take to assist old age pensioners to cope with the increased rate of inflation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government attach a high priority to protecting the interests of elderly people. In particular the state retirement pension is uprated annually in line with the retail prices index.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is the second disappointing and unsatisfactory Answer that I have had this week? Is he further aware that, under this Government, married couple pensioners are losing £20 per week? Does he not agree that most pensioners will be hard hit because of an uprating of their pensions in April of only 7-6 per cent, when inflation is now running at 9-6 per cent, and the pensioner index is even higher? Even if the Minister will not agree to an immediate uprating of the pension, will he arrange for a lump sum payment to be made to all pensioners between now and Christmas and perhaps also increase the Christmas bonus?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. I must say that I am sorry the noble Lord feels disappointed in the answers that he has received for the second time in two weeks.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was this week!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry, it was the same week.
However, perhaps I may deal with some of the points that the noble Lord has raised. He said that inflation is now 9 per cent., and that the uprating was 7-6 per cent. The uprating was based upon the September to September figure. It is impossible to bring forward the uprating any earlier than the next April for obvious technical reasons.
The noble Lord also asked why we could not restore the link in uprating with earnings. The link between the basic pension earnings is not the key factor in proving pensioners' income. What is most important to pensioners is the value of their total income from all sources, and not just from the retirement pension. Between 1974-79 (when the noble Lord's party was in office) and when pensions were increased in line with the higher figure between earnings and prices, total net incomes increased by a mere 3 per cent, which is 0-6 per cent, a year. During our first eight years in office pensions increased in real terms by over 31 per cent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister give me an answer about the possibility of a lump sum payment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already answered that question. I said no.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, right in pointing out that pensioners are people who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of inflation? Will he therefore use his own influence with the trade unions not to press excessive wage demands which are a major cause of inflation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. I should like to make one point about the effect of inflation. When the noble Lord's party were in government, income from savings for pensioners actually went down. Over the past eight years savings income for pensioners, because we have inflation more or less under control, has increased by 130 per cent.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that salary inflation at the highet level is at a much higher rate than ordinary rates of inflation? Will he not therefore speak to some of his friends rather than always addressing the trade union members who are the least offenders in this respect? The offence is among the Government ranks and among their friends.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not be drawn into a discussion on salary inflation. The Question on the Order Paper is about the uprating of the state retirement pension. As I stated at the beginning, the state retirement pension is uprated annually in line with the retail prices index.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the Minister explain why pensioners receive a pension as man and wife, whereas their poll tax is levied on an individual basis?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is a completely different question and one which goes quite beyond the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister is quite correct when he says that this is uprated from September to September. It means—and certainly has in recent years—that the pension has never really increased in line with the cost of living and inflation. For instance, last year it was increased by 0-9 per cent, when inflation by September stood at 7-6 per cent. We never make up that loss between the April and September period. Is there not therefore a further argument for a biannual increase? With computerisation, is should not be too difficult to review the increase every six months.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct; there is a lag. However, any increase in inflation after September will obviously be taken into account in the next uprating. The noble Lord seems to think that with computerisation we would be able to cut down on the time between the uprating period of September to April. I am advised that that is not possible; and even if it were we would not be able to reduce it by more than two or three months, compared to the existing six-month period. Therefore, there always has to be a lag, but this only exists when inflation is rising; the minute inflation comes down, the pensioner benefits because the RPI for September to September will be higher than it is in April.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, with all due respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has understood the issue. We can never make up the lag. The uprating last year was, for instance, 5-9 per cent, with inflation running at 7-6 per cent, in September. It has now increased to 7-6 per cent. What happens to the months between April and September? From April this year the uprating was 7-6 per cent, and inflation is now 9.4 per cent.—God knows what it will be by September!—and the increase next April will perhaps be 9-4 per cent. However, we have still lost the few months in between.
Regarding what happens if the inflation rate goes down and pensioners gain, does the Minister recall that when this happened previously, his Government clawed back the extra amount which had been paid? They brought in legislation to claw back the extra money. They should get their facts right.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have to carry out the uprating on the historic basis. This means that we have to have delay between the uprating period and the time when the increased pensions are paid. We could return, as happened before, to a basis of forecasting inflation; but that is far more unreliable.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has been making in his last two supplementary questions simply underline the necessity of keeping inflation down? Further, does not my noble friend agree that, without looking further than the Benches opposite, if the Labour party want to make themselves intellectually respectable, they should
1510
stop suggesting spending more money on every problem which arises in this House?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for those very helpful remarks.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that cutting the link between the increases in pensions and the increases in average earnings, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Stallard, has saved the Exchequer £17 billion since 1981? That is the money which would have gone to pensioners. When the Government take credit for the reduction in the national debt in recent years, should they not be thanking the pensioners who contributed substantially to that reduction?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not necessarily accept the figure given by the noble Lord. As I stated earlier, the most important aspect to look at is not the basic state retirement pension, but the average incomes of pensioners which have increased by about 31 per cent, in real terms over the years that we have been in office: whereas, when the noble Lord's friends were in office it increased by a mere 3 per cent, over six years, which is 0.6 per cent, per year.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the Minister intends to quote the figures for the occupational pensions and the savings which contribute to pensioners' incomes, is he aware that the Government's own figures show that these contribute only a small amount to the incomes of the poorest pensioners, that one fifth of pensioners are totally reliant upon benefits, and that 60 per cent, are relying upon state benefits for 80 per cent, of their income?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants figures just on total social security benefits, I can assure him that the increase in real terms for pensioners who are dependent purely on social security benefits is about 17 per cent, compared to a mere 12 per cent, when the noble Lord's friends were in office.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in relation to the point made by my noble friend Lord Stallard, does not the Minister realise that I was throwing him a lifeline when I suggested a lump sum payment? Will he reconsider the matter?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords.

Personal Savings and Incomes: Ratio
3.23 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the amount of personal savings in relation to income is currently close to its lowest ever level.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, a number of factors have tended to reduce the personal savings ratio since 1980, including lower inflation, financial deregulation and

1511
innovation, declining employers' contributions to pension schemes, increased wealth and the confidence inspired by greater economic stability and prosperity. At the same time, some of those factors have tended to raise savings by other sectors of the economy. Saving in the economy as a whole has remained almost constant in relation to national income.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, which I am sure has illuminated the understanding of the whole House. It cannot all be wrong. However, will he agree that the real explanation is the credit boom and the property borrowing explosion which was generated and encouraged at the time of the last election? Will he also give an assurance that no such phoney boom will be generated ahead of the next election? Further, can he tell us whether the Government have any further measures in mind to improve this deplorably low personal savings ratio?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree with the main thrust of the noble Lord's questions about the credit boom. As to ensuring savings in the future, he will be aware of the measures contained in the Budget of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he announced the setting up of a new tax-exempt savings account (known as TESSA). I am sure that the House will also welcome the abolition of the composite rate of tax on income, which will mean that some 14 million people who do not fall into the tax bracket and who automatically pay tax at the moment will not be paying tax. The noble Lord will be delighted to know that the Government this week announced further measures on national savings which I hope will be published in the Official Report today.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the Labour Party's proposals for a new tax on income were ever to be implemented, they would have a disastrous impact on the savings ratio, whatever the level previously?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right. A new tax would not help. From what we have been able to glean of the Labour Party's proposals, I understand that the tax on unearned income would increase by 70 per cent, above the present level. I am sure that that is something to which no one would look forward.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at times of high and increasing inflation to save is a very bad bet?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that was shown conclusively by the noble Lord's party when it was in cahoots with the Labour Party at the end of the 1970s. Those who tried to save found that under Labour their saving incomes fell by 16 per cent, in real terms.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I revert to the Question, which refers to personal savings as distinct from the other savings to which the Minister was good enough to refer in his first Answer. Does he regard it as being satisfactory that personal savings, which some seven or eight years ago were running at between 14 per cent, to 16 per cent, of personal disposable incomes, are now running at some 2 per cent? I do not like to press the Minister, as he knows full well; but do the Government applaud that move from 14 per cent, to 16 per cent, down to 2 per cent? Do they approve of it, do they disagree with it or are they indifferent to it? In any case, does the Minister appreciate that all that has really happened is that the public sector borrowing requirement has been converted into the private sector borrowing requirement?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure that I can agree with the noble Lord's figures. It is true that the personal savings ratio declined in the 1980s. It reached a low in the third quarter of 1988, since when it has been increasing again. We do not believe that it is high enough, which is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to encourage the savings culture by announcing certain measures in his Budget. The noble Lord will be fully aware of the fact that the personal savings ratio fell in most countries in the 1980s.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, does my noble friend think that the way in which credit cards are advertised and pressed upon the public has something to do with it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, I do not believe that it has, because there has been considerable concern felt by those who are lending. They do not wish to lend money to those who will be unable to repay it in due course. That would not be considered financially prudent.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if those institutions are so concerned, it is a bit odd that we receive through the post so many unasked for letters offering to lend us money?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there has been a considerable increase in wealth which has benefited everyone in the country, and that may be one reason.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister say whether his reference to prospective changes in savings certificates means that those people who are long-time savers in savings certificates may cease to see the value of their investment eroded?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord has a great interest in that matter because he has already asked Questions about it. His question might be slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but if he would like to put it down I should like to try to answer it in due course.

Construction Industry: Redundancies
3.25 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any steps to minimise redundancies in the construction industry during the current slump in the housing market.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, despite some job losses, employment in the sector at the end of last year was at its highest level for at least 10 years. The most effective ways of minimising redundancies in the construction and other sectors is to reduce inflation by maintaining our present monetary and fiscal policies.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that what he has just said, which I hope is on the record, is the opposite of views submitted to the national press by the Building Employers' Confederation, which claims that work is dropping off in every sector and that work loads have been terribly reduced during the past few months; and that if there is a continuation of the collapse in the housing market there is a possibility that 100,000 jobs will be lost? Will the Minister look again at what he has said or does he now say that the BEC has not stated the facts or the truth?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no. What I shall do is to repeat what I have just said. The most effective way of minimising redundancies is to ensure that we have a healthy economy. We do that by reducing inflation and maintaining our tight monetary and fiscal policies which will ensure that we have a booming industry. After eight years of growth in the construction market, given the current level of interest rates, it is not surprising that it should now decrease, but the long-term future for the construction and house building industry is good.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, that is not the point that I was making and the noble Lord is aware of that. He said that the construction industry is increasing the number of people it employs month by month. The BEC says the reverse: that 100,000 jobs are at risk. That is what I was complaining about. What the Minister has said can in no way be related to what the BEC has said is the position.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord heard what I said in my original Answer. I said that I agreed that there had been some job losses but that employment in the sector at the end of last year was at its highest level for at least 10 years.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, in that context, will my noble friend consider accelerating support for the Housing Corporation, which at the moment is applying the brakes when it might help the building situation by applying the accelerator to schemes which are in hand? Is it not better in a time of relative slump to spend less money than to spend more money at a time of boom, which we all hope is coming?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be pleased to hear that the Housing Corporation capital programme is set to rise from £11 billion this year to £1-5 billion in 1991–92 and £1-7 billion in 1992-93. That is a massive and rapid increase by anyone's standards.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of the Minister's acceptance that there are some job losses, will he say whether any steps are being taken to prevent loss of skills in the industry, because it is important that we maintain skill training and skill levels in the industry? If there is to be unemployment those skills will be lost. Are any steps being considered to ensure that that does not happen?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Skill levels and shortages are of great concern to us all. In that context, the Construction Industry Training Board is working hard to alleviate the skill shortages and to ensure that skills are not lost to the industry.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up that question. Does the Minister agree that one way to mitigate the effects of redundancies in the construction industry, particularly those affecting young people, would be to restore to the CITB, at least temporarily, the financial assistance formerly made available to it for youth training?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the construction industry stilll uses the youth training and employment training, providing its services either to young people or to people who have been unemployed. The main point about the Construction Industry Training Board is that it should be more responsive to the needs of employers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Royal Institute of British Architects has supported the employers' federation, which says that house building is likely to drop dramatically in the next two months? Is he also aware that the Law Society has pointed out that it is inundated by young lawyers who are specialists in conveyancing? They now find themselves unemployed and the situation will worsen. Will the Government take into consideration the statement made by the Building Employers Confederation, by the Law Society and by the Royal Institute of British Architects? They all point out that the situation is much more serious than the Government seem to think.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we shall seek to run the economy in such a way that the long-term future of the construction industry is assured. I believe that that is the most sensible approach.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will be adjourned at about

1515
7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill and the Committee stage of the Computer Misuse Bill will be taken.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.32 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Regional and District Health Authorities]:
Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(2A) Appointments to any health authority or family health service authority under Schedule 1 to this Act shall be made with regard to the desirability of the persons appointed being persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions of the health service authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now on the first day of the Report stage of the Bill. Those who were present on 19th April will recall that we had a long debate about the composition of regional health authorities, district health authorities and family health service authorities. We were concerned that these new authorities with crucially important responsibilities might be composed of people with experience in business, administration and accounting—all very important qualifications in the running of the health service or any other service—but such people may not necessarily be in touch with health service needs.
We proposed in a series of amendments that membership should include consultants, general practitioners, nurses, other health service professionals, other staff within the National Health Service, people involved in community health councils, representatives of local authority associations and consumer organisations. We were anxious that minority groups and women should be included. We wanted to see a degree of continuity of service between those at present involved in management within the health service and the new authorities.
All the proposals, with the exception of that concerning the universities, were rejected at that time. I quote from the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, at col. 120 of Hansard of 19th April 1990:
"the aim is and must be to appoint the best person for the job in each case".
At a later stage (also at col. 120) the noble Baroness said:
"all appointments are made on the basis of personal qualities and experience of the individual concerned".
The first amendment standing not only in my name but that of the noble Baroness. Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—therefore it is an all-party amendment—takes this into consideration. It seeks to write into the Bill the assurances that the Minister gave to us on that occasion. She set out the arguments—and I well understand her case—against
1516
people representing any particular service. We have built on that view as well.
The amendment therefore accepts the generality of the argument. It does not ask for anyone to represent special interests. It is not, to quote the debate, "prescriptive". It seeks to ensure, in terms which we hope will be acceptable to the Government, that appointments should be made, as the amendment states,
"of the persons appointed being persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions of the health service authority".
If this is accepted, as I hope it will be, it will give much assurance to those who are deeply concerned that we shall see a takeover of the National Health Service by business interests.
Some people already find the language of the proposed new National Health Service a little difficult to take and to understand. Those who have been dealing with the terms of the internal market understand it well. It is not well understood by patients. The concept of purchasing packages of care is also rather clumsy. There is a strong feeling that, even though terms may be difficult, if we get the right people, the job will be done well. We wish to ensure in this amendment that we have as members of these three types of authorities people who are committed to the National Health Service. We wish to see some continuity; we wish to see consumer interests reflected in the membership of these authorities. We want people who may also be involved in the provision of community care in order to ensure continuity between the responsibilities of the health authorities and of the social service departments of local authorities.
Nothing could be less prescriptive than the words in the amendment. It directly follows the line of argument already used by the noble Baroness. I believe that it would facilitate input from the health care professionals and consumers without appointees being seen as representatives of their respective bodies or organisations. To be effective, authorities will find such an input absolutely essential.
I believe that the amendment would also provide a safeguard for the future. It would ensure at all times that appointments were made on the basis of experience, whoever was Secretary of State and from whichever political party he came. The amendment safeguards the system from manipulation. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I support the amendment for three main reasons. First, it respects the Government's concern which was repeatedly expressed during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House not to embody the principle of representation in setting up policy-making bodies.
Your Lordships may wonder why this and other related amendments are necessary, given the Government's declared commitments. However, I believe that they are necessary because they would provide and facilitate an input from health care professionals without our falling into the trap of legislating for those categories of representatives of

1517
various groups, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, is something to which the Government have expressed a deep-rooted antipathy.
The amendment also avoids problems associated with amendments proposed at the Committee stage which tried to ensure the professional input but which were also subject to the criticism that they violated one of the fundamental principles of the Bill: the division between purchaser and provider.
During the Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill earlier this week it was stated that the Government had proved to be a listening government in another place. I believe that this amendment demonstrates that professionals have shown themselves to be listening professionals. They have modified their proposals, seeking to encourage professional input into decision-making bodies, but in a way which respects the Government's concerns. I hope therefore that the Government will show themselves to be a listening government and will listen to the proposals which the professionals have modified in the way in which the amendment phrases their concerns.
The second reason why I support the amendment strongly is that it provides a safeguard for the future. It will give reassurance that appointments will be made on the basis of relevant experience, whoever the Secretary of State may be in the future and from whichever political party he may come. The amendment would prevent or protect the system from potential manipulation which could have adverse effects on the delivery of health care.
Thirdly, it provides a much needed assurance for the health professions which are so intimately involved with the delivery of care that there is a greater likelihood that their expertise, experience and detailed knowledge would be taken into account in decision-making processes at all stages from the earliest tentative discussions to the final implementation. It is not sufficient to have a system where people with professional expertise are simply called in an advisory capacity when others deem that their contribution is necessary.
The wording of the amendment is gentle and highlights the desirability of the measure. I suggest that its provisions are crucial to the running of the health service in ways which are both cost-effective and care-effective. The wording does not violate the Government's most cherished principles which underpin the reforms enshrined in the Bill. But the amendment would do much to encourage confidence in the proposed changes among the professions and among the public. I therefore hope that my noble friend will see the wisdom of the amendment and will be willing to respond sympathetically.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment for the reasons given so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. There was nothing incompatible about the arguments advanced by those two speakers from opposite sides of the House. This is not a party matter. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that it would be immensely helpful and reassuring to many people if the Government were to accept
1518
the amendment. If I may anticipate the reply of the noble Baroness, I fear that the Government may say that they accept the idea of the provision and that therefore it does not need to go into the Bill as that is exactly what will happen. Perhaps the Government will introduce the provision. But that is not what many people expect; nor do they believe that it has happened in the past.
The amendment is not unrelated to one I moved in Committee to the effect that people should not be appointed to any of these positions on the basis of party political affiliation. We shall of course be told that that is not the case. However, there was something of an argument between the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and my noble friend Lady Robson. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out that he had appointed my noble friend Lady Robson as chairman of one of the regional authorities. But there was an argument about her successor when the noble Lord who was then the Minister had asked about the politics of the person my noble friend had recommended.
I accept that appointments are not made on the basis of party political affiliation and I believe it is highly undesirable that they should be. It is even more undesirable that people should widely consider that appointments are made on a party political basis. It is widely thought that that is the case. When one talks to people they say it is a matter of jobs for the boys, or perhaps for the girls. However, that is not the case and it should not be the case. The words of the amendment are in part the words used by the noble Baroness in reply to my amendment.
The wording relates also to another amendment of mine moved in Committee on the extreme importance of providing continuity for what used to be the family practitioner committees. There is a great deal of anxiety among present members, officials and officers of the FPCs as regards what will happen when those bodies become family health services authorities and whether there will be continuity and proper professional expertise. I wholly accept that we do not wish to have representation. The noble Baroness has, pointed that out. We should not make it a requirement that these authorities must represent this or that body. However, I believe the Government should do precisely what they said they were going to do when they replied to two amendments moved at an earlier stage. It would be immensely helpful if that were written into the Bill. It would be reassuring to many people who are worried about the matter.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am distinctly nervous about the effects of the amendment, if carried. While I agree most strongly that some of those who are appointed to these authorities should have the kind of experience that is described in the amendment, I also believe it is of immense importance that there should be others who are completely fresh and with entirely independent experience. We need a mixture of people. As I assume is the case with other noble Lords, I am speaking about the non-executive members of these authorities. I believe that the non-executive members should constitute a mixture of those with the kind of experience that is mentioned here

1519
and—this is very important—others who can bring an entirely new perspective to the problems of the health service.
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I appreciate the intention behind the amendment and the fact that we have moved forward considerably from the discussions in Committee. I appreciate too that proposers have sought to make the amendment as general as possible. However, I do not believe that even this formulation would be helpful. Further, I suspect that it would not achieve what the proposers have in mind. Indeed, it may produce the opposite effect.
I question whether we can define what the terms of the amendment actually mean in a way which will make the proposed provision workable. What is to constitute relevant experience and how is capacity to be demonstrated? We all have views on this, but our subjective judgments are likely to differ. It is really not helpful to introduce such concepts into legislation and leave room for doubt and dispute about their proper meaning. It will be said that the inclusion of the provision is meant to signify something and that it is intended to exclude someone. The courts may have to interpret what it is intended to achieve. Perhaps we should therefore consider what it might be construed as meaning.
People with a proven track record in finance, personnel or contracting in the private sector would certainly have experience and capacity relevant to the functions of an authority. On the other hand, it is much less likely that someone active in his local community in a way not directly related to the health and allied services could be said to have such qualities. I suggest that we should not place such obstacles in the way of considering candidates on their individual merits as is the Government's intention. There are many current and former authority members drawn from different walks of life who have made notable contributions to the health services in their localities, despite the apparent absence at the time of their appointment of capacity and experience in matters relevant to the functions of an authority. We should not take away the flexibility to make such appointments when it is in the best interests of the National Health Service locally.
As has been said, we have always made it clear that people will be appointed on the basis of their skills and personal qualities. I fully expect that people with a background in the health service and with a background relevant to that service will be the front-running candidates. However, I do not believe that the amendment would help in this respect. I hope that the proposers will not press it but will instead accept the value of casting the net wide and appointing the best people in all the circumstances.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. She has said briefly and succinctly what she said repeatedly on a series of amendments on 19th April. However, I believe she
1520
is wrong in her conclusion. She has failed to recognise, or perhaps the Secretary of State has failed to recognise that there is a great deal of concern. That concern is to be found among the medical and nursing professions, among those who work in the National Health Service and among consumers of the services provided by the National Health Service. They are concerned not that there will not be flexibility but that there will be inflexibility. We want to see flexibility. Some of the people on these authorities will be new, and that is right. I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, except his conclusion. We want to see new people on the authorities. If we merely wanted to see the same old people or young people as we have now, we would not be making the proposed change.
Although I still hold the same view, I have ceased going over the old territory. We want to have a balanced team of professional skills in management. We want the skills of professionals who are working within the National Health Service, the medical and nursing staff who have the interests of the patients at heart. Without making a list and being prescriptive, we wish the Bill to reflect that those who run the National Health Service should have a deep commitment to it and that among them must be those who have experience of it. It would be a mistake to think that we want something totally new and that all the people who are serving at present and who have given such valuable service are to go and a new bunch is to come in.
The Minister would have gained great respect for herself and the Government if she had accepted the amendment. We want people with proven experience both within and outside the National Health Service. We want to see flexibility on the basis of experience and skills. There are moments in our debates on the National Health Service when the Government ought to recognise that the time has come to move a little and accept something. So far, they have not recognised that. I am sorry that they have not because I feel that I must test the views of the House on the amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he clarify what he has said? At one moment he talked of persons "among" those non-executives appointed. I am in agreement on that point but I believe that his amendment means that all those persons appointed should have relevant service within the National Health Service. If he intends to divide the House it would be helpful if he would make clear whether he means what the amendment seems to me to mean or whether he means something different.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting that question because it allows me to clarify the position. We refer to the desirability rather than an obligation of making such appointments. The amendment says:
"with regard to the desirability of the persons appointed".
That indicates that we are not saying that everyone appointed must already work in the National Health Service. No such thing. There is flexibility, which I believe is reflected in the wording of the amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but the noble Lord uses the word "desirability". Is it not also highly desirable that other people should be appointed to bring in entirely new experience? The desirability that is expressed at present is an exclusive one. I fear that I must object to that and vote against the amendment.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 143.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Bottomley. L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brightman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mais, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mulley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Foot, L.

Richardson, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L,

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E.

Glasgow, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Somers, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thurso, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunt, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jacques, L.

Varley, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Willis, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Auckland, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bellwin, L.

Arran, E.

Beloff, L.

1522

Belstead, L.

Ironside, L.

Bessborough, E.

Killearn, L.

Birdwood, L.

Kimball, L.

Blake, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Blanch, L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blyth, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Lurgan, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burton, L.

Manton, L.

Butterfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Moyne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nelson, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Norrie, L.

Crathorne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Orkney, E.

Crook, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Dainton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Quinton, L.

Eccles, V.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renwick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elibank, L.

Rootes, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Sandys, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Seebohm, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elton, L.

Shannon, E.

Erne, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Foley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fortescue, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathspey, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swansea, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Terrington, L.

Grantchester, L.

Teviot, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Haig, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Thurlow, L.

Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harlech, L.

Ullswater, V.

Havers, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hertford, M.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Hives, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hood, V.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wolfson, L.

Howe, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Evaluations
.—(1) Regional health authorities shall evaluate and report annually to the Secretary of State on the implementation by them of their duties under this Act.

1523
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the reports submitted to him under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment might appear unnecessary because it could be argued that any and every regional health authority will automatically undertake the functions indicated. However, it is desirable for two reasons to put those requirements on the face of the Bill. The first reason is to ensure that regular, systematic monitoring of the changes following the legislation takes place so that any benefits and/or problems may be identified and appropriate measures taken by, for example, either building on and developing beneficial changes or remedying any unforeseen difficulties.
My second reason is even more important. It is desirable that those reports should be laid before Parliament, which will therefore bring them into the public domain. That means that the information obtained will be available for all concerned with the provision of health care. That requirement not only satisfies the fundamental principle of public accountability on a matter of national importance, but it would also help to fill the acknowledged information deficit which, even within the Department of Health, it is widely acknowledged still exists. It is feared that that information deficit may cause serious problems.
The Government are deeply committed to the idea of evolutionary change in the National Health Service, but I must emphasise that evolution and evaluation are not incompatible. Indeed, I would argue that they must go hand in hand. The amendment is an attempt to build on that principle and the mechanisms for evaluation systematically throughout the country to the benefit of everyone concerned with health care. That would reassure both the public and the professionals, especially those members of the royal colleges and the other professional bodies who have pleaded so earnestly, and with justification, for some systematic evaluation to accompany evolutionary change.
The amendment avoids the acknowledged pitfalls of the earlier proposals from the professional bodies, the royal colleges and the other colleges. Noble Lords may remember that those would have limited evaluation to two regions. The amendment makes evaluation an integral part of evolution and retains the principle in their arguments without the constraints which made them unacceptable to both the Government and, I believe, many Members of the House.
I therefore hope that noble Lords and my noble friend the Minister will receive the amendment sympathetically. I must emphasise—the names of noble Lords who have supported the amendment on the Marshalled List demonstrate this point—that it is not a party political amendment. It does nothing whatever to delay or impede the implementation and, I hope, the successful development of the changes proposed in the Bill, but it is based on, reflects and would allay professional concern about the changes that are likely to occur. It would provide for evaluation which, where things are working well, would demonstrate that good, high quality health
1524
care is being provided. If there are problems, it would enable them to be discussed and responded to constructively. It would show the Government's good intention that the good practice which it is hoped will follow from the reforms will become available for discussion and debate; it would help to remedy the information deficit which, as I have said, is widely acknowledged still to exist; and it would show that health care is continuing to be provided at a high level in each and every region. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is my pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and to agree with every word that she said. There are matters on which we shall not always agree and I shall refer to one or two of them during my presentation.
This is a modest amendment. As we recall, the Government rejected the amendments which would have required that the NHS should not be plunged headlong into a new scheme of things with internal markets, NHS trusts and GP budget-holding practices, all of which they propose to introduce without prior evaluation, pilot schemes, experimentation, independent monitoring or research. Those proposals were all rejected.
My views have not changed and, so far as I know, nor have those of the royal medical colleges or the Royal College of Nursing, as the noble Baroness said, nor those of other professional organisations which supported the important document that was published before our Committee stage. The evidence from the East Anglian experience—named "Operation Rubber Windmill" for reasons about which I am not quite certain—confirms all our worst fears about the chaos that can follow the national implementation of untested concepts.
The Government have thrown out the concept of prior evaluation. There is no point in returning to that and arguing it now. The answer is that we shall learn from our experiences and mistakes. We shall be in a state of constant monitoring. That is the theme which Ministers have presented in reply, so our view is that we should take them at their face value. The amendment ensures that that constant evaluation happens and that reports are made available to the regional health authorities and by regional health authorities to the Secretary of State and then to Parliament, so that all of us—health authorities, bodies interested in the health service and individuals—can watch what is happening and learn from that constant evaluation.
In supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her amendment, I withdraw nothing that I have said about the lack of Government wisdom in pressing ahead at a speed which in my view will lead to chaos in the National Health Service from 1st April 1991. I want to minimise that. I want to ensure that that constant monitoring is done. We are being plunged recklessly forward in a year in which—after 1st April 1991—there is almost certain to be a general election and when the Government will be hard pressed to provide the resources which the NHS so desperately needs. Let me add that the incoming Government will be in no way committed to some of the proposals in the Bill nor to sustaining them. But I believe that

1525
in a period of instability those matters that the Government have said will be done should be done and should be written into the Bill. If we are not to have the provisions that we proposed earlier, let us make the best job that we can of assurances given by Ministers. That is the purpose of the evaluation. I can see no conceivable reason for not accepting this modest amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that the objections advanced to previous ideas on evaluation and pilot schemes were that they would in effect paralyse development in other parts of the service while the pilot scheme or evaluation was taking place. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows that on those grounds I was not happy with his original idea that there should be a series of pilot schemes in two regions and that the remainder of the National Health Service should stand still while progress was monitored over a period of three years or something of that nature.
Having said that, the present amendment does not have any of those characteristics. It provides for evaluation—I believe that the jargon term is formative evaluation—over the whole range of the service during the implementation of the proposals in the Bill. We know that the Bill is to some extent an experiment. It will be implemented in tranches, with a number of hospitals acquiring trust status, and others perhaps following.
With that approach to the Bill, it seems eminently sensible and extremely desirable that this process of ongoing evaluation—that is the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals; formative evaluation is my phrase—should take place. The service can learn by successful outcomes and good practice in other areas of the country. There can be no foot dragging on the implementation of the Bill arising out of the amendment. On the contrary there would be constant evaluation and monitoring of the results and a learning process on the future implementation of the Bill.
The Government cannot possibly have any objection to the amendment. For the reasons that I have given, I have put my name to it. I very much hope that the Government will look with favour on it.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I am a little concerned about the amendment. Any reorganisation of the health service or any other body will obviously need evaluation. As has been said many times, it is the first reorganisation of the National Health Service in 40 years. But I am worried at the burden that it will put on those who have to undertake the evaluation every year. I am not sure about the exact length of time of the evaluations or whether it will vary. But I should have thought that a triennial review would be much better. It would allow the matter to proceed more smoothly.
Schedule 1 (2) to the Bill requires that those serving on these authorities should be of a certain standard. Therefore, much as I sympathise with the principle of the amendment, the application will be difficult. It will put a burden on those who have to undertake the review. They must have time to make the evaluation. Twelve months is too short a period.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, perhaps I may comment about this very interesting amendment. I am sympathetic to the philosophy that lies behind it, but I ask this question. Is it right for the RHAs to evaluate themselves in the report? I have been on RHAs, on and off, since the early 1970s in one area or another. Apart from a small amount of confidential business at the end of the meeting, it is conducted openly in front of the local press. It would not be unreasonable to say that the local press is frequently stimulated to give its own evaluation of what a regional health authority has been up to.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, suggested that the evaluation should be every three years. The work of the regional health authority is to produce a basic plan which usually runs forward for five years and is updated each year. Each year the regional health authority, through its officers, has to report to the Department of Health on the progress of the plan. A letter is sent to the regional authority from the Department of Health commenting on successes and failures. Sometimes it can be fairly critical. Fortunately in the areas in which I have been involved it has never been critical across the board but we have had our knuckles rapped for not doing what we said we are going to do. The letter from the department is produced openly, again in front of the press.
I am very sympathetic to the idea behind the amendment, but I am not sure that I wish it to be the regional health authorities that will evaluate and report. I hope that a rather more dispassionate way forward can be found.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I too have no difficulty in accepting the underlying aims of the proposed new clause but I deplore the attempt to continue to scaremonger about the reforms. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is strongly against them but I must correct the impression that he gave about the so-called rubber windmill experiment. As the regional general manager for East Anglia has said, the purposes of the exercise was to test the concept of contracting to see whether it could be pushed to breaking point. It showed that, while that is possible when pushed in the way that it was, the checks and balances built into our proposals, especially the emphasis on quality, will prevent it from happening in practice.
The measures contained in the Bill are intended to create a more efficient service which will improve the quality of clinical care and the delivery of care, which is something that we all seek. In order to achieve that we shall need to monitor and review the implementation of the arrangements. I also agree that both Houses of Parliament will want to take a close interest in those matters and hold Ministers to account for their stewardship.
However, as my noble friend Lady Cox has admitted, what is proposed is part and parcel of proper management and therefore requires no statutory provision. The National Health Service management executive has the responsibility on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to monitor and review the implementation

1527
of policy by National Health Service bodies, including the implementation of legislation. There are already mechanisms in place to achieve this, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, so helpfully explained. Each year objectives are agreed with the regional health authorities in the light of Ministers' policies and priorities and progress is kept under review. The regions are required to produce programmes and reports which focus on the key objectives that they have been set. The process culminates in a yearly meeting, chaired by the National Health Service Chief Executive at which progress is considered and fresh objectives set for the year ahead. A further ministerial meeting may be held if that appears necessary. Copies of the letters sent to each region at the end of this annual process are placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that there is a need for evaluation; but it has to be a continuous management process. We do not want annual reports to become a single focus for this activity because that may constrain a region's flexibility to respond quickly to local developments.
It is the essential task of management to bring these systems into being and to use them consistently to ensure that objectives are set and that performance and effectiveness is monitored. In the next few years, there is no doubt that these arrangements will focus on the implementation of the reforms. They will provide the means to review progress and maintain momentum in the improvements in care which will flow from our continued record investment in the National Health Service and the improvements in its management which the Government have in hand.
The proposed new clause removes the flexibility to focus on the key issues and cuts across the specific responsibility of the management executive to account to Ministers for the implementation of policy in the NHS. In addition, I doubt that statutory provision for annual reports will appear particularly relevant in years to come when the initiatives contained in the Bill become a normal part of our NHS arrangements. There is already ample opportunity—far too ample, I sometimes think—for Ministers and health authorities to be called to account for their stewardship of the NHS not only in this House and the other place but through the workings of various Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee. No doubt your Lordships will be keeping track of the implementation of the reforms and putting that high on personal agendas during the coming months.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I interrupt to ask the Minister a question in order to clarify what she is saying. Is she saying that the requirements contained in the amendment will happen any way, and therefore the amendment is not needed? If so, is she further saying that there is a statutory basis for that or that it will happen because it will happen anyway? In particular, I draw her attention to the second part of the amendment about laying reports before Parliament. Is she saying that that will happen
1528
anyway? If so, can she say whether it has a statutory basis?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have said that this is part and parcel of proper management and requires no statutory provision. I also pointed to the mechanisms which already exist. As a result of the procedures to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred, they include the placing in the Libraries of both Houses copies of letters referring to the monitoring in each region at the end of each year. I have also pointed to the mechanisms that exist in both Houses for ways of bringing Ministers to account. On that basis we believe that the amendment is not necessary.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lord Auckland for expressing his anxiety. I sympathise with him but hope that to some extent his anxiety was allayed by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. He pointed out that provisions already exist for certain reports to be made. However, I do not believe that that removes the need for the provisions contained in the amendment.
My noble friend the Minister has expressed the intentions, which I know are sincere, that the changes proposed in the Bill will improve the quality of clinical care, and so forth. When one is moving into an area where there are untried proposals and where, as is currently acknowledged, there is a large deficit of the information on which some of those changes will be based, it is essential that there should be systematic evaluation. It is also essential that the results of that evaluation should be in the public domain.
We fear that the kind of monitoring to which my noble friend has referred, undertaken by conscientious managers, is not the same as a systematic evaluation. We also fear that the findings of the monitoring which takes place in the regions may not be readily available on a systematic basis for nationwide appraisal of the effects of the changes in the legislation.
I was slightly worried about my noble friend's reference to accountability. In a democracy one cannot have too much accountability. In the field of health care people are immensely vulnerable. There are problems in the delivery of health care and unforeseen problems in the implementation of new policies which can cause real suffering. Information about problems must be quickly available on a regular basis. That requires systematic evaluation which is ensured and provided on a regional basis. Such information should come before both Houses of Parliament so that it is in the public domain. It can then be looked at as a totality and not on the basis of letters to particular districts, and so forth. It would be a systematic process of evaluation to accompany a systematic process of evolution to which the Government are committed.
I speak with deep anxiety. Like my noble friend, I hope passionately that the intentions of the Government will be realised and that the proposals before us will lead to better quality care. But hope

1529
is not enough. We must have demonstrated the good effects of the proposed changes. If problems exist, information about them must be made available quickly and systematically. That should be properly gathered on the basis of systematic evaluation.
Therefore, I am afraid that I was not convinced by my noble friend's reply. I represent widespread, non-partisan political anxiety. There is a deep professional anxiety among those in all the health care professions. They want to see the accountability and availability of systematic evaluation. We hope that the news will be good; in that case, there can be professional and national rejoicing. However, if problems exist, they must be recognised and brought to the attention of the people. Appropriate measures can then be taken to ensure that good quality health care is provided in every region on the best possible basis. I must ask for the opinion of the House.
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 135.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jacques, L.

Adrian, L.

Jay, L.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennet, L.

Blease, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Leatherland, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brightman, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crook, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dainton, L.

Meston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Northfield, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Oram, L.

Faithfull, B.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, B.

Foot, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L

Gallacher, L.

Porritt, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Glasgow, E.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Richardson, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gregson, L.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E.

Hanworth, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Serota, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Shackleton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stallard, L.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

1530

Strabolgi, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Swann, L.

Warnock, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

White, B.

Thurso, V.

Williams of Elvel, L

Tordoff, L.

Willis, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winstanley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Arran, E.

Ironside, L.

Auckland, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kimball, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Birdwood, L.

Lurgan, L.

Blake, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bolton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brigstoke, B.

Manton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marsh, L.

Burton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Butterfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Caldecote, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Norrie, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Quinton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renwick, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Romney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rootes, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sandys, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strange, B.

Elton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Erne, E.

Strathcona and Mount

Ferrers, E.

Royal, L

Foley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fortescue, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathspey, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gainford, L.

Swansea, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E.

Haig, E.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Harlech, L.

Trumpington, B.

Havers, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hayter, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hertford, M.

Wedge wood, L.

Hesketh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Hood, V.

Wolfson, L.

Hooper, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.35 p.m.
Clause 2 [Family Health Services Authorities]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment forms part of a number of amendments which I did not press in Committee. It is designed to make possible but not mandatory the amalgamation of district health authorities with family health services authorities. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Henley, argued that that was not desirable as it would blur the distinction between the purchaser and provider, which is central to the strategy of the Bill. However, it was envisaged in the White Paper Working for Patients at paragraph 3.20 that as more and more hospitals opted to become self-governing, the providing arm of some district health authorities would wither away and that it would be worth considering,
"the possibility of sensible mergers with neighbouring Districts. Larger Districts might eventually become candidates for mergers with Family Practitioner Committees".
In my view there is no reason why such a merger should blur the purchaser/provider divide. Surely what would happen is that the merged district health authorities and family health services authorities would act as a purchaser for the whole range of primary and secondary services within the area of their responsibility. They would contract and enter into contracts with NHS hospital trusts, with community health trusts, ambulance service trusts and possibly even with complete district health trusts in the case which we have already discussed where all the services of a district health authority acquire trust status. That is a possibility which the Government have not put out of court.
I accept that that may be a pattern of development which lies some way in the future. However, so far as I can see it would be ruled out by subsection (6) which this amendment seeks to delete. If the subsection remains in the Bill, it will be necessary to bring forward new primary legislation to enable the developments which I have described. On those grounds it seems a pity not to use the opportunity which we have in the Bill before us to allow—and it is no more than that—for the possibility which I have described and to save future legislative time. That would accord with the flexible spirit of the Bill which has a number of enabling and permissive rather than mandatory provisions. The amendment is intended to be nothing but helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have sought to ask myself two questions. First, why is the subsection in the Bill at all? I find it difficult to discover what would be lost—and this is the second question—by the Government if the subsection were to be deleted. There is no question of principle here. I have no doubt—unless she intends to accept the amendment—that the Minister will be able to explain why the subsection must remain in the Bill.
Ever since the last reorganisation of the National Health Service when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, was Secretary of State, I thought—and
1532
indeed, I thought it before then—that it would be basically a good thing if the family practitioner services, as they then were, were brought together with district health authorities. That always seemed to me to be desirable; namely, that that was one of the layers of the health authority which we could do without. I recognise the special role that those services fulfil but it is a role, I believe, that could be met within the scope of a district health authority.
I have not sought to raise that argument. We have enough arguments regarding provisions already in the Bill, without making other controversial suggestions for the further reorganisation of the health service. I accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that we ought not to create circumstances which make it virtually impossible by legislative means to stop the coming together of FHSAs and district health authorities. It is in that simple way that I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, The noble Lord suggests that we remove Clause 2(6) so as to make merger between FPCs (FHSAs as they will be) and DHAs possible. Subjection (6) does not rule out merger; it does not make it impossible. But it would need primary legislation. Subsection (6) does not prevent it, if the noble Lord follows my argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, rightly asks what subsection (6) does. FPCs, or FHSAs as they will become, are already excluded from the term "health authority" by Section 128 of the National Health Service Act 1977 as amended by the Health and Social Security Act 1984. That is because the term "health authority" is used in that Act to differentiate between FPCs and other types of authority such as the district and the regional authorities. The distinction is needed, for example, in defining authorities which may make staff and facilities available to local authorities covered by Section 26, or in defining doctors who work in hospitals as opposed to those who provide general medical services under Section 105.
The provision in the present Bill seeks to make that absolutely clear to avoid any confusion over the new title, family health services authorities, which contains both the word "health" and the word "authority". It does not seek to diminish the role of FHSAs which will be health authorities in all but name.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt, why, if we are trying to say that it is not an authority, have we consciously put in the word "authority"? It was a family practitioner service: in this legislation it is called a family health services authority. Having done that, a small clause is needed which says, "Of course we are calling it 'authority', but no one must think it is an authority". Why are we doing that? It does not make sense.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall have to ask another place. That provision was in response to amendments put forward in another place. I do not think they were government amendments. Although it is called a family health services authority, it is not an "authority" as defined by the principal Act.

1533
Returning to the question of mergers, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is correct that Working for Patients floated the idea of mergers between larger districts and their corresponding FPCs. However, that was very much a possibility for the longer term. We made it clear that the Bill should not be regarded as an opportunity for wholesale structural change. Both DHAs and FPCs, or FHSAs as they will become, have very full agendas implementing the three White Papers. It is too early to say whether or not the principle of merger would be the right step. That is why Working for Patients signalled merger as a long-term possibility. We would need to allow the districts and FHSAs to adjust to their new roles and to allow our reforms to bed down. As I said earlier, primary legislation would be needed.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he reconsider the wording? If your Lordships' House is confused by the title, family health services authorities, and is expected to understand that that means that it is not an authority, then I suggest that the public are likely to be equally if not more confused.
We have a chance to clear up the matter and so avoid a complete nonsense: that "authority" does not mean an authority. There are many other words that could be used. It does not have to be "authority". Perhaps the noble Lord, before Third Reading, will consider finding a term which does not need that extraordinary explanation. "Words mean what I want them to mean" as Humpty Dumpty said, but "authority" does not mean "authority".
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that everybody will not be confused because I have explained to the House that the FHSAs are not health authorities as defined. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will make matters even less clear.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I could interrupt the noble Lord.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is Report stage, but I will give way.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is Report stage. I thought I was allowed to ask a question. Indeed, I know that I am because I consulted the Clerks, who told me that I am allowed to ask a question, with all respect to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord drew our attention to Section 128 of the principal Act. That section defines a health authority. If it helps, I shall read it out:
"'Health Authority' means a Regional or Area Health Authority or a special health authority".
In other words, subsection (6) is not needed because it does not say that it means anything else. It says exactly what it means very clearly. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is entirely correct that this particular subsection is not needed. The principal Act makes the matter as clear as it is possible to make it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it does not make it clear. The FPCs have been renamed "authorities" and we felt that it was important to make it doubly clear to avoid any confusion over the new title. To remove subsection (6) would create further confusion and leave the matter open to doubt, which I am sure is not the intention of the noble Lord.
The noble Lord's principal purpose in moving the amendment is to facilitate merger between FHSAs and DHAs. As I explained, subsection (6) is no bar to that. It would need primary legislation. That idea was floated in the White Paper and in time it is something to come back to, but not in this Bill.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord was in the process of answering my question when he was abruptly interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I should like an answer as to whether it is possible at the third stage for the noble Lord to consider clearing up what undoubtedly is a confusion in the use of this term. There are many other words that he could introduce to convey the idea that he wants to convey. Why pick on the one word "authority" which is calculated to confuse?
Lord Henley: My Lords, of course we will look at it. It was something which emerged at Committee stage in another place. I cannot remember the name of the predecessor to FHSAs, after FPCs. Perhaps—dare one ask?—another place may have got it slightly wrong. We will be prepared to look at an alternative to "authority" if the noble Baroness or any noble Lord can come forward with an alternative. I leave the matter there.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the previous body was the family practitioner committee and its predecessor was the executive council. There are two alternatives—"council" or "committee" in place of "authority".
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion on the question "When is an authority not an authority?" The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is correct in saying that my principal objective was to pave the way—in the not too distant future—for the amalgamation of district health authorities with family health services authorities. He assures me that subsection (6) will not prevent that, but that primary legislation will be required.
I must accept his assurance. However, in the course of the debate, a certain amount of confusion has emerged. I am not sure that it was entirely satisfied by the technical explanation for the necessity of the term given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I was glad to hear him say that he will look at the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made two suggestions; perhaps I could make another. We had a family practitioner committee; why can we not have a family health services committee? That would surely allay the confusion that has arisen in this short debate. Before I decide what to do with the amendment I hope the noble Lord will inform me that he will make representations to his right

1535
honourable friend and explain that this House is extremely confused regarding the subsection. We may not be the only people confused by it in the future. If he will give that undertaking I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I certainly give the undertaking that I shall put to my right honourable friend the confusion in which this House found itself. I am sure that the House is no longer confused, because I have explained what the form is. But I promised to take this away and possibly we can come forward with a better title. They have already had a couple of attempts in another place but, as I said earlier, perhaps we can do better.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps encouraged by us they may do better next time. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Health Authorities and Family Health Services Authorities]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 69, line 18, at end insert:
("(a) at least one of the persons appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above must hold a post in a university with a medical or dental school; and
(b) ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 6, 9, 11 and 14. In this group of amendments we return to the important issue of the role of the universities in the decision-making machinery of regional and district health authorities. I have re-read the report of our debate in Committee on 19th April, and on that occasion your Lordships emphasised the key role—in a sense, the unique role—which the universities play in undergraduate and postgraduate education and training, and their contribution to clinical research.
Your Lordships recognised how closely these two strands are interwoven. It is crucial that in planning and delivering their respective contributions to the National Health Service, the universities and health authorities should closely reflect each other's role. Otherwise, neither will operate to proper effect and the loser will be the patient.
I know that my noble friend the Minister accepts these points. Indeed she emphasised in this House in Committee the importance of collaboration and joint working, and some important steps have already been taken by the Government to underpin the relationship between the universities and the health service, not least in promulgating the 10 principles of effective collaboration drawn up by the steering group chaired by the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health. This is an initiative which I warmly welcome.
Our debate in April revealed that the differences between us are narrow. The Government have said that they will make regulations under powers already included in the Bill, to ensure that all the district health authorities which have an important teaching
1536
involvement will include someone drawn from a university. They have also said that they expect that regional health authorities will often include someone appointed on a similar basis. Our differences boil down to what, if anything, should be included on the face of the Bill.
I appreciate that the Bill sets out a framework for the membership of the various authorities, which it is proposed to flesh out in regulations and, on the whole, I think that that is right. Things do change and it would be too inflexible for detailed membership of all authorities to be laid down. I also agree that we should avoid representative appointment, so as not to detract from the key management role which the new authorities will be expected to play.
But the role of the universities is different and, as I said earlier, unique. The universities are central to the proper management and future development of the National Health Service and, as I said at an earlier stage, they bring money to the table. Their contribution to the decision-making process is so vital that I am convinced that special provision needs to be made to safeguard this in primary legislation. The Government have recognised this in the case of the NHS trusts which have a significant teaching commitment, and, logically, I believe this must be extended to regions and districts.
These amendments bridge the gap between what the Government have already said and what many noble Lords who spoke with great conviction at Committee and Second Reading also believe. There is a requirement in them for each regional health authority to include someone from a university with a medical school, and for those districts, which will be listed in regulations—that is, the teaching districts—also to have at least one university member.
Perhaps I may also say that I was extremely grateful to receive a very helpful letter from an official of the department of my noble friend the Minister, in which he made the very important point that, in the case of the district health authorities, they would be drawn from a relevant university.
The amendments fit into the regulatory framework which the Government favour to keep options open for the future—for example, the definition of the teaching districts—and they consciously avoid any representative implication. But they enshrine the basic commitment to university membership, which I know will be valued by the academic community and which I regard as essential to the proper functioning, and the best functioning, of the NHS. I very much hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept these amendments. I commend them to the House.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
Line 4, leave out ("and (b)") and insert:
("(b) at least one of the persons appointed under sub-paragraph (l)(b) above must hold a post in a polytechnic or other institute of Higher Education; and
(c)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 as an amendment to Amendment

1537
No. 4, and in speaking to Amendment No. 12 as an amendment to Amendment No. 11, I must emphasise that I am not in any way disagreeing with my noble friend's amendment. In case any noble Lord feels that I am not following the formal procedure, may I say that I believe I am and that the suggested listing in the groupings is not correct? I believe the procedure is that one speaks to an amendment to an amendment at the appropriate stage. I have just checked the form.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I ask a question? I wonder whether somebody in authority—it must be the Minister, because I cannot see anybody else—can give us guidance. The Clerk cannot address us, so I must ask the Minister to tell us, with all the available wisdom of the Clerk, what is going on.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it, an amendment to an amendment must be taken in this order. I regret to say that this was not apparently taken into account when we were preparing the groupings, so it catches some of us on the hop.
Lord Peston: My Lords, on a matter of order, it is not just a question of catching us on the hop, because it will very much complicate questions of voting and decision-making generally. If I may be as blunt as I possibly can, I am extremely concerned that the amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has spoken will be accepted, on the grounds, as I understand it, that it may be acceptable to the Government. I have no knowledge, although I hope that it is the case, whether the amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is about to speak will also be acceptable to the Government. But if this amendment is dealt with earlier than the other amendment, we shall find ourselves in some difficulty about dividing the House. I am wondering whether any enlightenment can be thrown on any of those matters.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I can help by saying that it is the Government's intention to accept the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. Perhaps on that basis it will be helpful to continue in now discussing the amendment to the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this may well be out of order, but I should like to ask a question. Were it to happen that Amendment No. 5 of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was passed, is there any information that we can be given about what the Government view as the consequences of that, because we should then be debating the amended version of Amendment No. 4?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, as my noble friend looks slightly uncertain, may I say that I am not in the least unhappy about proceeding in the way which I believe to be the formal procedure of the House?—that an amendment to an amendment is taken. I am not sure that it is proper to proceed in any other way. I am sorry that it has caught noble Lords on the hop. It caught me on the hop when I
1538
saw the suggested groupings, because I thought that they might lead to some confusion. However, I hope that it will not affect consideration of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young, and that other noble Lords who have put their names to it, because I do not think the amendments are incompatible.
I was just going to say that, in moving this amendment to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Young and her other co-sponsors, I do not think I was in any way detracting from or disagreeing with my noble friend's amendment. It would be wonderful if my noble friend the Minister could accept our amendment as well, but I am pleased to hear that she will accept the amendment in the name of my noble friend. Do I have the agreement of the House that I may proceed on that basis?
As I appear to have your Lordships agreement, perhaps I may reiterate my point, which may not have been taken on board in the ensuing confusion about the order of the amendments. In moving Amendment No. 5, and in speaking to Amendment No. 12 as an amendment to Amendment No. 11, I am not in any way disagreeing with or trying to detract from Amendment No. 4. However, my colleagues and I felt it was important to raise what we deemed to be a related issue.
In so doing I am sadly aware that I speak on behalf of that sector of higher education which does not enjoy representation in your Lordships' House of the same size and stature as those who so powerfully and eloquently represent the universities. I suspect that I am the only member of your Lordships' House on these Benches who chose to study and later to teach at a polytechnic rather than at a university. I did so for a variety of reasons. I therefore feel a deep commitment to the non-university sector of higher education and to what at its best it has achieved. I must also declare an interest as a governor of Dorset Institute, which makes a significant contribution to the education of health care professionals.
During the passage of the Education Reform Bill the Government gave a number of pledges to evenhandedness in future treatment of polytechnics and universities. We now have funding bodies with broadly similar rules, regulations and constitutions. Therefore I believe that the position with regard to the relationship with the National Health Service is one in which this evenhandedness should also apply.
The universities train doctors and dentists and a very small proportion of other health professionals, including some nurses. But the polytechnics and other higher education colleges train the vast majority of paramedical staff—nurses, physiotherapists and a range of other health service professionals. Those staff greatly outnumber doctors and dentists and are quite as important to the future of the National Health Service as their medical counterparts in terms of the provision of high quality, safe care. There is also substantial investment in many polytechnics into joint research with National Health Service hospitals and with other institutions. Therefore, the only basis for training sufficient National Health Service personnel at appropriate levels must be close co-operation

1539
between both universities and polytechnics together with National Health Service policy-making bodies.
Obviously, medical and dental manpower and their research investment in universities are very important, but so too are the other professions necessary for the delivery of health care. It is estimated that in 1990 there will be more than 16,800 students on relevant courses in non-university colleges and the number will increase quite dramatically in the next few years as Project 2000 for nurse education gathers momentum. If my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is to maintain, and be seen to maintain, any degree of the promised evenhandedness with regard to institutions of higher education, and if he is to take seriously the planning of health services and their manpower requirements, it will be important for this amendment to be considered sympathetically. I very much hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will do precisely that. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has just said has an obvious, instant and rather sympathetic appeal to us all. However, I should like to point out that there is a fundamental difference between the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and that which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has moved. Within the operation of the health service some of the premises are owned, many of them are equipped and many of the staff who are there are paid for by the universities. Reciprocally, it is the case that what is done within the universities affects the health service. It is therefore of the greatest importance that the university voice should somehow be heard at the decision-making table of the health authorities. In the same way the health authorities should have a voice at the highest level of the universities. However, the latter is not the issue before us today.
This is a fundamental difference which involves resources of all kinds. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in an earlier debate, money is brought to the table. It is also brought to the table from other departments—from the Department of Education and Science via the Universities Funding Council, which spends a very great deal. Around 20 per cent, of total university resources is spent on medical education though only about 8 per cent, of the students are future doctors and dentists. It is also the case that the Medical Research Council, also funded by the Department of Education and Science, counts on certain facilities being available which can be provided only by health authorities. To that extent the universities are acting as surrogates for that department in those two activities of education and research, and are spending money on which the health authorities themselves count for their official running. I leave aside the question of the care of patients because that is a matter of common interest which involves nurses and paramedicals. I hope that I have made that distinction quite clear.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, while I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, perhaps I may say that I sympathise with
1540
the intentions underlying the amendment to the amendment. But having said that, and while I acknowledge the enormous contribution to the health care of the nation now being made by those trained in the polytechnics and other institutions of higher education, including not only nurses and physiotherapists but many of the other people working in the caring professions, the difference to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has referred is crucial and fundamental.
I hope very much that in choosing the non-executive directors of health authorities, the Secretary of State, and in the case of district authorities, the regional health authority, will take account of the contributions, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has referred, which are made to the health care of the nation by those educated in those institutions. Therefore I trust that some individuals who are employed by those institutions will be chosen as members of health authorities. But the fundamental difference relating to the close inter-relationship between the universities and the hospitals of the NHS is such, as was so clearly put by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, as to make their representation—forgive me, I must not use that word—their voice being heard in the health authorities much less fundamental than in the case made out so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in relation to the university voice. I therefore, with reluctance, oppose the amendment to the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I rise with a great deal of sadness, especially after the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I was concerned about our procedure, which I entirely accept is standard procedure, because I did not want to make the speech that I am about to make about the role of the universities and conduct an argument between the universities and the polytechnics. But I shall now have to make it.
I say outright that I support Amendment No. 4. I have no problem with that at all. I simply hoped to make a short speech on Amendment No. 4, have that accepted and then move on to Amendment No. 5. It now appears that Amendment No. 5 in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is much more serious than I had appreciated.
Perhaps I may refer your Lordships to the Education Reform Bill and reiterate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, dealt with the Bill for the Government and I dealt with it for this side of the House. We were told that the Government were fully committed to treating universities and the polytechnics evenhandedly. The Government were not able to say much at that time about money—money is always a problem—but in terms of how they would approach the polytechnics the Government left us in no doubt of their view; and it was a view accepted fully by this side of the House.
Perhaps I may also say in regard to the Education Reform Bill that many people outside the House said to me that our proceedings showed yet again how the universities, and particularly the friends of the universities in your Lordships' House,

1541
manipulated the procedures so that they get their way, while no one else had that kind of leverage. To that I say, no, because in your Lordships' House we always discuss all matters on their merits and there is no question of leverage or anything of that kind which arises.
Nonetheless, in hearing the two interventions made by the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Walton, whom I normally support on pretty well everything, I see again the same phenomenon at work. I hark back, first of all, to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which carried the correct intellectual weight. She referred to the role of the universities in undergraduate and postgraduate education and training. She referred to their contribution to research and the collaboration between the educators, the trainers and those who acted.
Quite rightly, she also said that it was not a question of a representative but viewing the matter in terms of who could be helped. My argument is very clear. It carries over mutatis mutandis entirely to the polytechnics. They too train and educate large numbers of people. They train almost all the paramedics including the nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. They also have considerable responsibility for pharmacists. The polytechnics also carry out research. It is not sufficiently appreciated how much research is going on in the polytechnic world. A great deal more would take place if the polytechnics were treated even-handedly when it comes to access to the research councils.
There can be no doubt whatever that the logic of this kind of amendment cannot be allowed to revolve around the argument of resources. That is a preposterous argument, though I will throw it into the balance in order to get the amendment through. However, that argument cannot carry any intellectual weight.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene by raising one small point. In this connection I classify universities which do not have medical or dental schools in exactly the same way as the polytechnics and other institutions of higher education. It is because the universities with medical and dental schools bring money, facilities and premises to the table that I took the view that I did. I hope that that point is clarified.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I understand the point but I do not see the logic of it at all. We are here discussing due consideration for the appropriate membership of the regional health authority. Desirable though it is to bring money to the table, it cannot possibly bear the weight of the argument that we are discussing. We are discussing something deeper in terms of public policy. The polytechnics engage in this kind of education and training and no one doubts the importance of their contribution. The universities also engage in it. I have to underline the fact that I am not trying undermine Amendment No. 4 in any sense whatever. I am simply saying that the logic attached to Amendment No. 4 carries over to Amendment No. 5.
1542
Finally, I echo the remarks that I made earlier. I have spent all my life as a university teacher. A great deal of my public service has been involved with the Council for National Academic Awards and with its economics committee, of which I was the first chairman. As I argued when we were discussing the Education Reform Bill, one of the great triumphs of higher education in this country is our success in the polytechnics. As we move forward I am always concerned to emphasise that that triumph must be reinforced. It is an area where I hope that the Government will accept what they have already said; namely, that the polytechnics must be treated in an even-handed way. I wait to hear what my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, says about this amendment. I press this amendment very strongly and ask at least for the Government to go away and think about it again.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I shall try not to muddy the water still further. I am a fervent supporter of the polytechnics and that must be so because I have a son and a daughter who are lecturers in polytechnics. While they do a great deal of important work in the training of various people who work in the National Health Service, it is not my understanding of the nature of the polytechnics that any polytechnic actually has wards in which there are patients, whereas there are many universities or medical schools which have wards full of patients. They are doing National Health Service work.
Academic clinical staff employed by the universities are crucial National Health Service workers. There is a difference there and I hope that it can be understood. If I am a little bit uneasy about the noble Baroness's amendment to the amendment, it is on those grounds. It is absolutely essential that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is carried. I have talked to the medical schools and I do not know of a single one—nor any university—in which people will not be desperately unhappy if the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not accepted. I accept that the polytechnics have to be properly looked after, but I ask noble Lords to accept that they are in a slightly different position because they do not treat patients. They train people who treat patients, whereas universities and medical schools actually treat and care for patients, and that is the difference.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am bound to say—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness winding up or is she going to speak again?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment No. 5 with—if I may say so to my noble friend Lady Cox—considerable unhappiness at the way the discussion has gone on it. I am second to none in my admiration for the work done by the polytechnics. Though I cannot in any way equal the experience of my noble friend in a polytechnic perhaps I can show my credentials by saying that I was once a governor of a polytechnic though I am

1543
not now because other things have come into my life.
I believe that polytechnics have an immensely important role to play in our national life. It is different from that of universities but equally important. That is why I supported wholeheartedly all the proposals in the Education Reform Act which indicated the even-handedness to which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred. That is very important. I do not believe that there is anyone in your Lordships' House who does not accept that to be the case. There is, however, a difference in this particular set of amendments between my amendment, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Dainton, Lord Walton and Lord Adrian, and the amendment of my noble friend Lady Cox.
I said in my speech that there was one immediate distinction in that the universities bring money to the table. I said that at Committee stage and I repeated it today. It is about £240 million, which is not very much in the context of the National Health Service. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, quite properly said, it is a very large sum of money if it is taken from the total amount of money in university funds. There is a very real link between the universities and the Department of Education and Science on this particular matter.
Unlike the noble Lords, Lord Dainton, Lord Walton and Lord Adrian, I cannot speak from personal experience of medical research. However, I know enough about hospitals to appreciate these very important links. I know that professors of medicine actually have patients in hospital. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has quite properly said, they have patients whom they are treating. There is an interaction which is unique in our experience.
Therefore, I hope very much that my noble friend Lady Cox will not press her amendment. I believe that the Government will say that the relationship with the universities is a particular one and that it is different from other relationships. It would affect my amendment very much were my noble friend's amendment to be carried.
I wish to conclude my remarks by saying that what I have said is not meant in any way to denigrate the work of the polytechnics nor to pursue the argument that somehow the medical profession has such a sway over your Lordships' House that doctors have only to speak and we all fall at their feet. We are very fortunate in your Lordships' House in having the benefit of so many people with medical experience.
I really do not believe that Members of your Lordships' House are so unable to think for themselves that they are continuously swayed by one group of people on all issues. The situation is quite the contrary. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will speak after me and I know of his great interest in polytechnics. Were we to have a debate on that aspect of the matter it would carry everyone's support.
In my view there are two great distinctions in the matter. I am delighted that my noble friend the
1544
Minister said that she would accept the amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. It would be most unfortunate if Amendment No. 5 were to be pressed. I think that it would alter the character of my amendment. Moreover, I could not be so sure that it would carry. I believe that my amendments are very important and I hope that my noble friend Lady Cox will not press her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am very confused by these most interesting statements about universities and polytechnics in relation to these amendments. I should like to ask one question merely for clarification. It seems to me that the distinction which is being made is not really a distinction between universities and polytechnics—if it were I would be entirely on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in saying that no such distinction should be made. Surely it is a distinction between institutions of higher education with a medical or dental school and institutions of higher education without a medical or dental school. That is the distinction which is being made.
It may well be that we ought to have included not only a medical or dental school but also a nursing school or some other school involving the paramedicals. However, that is not mentioned in the amendment so we cannot vote on the matter. It would help me a great deal if I could be told that that is the aspect about which we are talking—that they should be represented because they have these medical, dental or (and this is not in the amendment) other training schools and not because they are either universities or polytechnics. I should be very glad to receive some clarification on that point.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Both she and my noble friend Lord Peston put forward the argument more effectively than I could have done. On the whole, they speak with far more authority on the matter. However, I have but one claim to put to the House. I opened the first debate on polytechnics which took place last year and I have spoken twice on the subject this year. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will say that no one wishes to denigrate the polytechnics. However, no one over the past 45 years since I have been here has wanted to denigrate them; but no one has mentioned them in any serious sense.
The polytechnics have been treated—and this was generally accepted in the debate which I opened last year—as second-class citizens. That is the position in which they have found themselves. I am afraid that all the goodwill directed towards them in the abstract will not convince anyone concerned with them that they are receiving a fair deal.
We have heard many utterances and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that the Government stated that the polytechnics would be treated on an equal footing. There may be distinctions which have been drawn between the universities and the polytechnics, but I would say that this is a test case. However, a test case will not be the end of the story because I am sure that many other such cases will arise. I hope that in the next few years polytechnics, which, after

1545
all, educate more than half of those in higher education, will be treated much better than they have been in the past. But I am afraid that protestations of general goodwill without any actual support in practice cut no ice with me and I think that they would cut none whatever with anyone who loves polytechnics.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the course of this short debate we have perhaps strayed slightly from the essential point. Nevertheless, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that the Government are fully aware of the essential part played by polytechnics and other institutions of higher education in the education and training of staff serving in many areas of the National Health Service. There can be no doubt of the parity of esteem in which the polytechnics are held as establishments of higher learning. I stress that point because in finding that I must reject the thinking behind this amendment, I wish to underline the gratitude we all owe to those whose work is to train the staff of the National Health Service.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, there will be nothing to prevent postholders at polytechnics and institutes of higher education from being appointed to health authorities. However, those appointments would be made on the basis of personal qualities. It would be for each authority to decide which knowledge and skills it needs among its membership. We do not wish to be prescriptive, as we have maintained consistently, nor do we wish the newly-streamlined boards to increase in size. It is important that the best person for the job is found in every case and that is not achieved by legal constraint.
I turn now to deal with the question of the difference in the position with regard to universities. This has been explained by many noble Lords who have pertinent personal experience. The special relationship between those universities which have a medical and dental school—as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, and which is the description in the amendment previously moved by my noble friend Lady Young—exists because of the situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley; namely, that as a result of having that medical or dental school, they also have clinical academics who are directly involved in the provision of health care to National Health Service patients. I believe that that is an essential difference between the two groups of amendments. I hope that that difference can be accepted and that, on that basis, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I regret the confusion which arose at the outset of the debate. However, that confusion was not of my making. I hope that it has not detracted from the presentation of the arguments. I am most grateful for the arguments which have been put forward by noble Lords, and for the fact that there has been at least some support for the spirit of the two amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
I still believe that there is an important point of principle involved in this matter. I am grateful for
1546
the point which was made regarding clarification. I refer to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she suggested that perhaps we were talking about those areas which contain institutions of higher education relating to the training of paramedical professionals. Indeed, I think that that was the spirit of our amendment and I shall take that point on board when thinking where we should take the matter from here.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I believe that there are still many parallels which exist between both sectors of higher education regarding the institutes concerned in these amendments in terms of the size and the contributions of education and training, and, to a lesser extent—although to a significant extent—in terms of research. I accept that there is not a comparable input of resources. However, that is only one among a constellation of principles which were involved in trying to ensure that there was representation from the non-university sector of higher education in these important policy-making bodies relating to health.
I believe that the Government should be applying this principle of even-handedness in respect of the two sectors of higher education. To that extent, although I know that my noble friend the Minister voiced the sentiment, I am disappointed in the substance of her reply. I believe that it will send negative vibes through the non-university sector because it is still a symptom of an invidious and increasingly unwarranted distinction.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, I am happy to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young. I have no wish in any way to jeopardise that amendment. I am sorry that my noble friend thought that our amendment might do so. I am a realist and, therefore, I have no wish to jeopardise my noble friend's amendment.
I realise that until the reality of a parity of esteem reflected inter alia in representation in your Lordships' House and elsewhere—I recognise that that is not the only criterion—is recognised and achieved, the amendment as it currently stands is probably not the most appropriate one to put forward. I may wish to reserve judgment and consider whether an amendment which takes account of training establishments and their contribution to health authorities would be more appropriate on Third Reading. In the meantime, I do not believe that it would be a good use of your Lordships' time to press the amendment and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 69, line 19, after ("the") insert ("other").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords I wish to place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Hooper and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the immense amount of help that they have given with the amendment, and also my thanks to

1547
the many officials in my noble friend's department who have been so helpful. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 69, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding sub-paragraph at least one person appointed under sub-paragraph (l)(b) above shall be a person with special knowledge of the needs of disabled persons and in selecting any such person regard shall be had to the desirability of the person with that knowledge being a disabled person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 15, 17 and 19. All the amendments deal with the role of disabled people. It may be argued that the principle behind the amendment is in conflict with Amendment No. 1 which we debated earlier and which of course was defeated. I submit that that is not so. There is no question with this amendment of giving any organisation or group the right to appoint onto health authorities or family health service authorities a person who is either disabled or has knowledge of disabled people. My argument is that there is at present an in-built prejudice against appointing disabled people to public posts. That applies not just to the health service, as it is now, but to many other public positions. We are dealing with the health service.
The thought, too often, is that disabled people are excellent people but that they could not cope. When we look at the role played in the health service and your Lordships' House by the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady MacLeod, and many others who are not necessarily wheelchair borne, we see that they are living proof to the contrary. They can cope.
As I said in the debate which took place on 19th April, we are now better informed about the extent of disability as a result of the publication of the OPCS survey which discloses that there are more than 6 million disabled people in this country. The problem of disability, and the need to shape the health service to meet the challenges, is greater than we recognised it to be before the OPCS study. It is a community care problem and it is also an NHS problem, because an increasing proportion of the people using NHS facilities are disabled. Many of them are of course elderly. The majority of disabled people are elderly.
We are dealing with a growing proportion of those served by the NHS. Furthermore, as people continue to live longer, the proportion of disabled people increases. I drew attention to another point in our debate on 19th April; namely, that for many people illness or accident is a temporary break in a pattern of good health, but for disabled people their disability is something with which they live; and it is extremely important that we ensure that all levels of health authorities are conscious of the needs of disabled people. They should shape policies so that the health service meets the needs of disabled people.
At present disabled people are not served as well as they should be by the National Health Service. We have the unfortunate situation that significant
1548
parts of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which refers to the representation of disabled people—the amendment is in line with that Act—have not been implemented. I hope that your Lordships feel that the provision would be helpful. When replying to the debate on 19th April the Minister said:
"People from all groups would prefer to be judged on equal terms on their merits rather than be appointed on some sort of quota system".—[Official Report, 19/4/90; col. 209.]
The amendment does not suggest a quota system nor, as I said at the beginning, does it suggest that any organisation for disabled people should have the prescriptive right to make appointments. The amendment suggests:
"Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding sub-paragraph at least one person appointed … shall be a person with special knowledge of the needs of disabled persons and in selecting any such person regard shall be had to the desirability of the person with that knowledge being a disabled person".
I hope that the House will agree with the amendment. I am afraid that it is true, as I have said, that there is a prejudice against appointing disabled people. When that is the position, we sometimes have to have a little bias in the other direction. I call it a nudge towards recognising the needs of disabled people and perhaps towards involving them to an increasing extent. It is a bit of positive discrimination. I hope that your Lordships will give your support to it. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, on behalf of disabled people I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals for bringing up this matter. I have served on a regional health authority for some years. I hope that I did not serve on it because I was a disabled person. I should want to serve on it because of my interest in all health needs, whatever they may be.
On the other hand, I have found some amazing problems. A few months ago I went to the opening of a multi-million pound hospital. I was greeted and asked whether I should like to try out the lavatories. A special lavatory had been built on each floor for someone in a wheelchair, but one was unable to shut the door. The building had been skimped. I took regional officers to show them. I do not believe that they had ever done anything as lowly as going into a lavatory for disabled people. They were interested. The district blamed the region and the region blamed the Department of Health. No one owned up to having done anything wrong, but of course a great deal of money had been wasted.
The department should get its act together and pass down to regions and districts the necessity of having proper building regulations to cope with the needs of disabled people. It is useful to have people on the authorities who know about the needs of disabled people. Their knowledge needs to be wide because there are so many disabilities. It comes back to the need to have not just business and professional people on health authorities but people who understand and care about the many and varied needs of individuals and, in particular, of patients, many of whom will be elderly disabled.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is right. It is crucial that at each level there should be far more awareness than there now is of the detailed as well as the general needs of disabled people. She made an important remark when she said that she was not on the authority because she was a disabled person. We all know about it and we also know that she is a very experienced person who would not consider that it was her job simply to speak up for disabled people all the time on the authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, understands and feels these matters deeply, he puts this subject before us assidously on many Bills. He is quite right to do so. With respect to him, however, it is not the best way to appoint somebody disabled to represent disabled people. I know that the noble Lord did not imply that, but that is what is likely to happen. If one is the statutory disabled person, one is inclined to feel that that is one's role. There is the wrong kind of watchdog operation, that person probably does not even notice the problems mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I hope that more than one person on an authority would understand disabled people, although they would not all be disabled, of course. However, the amendment is not the right way to deal with the problem. The noble Lord is right to put it before us, to remind us, but I hope that he will not press it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she tell me what is the right way to do it? The problem is that, unless one gives a nudge and a reminder at the time when people are appointed, then too often what we want does not happen. If we took a poll of members of health authorities and asked how many of them—not necessarily those who are themselves disabled; I have tried to cover the matter both ways—were experienced in the needs of the disabled, we might find that the number is small. We must find a way of putting matters right when something is wrong. If the noble Baroness had not simply said that my method was wrong but had then suggested another method, that might have helped. However, in the absence of another method, this at least is one way of dealing with it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thought I had suggested that it was extremely important when appointments were made to be quite sure that there were on the authorities people who understood, and probably more than one such person. There may be a number who understood. As the noble Lord says, this is a growing part of the task in the health service. I do not know what my noble friend has to say on this,—she may have an answer, but I do not feel that this amendment is it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we recognise that the needs of disabled people account for a significant and increasing demand on health service provision. I quite agree with the general point and your Lordships know that the Government place a high priority on services to the disabled.
1550
There will be nothing to stop disabled people from being appointed. As we have established with the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, some people already play a full role in the work of some health authorities. I believe, and I repeat what was reinforced by the noble Baroness, that people would prefer to be judged on equal terms on the basis of their own merits.
I also recognise that these amendments go further than simply requesting that disabled people should be represented on the boards. As regards putting people with experience of the needs of the disabled on boards, again many health authorities and FPC members currently have, perhaps not direct personal experience of disability, but experience through relatives, friends or neighbours. We find that those who do not have that personal experience make it their business to see that they are informed about the special needs and problems of disabled people. For example, they visit units that serve them and study the advice of professionals in the field. This will be just as important for members of the reformed health authorities and FHSAs as it is now. I take on board the example quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Against this background and given our firm intention that people should be appointed to health authorities and FHSAs for their personal qualities and not to represent interest groups of any kind, I believe that the approach suggested in these amendments is not the best way forward. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will therefore see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Perhaps I ought to make the point that in terms of guidance and encouragement and in every other way in relation to appointments being made, we shall of course encourage the widest possible—again I hesitate to use the word "representation"—spread of people on the boards.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am afraid I am not satisfied. Of course I am always grateful to the noble Baroness. The first point I wish to make is that if someone on the board is either disabled or conversant with the needs and interests of disabled people, those are not that person's only interests. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is the best example; we have already heard the noble Baroness, Lady Camegy, say that she is on the health board not because she is disabled but because she brings a vital element to it.
We now have far smaller health authority boards of approximately 11 members. Unless the provision is written upon the face of the Bill it is very likely that we shall find a group of 11 people none of whom has a particular knowledge of or interest in the needs of the disabled. This is a paramount interest in the health service, as the noble Baroness said. She told us that there was far more awareness and many more demands on the health service by disabled people. She underlined that there was nothing to stop disabled people being appointed. There is nothing in the Bill to stop Mandy Rice-Davies being appointed to a health service board or Bobby Robson or Charlie Farnesbarnes or anyone.

1551
Nothing in the Bill says that anyone should not be appointed. However, I wish to ensure that disabled people or those who have experience of the disabled are appointed. In one way or another I personally have been involved in the field of disability, year after year, decade after decade. I have too often heard people say that it is not appropriate, and, because it is not appropriate, what we want does not happen. I suppose that that is why parts of the 1986 Act have still not been implemented. Of course I shall divide the House on the issue.
5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Warnock, B.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Burton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Boardman, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Bolton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Colnbrook, L.

1552

Colwyn, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Morris, L.

Crook, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Denman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Erne, E.

Orkney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pennock, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gisborough, L.

Quinton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Reay, L.

Haig, E.

Renwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Richardson, L.

Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

Halsbury, E.

Rootes, L.

Harlech, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hesketh, L.

Somers, L.

Hives, L.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Howe, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sudeley, L.

Killearn, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kitchener, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Layton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Limerick, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lyell, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wise, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wolfson, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 69, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) No person who is a member of a Regional Health Authority shall own shares in or be otherwise involved with the private medical sector.
() A register of Regional Health Authority members' interests shall be established in which members will declare their business interests. This register shall be open to public scrutiny.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 16, 18 and 20 which are all logically connected and make much the same point. Noble Lords will recall that this amendment was brought before us in Committee. I do not wish to take up a lot of the time of your Lordships in going over all the ground again. However, when we debated these amendments fairly late at night in Committee I asked the Minister whether she would reflect on the issues involved. I pointed out in particular that I felt this matter involved the question of standards in public life. I do not know whether the Minister has reflected on this matter but I certainly have. The more I look at the matter, the more concern I have.
In Committee the Minister made a number of important points. She emphasised that there are already safeguards in any event. She referred us to the safeguards in connection with matters such as conflicts of interest. As I said at the time, I was obliged for the light that the noble Baroness threw on those matters. However, I come back to this matter, albeit briefly, to make sure noble Lords appreciate the nature of the change in the National Health Service that will result from the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Ennals often refers to language, but this is not just a matter of language. The Bill brings in more than the language of markets; it brings in, as it were, the methods of markets. The Bill is about competition and contracts. The Bill hopes to ensure that services which are provided at least cost or for a given cost are the best services that can be provided. There can be no doubt that some of the competition we have in mind is competition between what we would call, to put it simply, the public and private sectors. However, in terms of the public sector, as it were, some of the relevant inputs will concern competition between parts of the private sector.
There can be no doubt whatever that, whether we are discussing regional health authorities, district health authorities or family health services authorities—we know the latter are not health authorities, despite their name—we must bear in mind the need for openness and the need for the avoidance of conflict of interest and all the related matters. I return to this theme not because I wish to divide your Lordships' House on the matter but simply to remind your Lordships of its importance and to see whether the Government have had any further thoughts on it.
It may well be that my next point was implicit in what the noble Baroness said to me in her answer on a previous occasion. I understand from a statement that the noble Baroness made that the term "guidance" represents a strong form of action on the part of the Secretary of State. Will the remarks she made about taking possible conflicts of interest and possible pecuniary interests into account be covered by the guidance that the Secretary of State issues? I speak as someone who is not an expert on these matters. For all I know, such guidance may already exist. I raise this matter simply in the hope of hearing a little more from the noble Baroness. If she is unable to give me all the answers to my questions now, I am always content to have that information sent to me later. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, your Lordships are already familiar with the Government's intention to leave health authorities and the new FHSAs as free as possible from membership restrictions. The suggested exclusion potentially could deprive the National Health Service of the benefits of much valuable experience. As my right honourable friend made clear in another place, and as I explained in Committee, health authority appointments will not be made where it is clear that there will be a substantial conflict of interest in relation to the authority. Those decisions can only be made by looking at individual cases. It would not necessarily
1554
be helpful to impose such a sweeping restriction as the one proposed here.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness, and also apologise to her for not having looked fully at my notes when making my own speech. On the last occasion she made the point that she has just made. I found what she said extremely encouraging. However, I meant to ask her this time how the people making the appointments will obtain that information. Will it become a standard procedure to ask anyone who is likely to be appointed to declare their interests so that they can be ruled out if they have the wrong interests? How will the Minister or whoever else is involved obtain the relevant information? I am sorry to have to come back to that point.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there will be the normal ways of finding out. A major conflict of interest may be apparent from the CV of the candidate. Obviously that kind of background information will be the norm. Otherwise, in terms of interviewing techniques it will be one of the questions that will be asked. It is our intention that the matter should be included in the guidance that will be issued in respect of these appointments.
I was going on to say that we have reflected on this issue and many others since the Committee stage. I cannot add anything to what I said in Committee with respect to the various safeguards that exist in terms of regulations requiring a chairman or a member to declare pecuniary interests. If anyone believes that a chairman or a member of a particular board might not declare a pecuniary interest which should be declared, whatever their motives might be, such a member would be just as likely to fail to declare his interests on a register. Therefore, I do not believe that there is a loophole there.
The matter will be dealt with in regulations rather than in guidance. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. She has thrown a little more light on the issue although, as always, having thrown some light on it she has raised another matter which leaves me again confused. I seem to go backwards every time I go forwards. Did I understand her to say that the matter would be dealt with by regulations and not by guidance? I did not think that it was a question of either regulations or guidance. I thought that one could have both regulations and guidance. Is the noble Baroness saying that it will not be included in guidance but it will be in regulations, or that it will be in regulations and may also be in guidance?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there will be new membership regulations that will be supplemented by guidance when necessary.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that answer. Although I should obviously prefer my amendments to be on the face

1555
of the Bill, I find hers a good second best. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 69, line 35, at end insert ("but subject to sub-paragraph (3) below").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 69, line 38, at end insert:
("(3) In the case of a prescribed authority, at least one of the persons appointed under sub-paragraph (l)(b) above must hold a post in a university with a medical or dental school.").
[Amendment No. 12, as an amendment to Amendment No. 11, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 11 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 70, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 2 and insert:
("Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 2 above apply in relation to sub-paragraph (1) above as they apply").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 20 not moved.]
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 71, line 10, at end insert:
("8A. At the end of sub-paragraph (1A) there shall be inserted—
"1AA. Regulations or directions under sub-paragraph (1) above shall provide that the employment of staff by Health Authorities or NHS Trusts in the House Officer and the Senior House Officer grades shall be on terms which provide that—

(a) junior hospital doctors shall not be required, after 1st January 1993, to work or be available for work for more than 72 hours in any one working week, averaged over a one-month period, and

(b) the Secretary of State may by order from 1st January 1991 reduce the working hours specified in subsection (a) above in stages to 72 hours, and

(c) subsection (a) above shall not apply in the event of a state of emergency proclaimed by Her Majesty under section 1(1) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, or a major accident procedure or its equivalent being put into operation, and

(d) on the application of a Health Authority or NHS Trust, the Secretary of State may by order make modifications or adaptations of subsections (a) or (b) above for individual cases in exceptional circumstances.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again I wish to present to the House a matter which is fast becoming a hardy perennial—namely, the matter of junior hospital doctors' hours. The wording of Amendment No. 21 is very similar to the wording of the Private Member's Bill which your Lordships' House passed in all its stages last year. In speaking to Amendment No. 21, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 68, which applies to the position of junior hospital doctors working in independent hospital trusts, where I should like the same regulations to apply.
The Government acknowledge that it is their aim that junior hospital doctors should not be required
1556
to be available for work for more than 72 hours, which is also the aim of the junior doctors in the Hospital Junior Staffs Committee of the BMA. However, at present they have not even achieved across the country a one-in-three rota, which in effect works out at at least 83 hours working or being available for work. Very often, however, with a one-in-three rota more than the contracted number of approximately 83 hours are worked. For example, on the evenings when a junior hospital doctor can go home, he or she usually is not able to do so promptly at 5.30 or 6 o'clock as should be the case. Frequently, as responsible professionals they are busy finishing off numerous tasks until 7, 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening, often after they have had an exhausting night on duty the previous night. As I mentioned at the Committee Stage, Dr. Robin Dowie, in her very careful survey in 1988—which, incidentally, was commissioned by the Department of Health—found that 90 hours working or on call was the average.
It must not be thought that being on call is an easy part of the job. More often than not, in normally busy specialties, 5 or 6 hours or less are available for sleep during a night on call. That sleep is often interrupted by several calls to deal with emergencies in which that junior doctor may have to make life or death decisions. That sleep-deprived doctor then usually has to do a full day's work before being able to rest. That will be the case even if the universal one-in-three rota which the Government are trying to achieve is achieved.
That is not good enough. A person running a family enterprise for profit—for example, a retail business or a restaurant—can work as long as he or she likes. A mistake is unlikely to result in loss of life, but that is not the case with health care, particularly health care being provided in a public enterprise, the National Health Service. Other occupations where lives are at risk from the possible mistakes of operatives—for instance, those involving public service vehicles, heavy road transport vehicles and airlines—have strict rules to prevent over-fatigue. But the National Health Service does not.
If the amendment is adopted, it will give the Government two and a half years to make the necessary changes in hospital working arrangements. It is the expressed wish of the Hospital Junior Staffs Committee of the BMA to press for legislation because of the slow progress of other measures. As a realist, I should like to tell the noble Baroness that I would be prepared to put back the date if that would help the legislation to reach the statute book.
The noble Baroness will no doubt tell us that to increase the number of junior hospital doctors in order to decrease their hours would put out of balance the ratio of junior doctors to consultants so that many junior hospital doctors would not have a career post to look forward to. However, several studies have shown that, to achieve 72 hours, only a small increase in the number of junior hospital doctors is required. The reduction in hours can largely be achieved by a rearrangement of current rota systems, by levels of cover and by bringing in from outside hospital general practitioners as

1557
assistants to help run out-patient clinics for which many of them are well trained, often having recently worked in the same hospital.
In the longer term, the balance between the different halves of the profession can be achieved by creating considerably more consultant posts than is proposed in the White Paper Working for Patients. That would greatly improve the efficiency of the National Health Service as well as enabling hours to come down to an eventual level of 60 hours per week which is the long-term aim of those working for a fair deal for this overworked group on whom the National Health Service depends. I beg to move.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I support the amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it. I know that they are thinking along the lines that we proposed. I know from statements made by the Minister, Mrs. Bottomley, that she is sympathetic and is working towards trying to create exactly what we want. The amendment will strengthen her hand. I should therefore like included in the Bill this requirement regarding the hours worked by junior hospital doctors. That would strengthen the Minister's hand and accelerate the solution to the problem. I hope that when the Minister replies she will take that point on board. I believe that both sides of the House are in agreement about the principle, if not the approach. A little flexibility on the Government's part will enable us to achieve that aim. I hope to hear a little flexibility from the Minister.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I cannot accept the argument that increasing the number of junior staff need necessarily spoil the pyramid of promotion. It seems to me that, with a little more expense, you also increase the number of consultants. As it takes three months to see a consultant in certain cases, I should have thought that that was a good thing to do anyway. Having listened to the last debate on this subject, I remain unconvinced that consultants should not pull their weight more and take a certain amount of pressure off the junior doctors which, if it was done cleverly, would surely help to improve the situation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the amendment deals with an issue about which people in many parts of the House and the country are concerned. There is no doubt that in some hospitals the hours worked by junior doctors are unfair to them and perhaps even more unfair to their patients.
Whether legislation is the right answer is perhaps a more difficult question. Having been trained as a lawyer, my instinct is not to legislate unless it is shown to be absolutely necessary. The trouble with legislation is that you tie yourself down and often discover that you have imposed limitations which you did not intend. I therefore hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something hopeful on the merits of the matter. I shall be interested to hear her view as to whether it is a matter which is best legislated upon or best dealt with as the result of competent direction of the
1558
service. I rather like the idea posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that some relief could be given by making senior consultants take over some of the work. In one or two hospitals that I have seen, that would be fair comment; it would do no harm to anyone. Indeed, it would do the patients quite a lot of good.
I hope that my noble friend will give a sympathetic reply on the merits of the issue. I am sure that she is aware that there is public concern and that the Government are expected to give a lead. Whether by legislation, by administration or by other means is a matter which she is much more competent to decide than I am. I ask her to reply sympathetically and to tell us what the Government intend to do.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, having been trained as a doctor, I have an instinctive dislike of the thought of any control through regulation or legislation of a doctor's duties towards his patients. For the most part, young doctors are extremely keen—they certainly should be—to learn and to work with patients during the early years of their training. They stay on duty because that is their wish. They follow the cases through because they know that that is how life will have to be for them, and they know that that is how they should carry on their affairs.
However, I agree that excessive hours can lead to exhaustion. In a long life, I cannot say that I have ever come across a single instance of a young house officer having made a serious mistake through exhaustion. It may well have happened in the case of consultants. I am therefore strongly in favour of urging the Government to make every effort to reduce the hours worked by most of these young people. However, I would be totally opposed to any imposition upon them to cut down their times so as to meet a schedule and thus interfere with their absolute right to care for their patients and to acquire experience in the early days of their careers, just as the rest of us felt it our right for the rest of our lives.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, anyone who has close family and friends working therapeutically within the health service is clearly very concerned about the implications of the amendment. I seem to recall that the problem of junior doctors' working hours has been continuing for some years. It is not a new matter. Similarly, those of us who do not work therapeutically in the health service are equally bothered about how the situation will be resolved. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put his finger on the problem.
There is also the question of the geographical location of the hospital. A teaching hospital may well have sufficient junior doctors. I speak advisedly, and if I am talking through my hat I shall no doubt be told so. But I am thinking more of the district hospitals. For example, in Surrey I am president of the League of Friends in a very busy hospital. There are several others in the area near the M.25 motorway. I know that the amendment makes provision for emergencies, but it is difficult to lay down a certain number of hours.

1559
Noble Lords may have watched a television series a year or two ago about two hospitals in Portsmouth. One was old and one relatively new. This problem was very much to the fore, as I recall. On the other hand, I suspect that that very interesting television series "Casualty" may rather overdo the situation. Again I speak advisedly.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has made a very convincing case. Whether or not 72 hours is the right number—semantics are always easy—I hope that the Minister will continue to give very serious thought as to how the problem can be resolved. I should have thought that 1993 was not an unreasonable year by which this problem could be largely resolved.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first I congratulate my noble friend on his constancy. He brought a Private Member's Bill from another place which did not get further. He raised the issue at Committee stage and now at Report stage. He has raised it during Parliamentary Questions. There are certain issues where, unless one sees progress, it is important that they should be constantly raised in the House. It is not a party issue. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said that it is not a new issue. It is not. It was an issue when I was Secretary of State. It is an issue now.
I find it almost embarrassing to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, for whom I have profound respect. I agree with what he and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said about the dedication of junior doctors. Because of their dedication and commitment they will never refuse to tend to the needs of patients to the best of their ability. I do not accept—if he meant it—that junior hospital doctors are quite happy to work the intolerable hours that some of them have to work. They are not happy to do so. They feel obliged to do so. They will not refuse to work them. They will not take industrial action. Sometimes they have demonstrated against such hours as they did at the time of my noble friend's Bill. But even if they accept them we should not accept that it is reasonable that young or old doctors (it makes little difference) should work until a time when their judgment is impaired and their alertness undermined. Whether or not 72 hours is the limit, like the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, I do not know. I agree with him that 1st January 1993 seems a reasonable time span to achieve an objective that the Government accept. If it is not achieved in 1993, let us suggest 1994. Those young doctors who are working themselves so hard in the interests of patients are entitled to know that at some stage there will be a limit on the number of hours that they work.
I do not believe that any other professional workers would stand for the requirement and expectation that we impose on those young doctors. There is no need for me to emphasise any further facts. They have been thrown at us. My noble friend has referred to them again. I hope that the Minister will be very sympathetic to the amendment. If someone says that legislation is not the right way to make such provision, I ask, "What is the right way?" It is another issue on which action must be taken. If action will be taken without legislation, that is fine.
1560
If it is not to be taken without legislation, that is not fine. Legislation may be the way to achieve such provision.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the amendment, especially when I leave your Lordships' House at 1 a.m. and start work at the hospital at 7 a.m. By Thursday I add up the hours. They come to very nearly 70. I therefore have great sympathy with the amendment.
There is a number of problems involved in this issue. The problem is not the total number of hours in the week; it is the total number of hours on duty. During the middle of the week there is no problem provided that the rota worked is one in three. The problem comes at the weekends when quite naturally people want a long weekend off. In order to have a long weekend off they have to work more hours the previous weekend filling in for people who are having a long weekend off.
There is another difficulty. A committee is trying to reduce the number of junior staff over the country as a whole in order that they may have a reasonable chance of securing consultant posts. We have too many junior staff. I totally agree with that aim. The difficulty is that some districts may have 11, 20 or 30 hospitals. We need to close some of those hospitals and to concentrate the services in one, two, or even three, hospitals.
I know of one district health authority that had 11 hospitals in its domain of 25 square miles. Clearly it needed only two. But the problem arises when closing those hospitals. We need all the political parties to co-operate in helping us to do the right thing: that is, to have the right number of hospitals in each district without the great hullabaloo every time there is a suggestion about closing a hospital. We all need to work together to a common aim.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, following our discussions earlier on similar amendments on junior doctors' hours, I had hoped that your Lordships would agree that talks recently begun by my right honourable friend the Minister for Health on this very important subject should be allowed to run their course and achieve the results that we all hope they will achieve. The Government have accepted that it is sensible to work towards a target of an average week of duty of 72 hours for all junior hospital doctors. The National Health Service trusts will also be expected to comply with Government policy on junior doctors' hours.
However, it would be irresponsible to agree to legislation or to similar changes in the conditions of service to limit junior doctors' hours without a clear and agreed view from all the parties as to how that can be achieved. By leaving many hospitals and wards without proper cover at night or at weekends, it could also be potentially damaging to patient care. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In our view there is no single solution to this longstanding issue. That is not to say that considerable progress has not been made.
It is worth referring again to the major initiative of June 1988. Regional reports indicate that by

1561
September of this year one in eight junior doctors will be on the one-in-three-rotas. That compares very favourably with the situation at the start of the initiatives when more than a quarter of junior doctors were estimated to be on rotas that were worse than one in three. Although there is still a long way to go that is an improvement on the problems identified in the Dowie Report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rea.
More needs to be done, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that passing a law will not solve the problem. We remain convinced that a concerted attack from all the parties, including the professions, is required. I agree that the profession has a major responsibility for organising the training of junior doctors, setting local rotas and so forth. For that reason my honourable friend the Minister for Health held a meeting on 10th April. As a result a working group was established representing all the interested parties: it will explore the key issues. The group will meet on Wednesday, 13th June. It deserves our support and encouragement. It should be given every opportunity to succeed.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is anxious for rapid progress. I understand that. However, the problem has dogged the National Health Service since its inception. It has not as yet been solved because of its complexity and the parties concerned. Therefore, solutions will need careful consideration and, more importantly, the active support and commitment of all the parties including the consultants and the junior doctors. While we are extremely sympathetic to the aims and merits of the amendment I regret that I cannot accept it for the reasons that I have given and because we believe that substantial progress is being made.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Baroness did not comment on paragraph (d) of the amendment. It recognises that there are certain circumstances in which one cannot prescribe 72 hours or any other number, and it offers flexibility. Secondly, all Members of the House will wish Mrs. Bottomley and her working party well. Would it not be useful if they had a target towards which they could work to have in place two-and-a-half years from now; namely the figure stated in the amendment which the Government have accepted as their target? I believe that that would encourage and help the working party. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that the working group should be given a fair chance to see what it can achieve. Any effort to put such a requirement into legislation would pre-empt that possibility.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we have had a useful little debate, answered, as usual, in a most charming manner by the Minister. My noble friend Lord Ennals raised two of the points that I had intended to put forward and did so effectively. The question of too many junior doctors and not enough consultants—that is the balance—was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, although it was
1562
the impression of other noble Lords that he was impersonating his noble friend Lord Addington whose name appears on the amendment. The question of the balance can be dealt with if proper thought is given to it. I wish to emphasise to noble Lords that, under special circumstances, paragraph (d) of the amendment allows any health authority to request permission not to adhere to the legislated 72 hours; for instance, in the case of an isolated hospital.
Legislation is necessary. The working party needs to have the additional stimulus of legislation in order to speed up its activities. The profession has often been blamed for failure to progress in this area. If legislation were on the statute book the profession might find a way to solve the problem. Therefore, I wish to divide the House.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monson, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Oram, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Seear, B.

Hacking, L.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Coleraine, L.

Arran, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Auckland, L.

Colwyn, L.

Beloff, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belstead, L.

Crook, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Erroll, E.

Burton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Caithness, E.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnock, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harlech, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Henley, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hesketh, L.

1563

Hives, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hooper, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Howe, E.

Reay, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Richardson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange, B.

Kitchener, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lawrence, L,

Strathcona and Mount

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Royal, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lyell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sudeley, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Swinfen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thurlow, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Morris, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Munster, E.

Wynford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B.

Norfolk, D.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 49 names, the Tellers for the Not-Contents 87 names. The Clerks recorded 48 and 86 names respectively.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 71, line 15, leave out ("and") and insert:
("( ) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) the circumstances in which a member of an authority who is (or is to be regarded as) an officer of the authority may be suspended from performing his functions as a member"; and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 83. These amendments do not signify any change in Government policy. In page 105 of the Notes on Clauses we indicated it was our intention that if an officer (executive) member of an authority were suspended from his post of employment with the authority, he would automatically be suspended as a member. However as the Bill is currently framed it does not allow regulations to this effect to be made. A similar difficulty arises in relation to NHS trusts. These amendments will enable us to make such regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Health Boards, the Common Services Agency and State Hospitals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 23 to 26:
Page 83, line 33, at end insert:
("2A. At the end of paragraph 5A of that Schedule there shall be added the words "and a direction under that paragraph may relate to a particular officer or servant or class of officer or servant specified in the direction"."). Page 84, line 9, at end insert:
("7C. Before making regulations under paragraph 7A or 8A, the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies and organisations as appear to him to be concerned.
1564
3A. After paragraph 8 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"8A. In connection with arrangements relating to community care services (within the meaning of section 5A(4) (local authority plans for community care services) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968), regulations may make provision with respect to—

(a) the transfer to employment by a local authority of officers or servants employed by a Health Board; and

(b) the transfer to employment by a National Health Service body of officers and servants transferred to employment by a local authority by virtue of this paragraph,

and for the purpose of this paragraph "National Health Service body" means a Health Board, the Agency or an NHS trust.".").
Page 84, line 37, at end insert:
("8A. After paragraph 8 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
"8A. In connection with arrangements relating to community care services (within the meaning of section 5A(4) (local authority plans for community care services) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968), regulations may make provisions with respect to—

(a) the transfer to employment by a local authority of officers or servants employed by the Agency; and

(b) the transfer to employment by a National Health Service body of officers and servants transferred to employment by a local authority by virtue of this paragraph,

and for the purposes of this paragraph "National Health Service body" means the Agency, a Health Board or an NHS trust. 8B. Before making regulations under paragraph 7B or 8A, the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies and organisations as appear to him to be concerned."."). Page 85, line 1, leave out ("and 7B") and insert ("to 7C and 8A").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving these amendments, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97 and 207. The amendments do two things. First, they provide the Scottish equivalent of Clause 50 for England and Wales which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about the transfer of health service staff to local authorities in Scotland, as a consequence of the transfer of patients from hospital into the community. The amendments fulfil an undertaking given in Committee in another place.
Secondly, the amendment to page 84, line 9, fulfils an undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Sanderson to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, during our debate in Committee. My noble friend promised that the Secretary of State would be put under a statutory duty to consult relevant bodies, before he made regulations about the transfer of staff within the health service. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 en bloc.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we appreciate the extent to which the commitment made has been written into the Bill. I am grateful for that.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington: moved Amendment No. 27:
Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Standing Research and Development Advisory Committee
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order constitute a Standing Research and Development Advisory Committee for the purpose of assisting him with his duties under the Act.
(2) The Standing Research and Development Advisory Committee shall consist of the Director of Research and Development and eleven other persons appointed by the

1565
Secretary of State after consultation with the relevant industrial, scientific and medical research interests.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of State upon such matters as the Committee think fit and upon any questions referred to them by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 25th April the Secretary of State, Kenneth Clarke, and the Permanent Secretary, Sir Christopher France, together with Mr. Jackson, the Minister responsible for higher education in the Department of Education and Science came to give evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Government have spent some time studying the Select Committee's report on medical research with particular reference to the National Health Service. It had previously been indicated that they felt that there should be a chief of research and development.
The Secretary of State said to the Select Committee that it had been,
"decided to go for a Director of Research and Development making him a full member of the Management Executive—putting him in the middle of the NHS management".
He went on to say:
"I think I should make it clear that as far as the Health Service is concerned he will now be in a role which I think enhances his clout and credibility and puts him at the centre of decision-making, though obviously he has some activities that extend outside the Management Executive so far as the Department of Health's overall role of policy and strategy is concerned".
Mr. Clarke also said:
"I think we are setting up this Executive in order to have a clear management identity. They are part of my Department; nevertheless they are the people who are charged with the management reponsibility and what flows from it".
He also indicated that the proposed arrangements for the health service management executive would deliver that service in response to national priorities determined by the Government and,
"we will need his support necessarily in research and development in evolving our priorities".
Sir Christopher France indicated that the research management division of the department is at present some 4:5 strong and that an increase of one third was being considered. It was the intention that that increase should come from the National Health Service.
The Secretary of State stressed that one of the prime duties was to make sure that the Executive protects the position of clinical research in deciding its priorities, and also that the process of reform is conducted in such a way that clinical research is tested.
On Tuesday 15th May there was a press statement which announced that the Secretary of State had met representatives of the royal college and the profession's statutory bodies concerned with clinical standards. They agreed to the Government's proposal to set up a statutory multi-professional clinical standards advisory group. Its remit would be to advise and assist in the assessment and monitoring of clinical standards for all NHS patients in Great Britain, whether in a directly managed unit, a trust or the independent sector. I understand that the setting up of that group is welcomed by the royal colleges and statutory bodies.
I turn to the amendment and the proposal that there should be a standing research and development advisory committee. That proposal is based on the National Health Service Act 1977. It would have a substantially similar role to the Standing Medical Advisory Committee which has been so successful over the years. In obtaining the best possible advice over a wide range of research and development possibilities, such a committee is necessary. It is particularly important that it should advise the Secretary of State on such matters as it thinks fit, as the medical committee does, as well as questions referred to it by the Secretary of State. The membership should be wide in science, innovative industry, research and development, product development and other areas with perhaps a link to medical research and the chief medical officer's division of the department. I beg to move.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 27 and its objective. I do not want to repeat the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, with which I agree. My personal objective in supporting the amendment is to ensure that the director of research and development—a new officer in the health service—and through him a new management board proposed in the National Health Service should have available to them information and advice on the widest possible basis in the field of research and development. I therefore pay particular attention to the importance of the words at the end of subsection (2) of the amendment which refers to,
"industrial, scientific and medical research interests".
That means not only medical but also scientific and industrial research interests.
That is my purpose. Having said that, I confess that I normally have a natural disinclination to support the establishment of advisory committees. From my past ministerial experience in other areas I know that they can sometimes be a limiting rather than an expanding influence. If there is an official advisory committee, one may find oneself cut off from easy access to information and advice of a much wider basis. I only wish to have an advisory committee if it is a necessary means of achieving the objective which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, stated and which I amplified from my point of view.
I cannot speak for the noble Lord, but whether I should wish to walk through the Division Lobby at the end of the debate depends to a large extent on what the Minister says in reply. I repeat that if I can be sure that the committee has been set up in a certain way and that the overt intentions behind the appointment of the new director of research and development are to make available to him and his management board the broad advice and information to which I refer, then I should rather it were done that way than through a form of advisory committee. Before I finally make up my mind therefore I shall wait to hear the Minister's comments; but I shall follow my noble friend whom I was delighted to support in tabling the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that if there is no advisory committee, then there is nothing in the amendment. The amendment is

1567
concerned with establishing an advisory committee. If the noble Lord is doubtful as to whether there should be an advisory committee, he is not supporting the amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am supporting the amendment, but I am doing that which I believe is traditional and common practice both in your Lordships' House and in another place: I am tabling a probing amendment. In the previous debates I have not heard enough to satisfy me that the input of advice in quantity and breadth through the director to the top management of the health service will be of the kind that I believe to be desirable. If I cannot be satisfied regarding that matter, then I shall vote for the amendment. If I can be satisfied in a way which I have not been satisfied before, I shall not wish to vote for the amendment because it will be unnecessary. That is not because I disapprove of it, but because the amendment will not be necessary. The objective might be achieved in other ways if the appointment is set up with the right terms of reference.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment on reading the evidence of the Secretary of State to the Select Committee on Science and Technology on 25th April, on which they issued a supplementary report. I was struck on reading Mr. Clarke's reply on page 6 of the supplementary report by the extremely wide range of responsibilities put on the director of research and development.
I am glad to say that he is to be a member of the management executive. That seems to me to be correct and is a step forward. He will also work to the Secretary of State, helping the Government on public health policy generally. He will also have a responsibility in the field of personal social services; he will have responsibility in the field of operation research vis-à-vis clinical research. The Secretary of State confirmed that he attached importance to operational research; the actual functioning of the National Health Service.
It is therefore an immensely broad remit which this very important person has. On page 9 the Secretary of State, speaking in the same terms as the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said that no other director of the management executive is charged with the business of being advised by a set group appointed by other people outside. The Secretary of State went on to say that his own reaction was that he was not sure that it added to the director's clout and credibility, though it might be an additional resource. The Secretary of State therefore expressed a relatively open opinion on that point.
When we look at the amendment as drafted, we see that the director will not be advised by a set group appointed by people outside. He will be advised by a set group of people appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the relevant industrial, scientific and medical research interests. I should have thought that that went some considerable way to meeting the Secretary of State's point, and also to giving the director, with his wide field of responsibility, a necessary human resource to draw
1568
on. He will require financial resources, but it seems to me that given his remit he will also require human resources from the whole spectrum across the National Health Service.
Although I understand therefore what the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said, my inclination, on balance, is to come down in favour of the formula which appears in the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recognise the modifications made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and his fellow proposers to similar amendments that we discussed at Committee stage. We agree that it is a good idea to have outside advice and that that advice should be broadly based to include the relevant industrial, scientific and medical research interests to which my noble friend Lord Carr referred.
We have already said in our White Paper response to your Lordships' Select Committee that the director of research and development will, as necessary, convene advisory groups on the development of the programme in specific areas. We also said that the director will wish to involve himself in the Medical Research Council, for example, and in scientific committees and advisory bodies. We expect the Director of Research and Development to consult widely and to maintain close contact with the research community.
Further powers already exist to create advisory arrangements. For example, the existing Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee have been created under the discretionary powers in Section 6(3) of the National Health Service Act 1977. Those committees, while discretionary, have remained in force since 1949. If the need is identified to have an advisory council, we can use these powers to appoint one. Such a standing committee would have a duty to advise the Secretary of State on research as it saw fit, as well as on request.
Perhaps I may also say to my noble friend Lord Carr in particular that a statutory committee may indeed become an encumbrance. It would have a very wide coverage, including primary and community health and hospital care, public health, health policy and possibly personal social services. This would imply a large, possibly inflexible, body. A better arrangement would be to target the work of particular groups on specific areas using relevant expertise in each case.
It would give a position to the Director of Research and Development in the work of the National Health Service Management Executive which is not enjoyed by any of the other directors. A fundamental difference like this could unbalance the work of the management executive by taking the director towards a national health research authority, which the Government have already rejected. The Government wanted as far as possible to integrate the processes of research with the management of the National Health Service.
Finally, we want to see the Director of Research and Development free, when he is appointed, to

1569
determine arrangements for advice and consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, recognised at the Select Committee hearing, to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave evidence, that it was important not to be too prescriptive at the beginning and that the Director of Research and Development would need flexibility to establish his own arrangements. For these reasons, I find it difficult to accept this amendment and I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which is very clear. It has clarified one or two points in my own mind. Particularly as this is a new venture, the views and advice of the new director should rightly be sought about future planning. He is already encouraged by the instruction, about which the Minister told us, regarding his future contacts and so on.
In the light of that, and in the light of the capacity existing quite easily for him to have this kind of thing if it is found to be necessary, and because the post is a very new venture and no one really knows how it will develop, I am inclined to withdraw the amendment.
I was concerned about only one point when the Minister was talking about the management board. He will be the only person with an advisory group, because there are discussions soon to be held by this House about the future of other aspects of the board as regards which other suggestions have been made. That is the only point that disturbs me. But on the basis of the first arguments—the newness of the post, the initiatives, the contacts that he is expected to have, his advice and the possibility of meeting his needs—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion may I suggest that the Report stage begins again at eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Tamper-proof odometers
In section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(cc) tamper-proof odometers," ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to make it clear that it is of a probing nature and it is put forward in the light of what was said at earlier stages of the passage of the Bill. It proposes recognition in legislation of the odometer. I should remind your Lordships that
1570
"odometer" is the technical term for the instrument commonly referred to as a mileometer which provides an indication of the distance a vehicle has travelled. Although they are installed in every car and are fundamental to vehicle safety by providing one indication of the relevant interval for safety checks and servicing, there is, in fact, no legal requirement that they be so fitted. Apart from their relationship to safety and servicing, they are, of course, also widely used in determining the value of a vehicle when it is bought or sold.
Clause 2 of the Bill is concerned with the fraudulent practice of winding-back odometers to show a lower reading—a practice which is widely referred to as "clocking". The amendment therefore seeks not just to recognise the odometer per se, but more specifically the tamper-proof odometer.
At Second Reading, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred to just such a device when he said:
"Surely, the permanent answer must be to make cars in such a way that it is physically much more difficult to alter the odometer reading."—[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1081.]
During Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas called on the Government, the Department of Transport and other organisations,
"to enter into meaningful conversations with manufacturers to develop a system which is at least 75 per cent, or 85 per cent, foolproof and tamper-proof."—[Official Report, 8/5/90; col. 1318.]
It is also interesting to note that on 3rd May in another place Mr. Rupert Allason asked the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. John Patten, whether he was aware that only one model of motorcar in the United Kingdom was manufactured with a foolproof and tamper-proof odometer. The Minister replied that he was not aware of the situation, but that it was a good idea that tamper-proof odometers should be available.
This new clause, with the amendment proposed, would allow the Government to take just that lead and, following the necessary consultations, specify through regulations the mandatory minimum requirements, which would relate to odometers. The new clause would be complementary to Clause 2, which provides power for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the recording of information relating to vehicle mileages.
I say "complementary" because I understand that, given the present state of the art, manufacturers are some way from developing an odometer which is tamper-proof. At best, they can at present be described as tamper-resistant. That is one reason why I put this forward as a probing amendment rather than a definitive amendment.
In the light of what has been said previously during the passage of the Bill, I shall be very pleased to hear what the noble Viscount and, indeed, other noble Lords have to say on this proposition. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I note the amendment being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I acknowledge that it is no doubt in response to the point I made during the Second Reading debate on the noble Lord's Bill. I suggested then that the permanent answer to the practice of

1571
car clocking was to make cars in such a way that it was physically much more difficult to alter the odomoter reading. That was the passage which the noble Lord quoted. I stand by that view, but I have to say that I do not believe that this amendment would get us any nearer to achieving that desirable goal.
The Government want to encourage the development and use of tamper-resistant odometers by car manufacturers, but I do not think that the construction and use regulations, which apply to vehicles in use, are the best way to do it. Incidentally, I take the noble Lord's point and I use the expression "tamper-resistant" deliberately, since it is doubtful whether an odometer could ever be absolutely tamper-proof, despite what was written into legislation.
The vehicle construction standards which are prescribed by law are directed primarily towards vehicle and road safety. Thus, for example, regulations require cars to have effective brakes and steering gear, proper lights, reflectors and indicators, windscreen wipers and washers, a horn to warn of the vehicle's approach, and speed indicator so that the driver can ensure that he or she is not travelling too fast. All these are safety features in one way or another. Cars are not required by law to have an odometer fitted, however, even though it is no doubt of benefit to the driver or owner to have one.
I do not want to make too much of this but there is a distinct danger that if the construction and use regulations began to be used for other purposes, that could detract from the issue of safety, which must of course remain of paramount importance as concerns road vehicles. But there is another matter which makes it even more difficult to welcome the noble Lord's amendment as an improvement of this Bill.
Although, as I have said, the construction and use regulations apply to vehicles in use, in practice they of course bite indirectly on the manufacturers and importers, since they would not be able to sell cars which it was illegal to use on the road. We could not, therefore, in the United Kingdom unilaterally require cars to be fitted with tamper-resistant odometers as it would almost certainly be challenged as a barrier to trade, in what is already a very sensitive area. We should need to get agreement within the Community, and I should not like to hold out a great deal of hope of our being able to persuade other member states to give this matter priority.
Finally, I think that I should make the point that the technology, even for tamper-resistant odometers, is probably not yet sufficiently advanced to thwart the determined crook. But advances are being made. Digital display systems are intrinsically more difficult to interfere with, and one British car manufacturer—admittedly at the top end of the market—now incorporates a secret electronic chip which keeps a separate record of the mileage travelled. I believe that I made that point at Second Reading.
The Government welcome these developments and look forward to further progress. But one cannot achieve technological advances simply by passing
1572
legislation, and for this and the other reasons I have mentioned, I am afraid that I cannot support this amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I welcome the motive behind the noble Lord's amendment. We should remind ourselves that we are discussing consumer protection. Clearly, a tamper-proof odometer would be the ultimate in consumer protection in this area.
I welcome what was said by the noble Viscount in his helpful contribution. I am glad to see that the Government are on the side of technical progress if we can only achieve it. We look forward to seeing something very close to a tamper-proof odometer. Were we to get that far, I believe that we could win within the European Community because it would be not an artificial barrier to trade such as our partners sometimes invent in order to get round the legislation but a genuine example of consumer protection for which we could argue wholeheartedly. Unhappily, we are not there yet. Therefore, in joining sympathetically with both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, I am delighted at least that it is only a probing amendment at this time.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Viscount and the noble Lord. They both feel that, while this is a desirable route to take, at the present state of technological development it is not possible in practice to ensure that tamper-proof odometers can be installed. In the knowledge that this has the full support of the Government as a longer-term objective and that they will give encouragement to manufacturers and at the right time will be ready to take this up within the European Community, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Damaged and rebuilt vehicles etc.]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 40 after ("surrender") insert ("by motor insurers and other persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 4 was inserted in Committee with the intention of enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations which would implement the recommendations of a police working party concerned with the relicensing of seriously damaged motor vehicles. The working party recommended that when a motor insurer decided to make a total loss settlement on a seriously damaged vehicle, he should obtain the registration document from the claimant and within a stipulated time limit—15 days was mentioned—surrender it to what is now known as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
A further proposal was that such vehicles could not be relicensed until they had passed a rigorous examination. In order to prevent unscrupulous individuals presenting a non-damaged vehicle for examination, part of the check would need to establish that the vehicle being presented was in fact the one which had been the subject of accident,

1573
damage and subsequent repair. Clause 4 would allow the Secretary of State to bring in these provisions.
During the Committee stage, however, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, described it as a "catch-all catch-none clause" and indicated (at col. 1322 of the Official Report of 8th May) that the responsibility lay with the insurance company which paid out on the salvage and then sought to obtain the best possible price for the vehicle. This amendment, while not altering the substance of the clause, takes note of that point and makes it quite clear that the provisions can be applied to motor insurers. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I well understand the noble Lord's reasons for moving the amendment. I have one concern. As I understand it the insurance industry is somewhat worried about the excess burden which this provision might place on it. It is not obvious to me that the Bill is improved by adding these words, even though the noble Lord was responding to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I wonder whether he consulted the insurance industry before adding these words to the Bill. I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as in any way moving back from my support for the Bill. However, it would be a pity to do anything which added undesirably to the costs of the insurance industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, my colleagues and I have had informal discussions with the insurance industry. It accepts the principle of what is being attempted and has done so for a long time. I must accept, however, that it would prefer this not to be done through legislation. Nonetheless I feel that, as this is such an important issue and as it has been carefully considered by the police and others, it would be desirable to bring this further definition into the wording of Clause 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Meaning of "offer to supply" and "supply"]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. Clause 5 is consequential upon the original Clause 2, which gave the Secretary of State wide powers to regulate the circumstances and manner in which dealers supplied, repaired and serviced motor vehicles and trailers. With the substitution at Committee stage of the shorter Clause 2, Clause 5 is no longer necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interpretation]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, leave out lines 27 and 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment removes the definition of "authorised officer" from the interpretation clause of the Bill. The amendment is consequential on the substitution at Committee stage of a revised Clause 2. The original Clause 2
1574
referred to an authorised officer. The revised clause does not, and the definition is therefore unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Computer Misuse Bill
7.21 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.22 to 8 p.m.]

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I have to announce to the House that the figures given for the last Division, as Division No. 4 on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, were incorrect. The correct figures were: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 86.
Clause 3 [Primary and other functions of health authorities etc. and exercise of functions]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 28:
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: My Lords, one of the Government's stated aims of the changes to the National Health Service is to make the health service more responsive to the needs of patients. It is an admirable objective. It is recognised by all of us that good continuity of care after a period in hospital is a vital aid to a successful recovery.
I suppose that one of the major success stories of the National Health Service has been the creation of this complete system of care extending from the GP to the hospital and to the community. It is a circle of continuity of care. The local nature of the health service has enabled the communication links to develop between the hospital and the community

1575
services. In other parts of the Bill we are extending programmes of care in the community and, if patients are to receive the ongoing care that they need, those programmes make the link between the hospital and the community services all the more important.
It could be argued—and perhaps the Minister will do so—that this amendment is a statement of the obvious. In fact, it is designed to meet some very genuine fears. First, it is possible that the internal market may result in patients having to travel further for treatment if the district health authority has placed a contract outside their district of residence. Secondly, the results of placing contracts with specific health providers may also dislocate the management link between hospitals and the providers of community-based services.
Thirdly, self-governing hospitals may decide to reduce the after-care services that they offer. They could do so if they felt that they were too costly, and this could be especially damaging to the elderly and the chronically ill. It would result in them becoming distant from the local community services. Fourthly, there is a fear that self-governing hospitals cannot produce objective, verifiable financial information unless they are required to make their returns on the basis of an integrated community health structure, since outcomes, and thus the cost effectiveness of the services, must be monitored once the patient has returned to the community.
This simple amendment seeks 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 concerns someone being discharged from a self-governing trust hospital. It is not designed in any way to relieve local authority social service departments of any responsibility or to offload any responsibility. It was the feeling of many of us—and there has been a good deal of consultation, especially with the Royal College of Nursing, in preparing this amendment—that the National Health Service's responsibility should not end when patients leave the hospital. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I supported this amendment in Committee and I should like to do so again. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, poined out that the changes in the health service with self-governing hospital trusts and district health authorities would mean that health authorities would conceivably make quite a number of contracts with hospitals outside their own districts. In my view that makes it essential for us to have an amendment of the kind which is now before the House.
When we discussed this amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding said:
"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 … 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' ".—[Official Report, 24/4/90; col. 501.]
I suggest that if one reads the amendment it will be seen that it does not put a statutory duty on the
1576
district health authority to do what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, suggested; it just provides that the district health authority should,
"ensure there is continuity of care for patients".
I think that that is a perfectly right and proper way to deal with the situation, because the DHA is finally responsible for all the people within its district. It does not say that the district health authority should do it all; it says that the authority should ensure that it happens.
During the same debate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his reply at col. 505 of Hansard, said:
"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".
He added that DHAs would obviously wish to ensure that the process was monitored.
It is not enough to say that the providers should consider offering specifications. What we want to ensure by means of this amendment is that in the last analysis the district health authority is responsible for ensuring that continuing community care is provided for all the people within its district.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, there is much substance in this amendment. We are moving towards a stage where hospitalisation will possibly be for very much shorter periods of time than at present, after which the patient will leave hospital and go home. We should ensure that when this happens there is some responsibility for seeing to it that the patient continues to have the appropriate after-care. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. In my view it is a sound amendment and I hope that the Government will consider accepting it.
After a couple of days in hospital the patient is better to the extent that he no longer needs hospital care and can go home. But he is not completely better. He may need additional care—a matter, we accept, for the patient's GP. On the other hand, the patient may need a measure of community support. The Minister may say that that is for the local authority. However, it is possible for the patient to fall between two stools. If we say, as the amendment does, that the district health authority has the responsibility of ensuring that the patient receives appropriate treatment, we shall be doing something wise. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as has been said, we considered a similar amendment in Committee. I hope again to show that the amendment is unnecessary, although obviously I understand the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
As I have said, from 1st April 1991 district health authorities will continue to be subject to the requirements set out in health circular (89)5 and its accompanying booklet The Discharge of Patients from Hospital. The circular outlines the necessary arrangements DHAs should make for patients discharged into the community to ensure the appropriate continuity of care. Similarly, Operating Contracts published on 1st March emphasised that

1577
both DHAs and provider units will want to specify quality requirements such as admission and discharge criteria in contracts. DHAs' new roles as purchasers will make them better able to focus on ensuring that all their residents' health needs are covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has referred to the possibility of people in community care being shifted from a health authority budget to a local authority budget depending on where money happened to be. I assume he had in mind a person having to spend a period in hospital because the local authority could not go on paying for a home care aide or someone sometimes attending a day hospital but being switched to a local authority day centre because the money for the day hospital had run out. It would clearly be highly undesirable for care provision to be switched about in that way primarily for financial reasons. The new community care arrangements embodied in Part III of the Bill should help to ensure that there will be no need for it to happen.
Under our proposals service provision will have to be tackled at two levels. At the level of the authority there will be community care plans. Those will be prepared by local social service departments. A government amendment was introduced on Report in another place requiring consultation on plans with health and housing authorities. Plans should include planning agreements with other authorities where appropriate. An agreement with the health authority over discharge procedures is an obvious case in point. Account should be taken of the resource implications of community care plans through the authority's financial planning cycle. Similar arrangements already apply on the NHS side. Local authorities will thus be able to decide how they will address the overall community care needs of their areas within the resources available to do that. In later years, as the planning process gets under way, unmet need will also be fed in.
At the individual level, local authorities will have to access needs for community care services. Again, a government amendment in Committee required social service departments to bring apparent health or housing needs to the attention of the appropriate authorities. We hope that all authorities concerned will work closely together both in assessing needs and in deciding what services to provide. If an authority agrees to provide a service, it would normally be expected to continue to do so until the needs of the person concerned for community care were reviewed. The timing of the review would be considered as part of the original assessment.
I submit that the key to the provision of continuing care for people leaving hospital lies in planning and collaboration between authorities. That will be secured by the new community care arrangements.
I hope that the House 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 the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I do not want to be difficult but, before the noble Lord sits down, let us assume that the patient is in hospital for three days and then comes out. He is not too well but does not need hospitalisation. What happens at that stage? Who is responsible for ensuring that the patient is looked after? As I see it, the amendment means that the district health authority will have some responsibility for ensuring that the patient is looked after.
I listened carefully to the Minister. At no stage did he say who would be responsible for ensuring that the patient is looked after. That is the point that I am trying to establish.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House I thought that I made it clear that circular 89(5) and its accompanying booklet The Discharge of Patients from Hospital will continue to operate after April 1991. District health authorities will continue to be subject to their requirements. The documents outline the necessary arrangements that districts should make for patients discharged into the community to ensure that there is the appropriate continuity of care.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it never occurred to me when I moved the amendment that it would bring down the House. It seemed such a modest little amendment. I never thought that it would have such a reaction from above. Whether it was the Almighty giving support to my amendment or trying to bomb the Minister during his response, I do not know! I hope that all Cross-Benchers are safe from whatever was being thrown down.
I appreciate everything that the Minister has said. There is a debate as to whether certain issues are so important that they should be in the Bill or whether it is sufficient for them to be in circulars. It seemed to me, which is why the original amendment was proposed by my noble friend Lord Carter in Committee and why we have both moved one today, that the statement was so important that it should be on the face of the Bill and not merely in a health circular. I am not running down the importance of health circulars; but statements such as this are fundamental to the health service responsibility, and particularly to the function of a district health authority. I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I shall withdraw it, but my feelings about it are in no way changed as a result of the Minister's courteous and helpful reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("(1A) It shall be the duty of each Regional Health Authority to publish a statement of health targets on such matters as it deems appropriate for the purposes of securing improvements in the standards of health of its resident population.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. The amendments would place a duty on regional health authorities to publish targets for improving standards of health in their locality. The

1579
DHAs and other purchasers of health care would take account of the targets as they place contracts and would have to report annually the progress that they had made towards meeting those targets.
The amendments flow from, and were inspired by, the results of the simulation exercise to which I have twice referred in your Lordships' House: once in Committee and once earlier today. The rubber windmill exercise was carried out in East Anglia and the results subsequently published in an article in the Health Service Journal and more fully in Managing Better Health published by the East Anglian Regional Health Authority.
The exercise, carried out over three days in April this year, provided a dry run for the proposed internal market with senior NHS managers playing out the purchaser and provider roles which the Government want to see operational by 1st April next year. Their simulation found that the market crashed after three years of operation. The regional general manager of the East Anglian authority subsequently wrote up his experiences during the workshop and published them in the Health Service Journal. Perhaps I may quote from that article written by Alasdair Liddell and Greg Parston. It stated:
"The workshop [gave] rise to many important lessons for managers and healthcare professionals, but the most important was that without an overall framework of health quality and outcomes to guide purchasing, benefits to patients could not be guaranteed in the new market".
In the statement that was published by the East Anglian Regional Health Authority, there was a statement from Alasdair Liddell himself as regional general manager. I read from a copy of a letter to Christine Hancock, general secretary of the RCN, in which Liddell says that chief among the conclusions were the following:
"the need for a clear framework of health and quality outcomes to guide purchasing, negotiated and agreed between DHAs, GPs and local authorities;
greater recognition of the central role of GPs, both as providers of primary care and as purchasers of secondary care".
These amendments put on the face of the Bill one of the key recommendations if the internal market is to have any chance of success. The exercise found that pressures within the market exerted a downward force on the quality of care. The East Anglian Regional Health Authority stated:
"Purchasers actually pressed providers to lower quality in order to meet contracted caseloads and stay within their budget".
This is something that we have always feared might happen. I believe that if we do not have evaluation, at least we should learn the lessons of the simulation exercise. This scenario could be prevented if purchasers had to meet long-term health targets determined objectively by regional health authorities. The targets would deal with general issues such as reducing the number of avoidable deaths or might include the levels of perinatal mortality: the length or time of waiting lists; targets for cervical cancer screening. One can think of a whole range of targets that might be established.
These targets would act as long-term goals for district health authorities, counterbalancing the
1580
short-term pressures they face within a market. The amendments seek to establish such targets for the overall improvement of health care and to provide a mechanism for monitoring DHA's progress towards these targets.
I have pleasure in moving the amendment and I wish that we could spend three hours debating some of these extremely important matters. I should have liked to be able to raise them at Committee stage when we had more time, but the report of the East Anglian conference has only just been published, so that was impossible. However I believe that the issue is extremely important. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the overriding objective of the proposals in this Bill is to improve services throughout the National Health Service; to improve the quality of clinical care; and to improve the delivery of care. The establishment of the clinical standards advisory group, which we shall come to later in our discussions, will be a major step towards ensuring that this objective is achieved. However even a body like the clinical standards advisory group can only assist and encourage work at local level, which is where the essential tasks of improving standards will be carried out.
It would not therefore, I believe, be helpful to introduce the statutory requirements proposed by the amendments. They would impose a rigid top-down approach which could well divert local effort from where it is really needed and discourage innovation and enthusiasm on the ground, which is what we wish to see moving forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred again to the East Anglia Rubber Windmill experiment. I repeat that that project was in a sense self-destructive, in that it was intentionally pushed to breaking point in order to learn all the lessons. In making this reference again, the noble Lord emphasised the value of doing this because it has given us material on which to build suitable safeguards. It is very much in line with the evolutionary approach which we are taking in terms of implementing the proposals.
There is no doubt that the contractual process will focus attention on quality of care, on areas where improvements in health standards are needed and on outcome measures and objectives. The new structure contains the necessary conditions and incentives for this. As has been stressed before, district health authorities will have a new responsibility to assess the specific health needs of their population and to ensure that the most appropriate pattern of services is provided. They will work closely with GPs who are best placed to know patients' needs and preferences. They will place contracts with those providers of services who offer the most effective and highest quality services. Contracts will specify the nature and quality of care required. The provider's performance will be monitored to ensure that what has been contracted for is delivered.
This process could only be encumbered and distorted by the general issuing of targets and objectives by regional health authorities in the manner suggested by the amendment. Certainly,

1581
regions and, beyond them, the National Health Service management executive will have an important role in setting targets and monitoring performance. But this involvement needs to be selective and strategic. It must not pre-empt the identification of local needs and solutions.
Our expectations of the pace of change must be as realistic as possible. District health authorities need time to settle into their new role and to build up expertise in identifying health needs. Similarly the development of quality measures and outcome objectives will be evolutionary.
Sudden change should not be expected, therefore, and—and we have maintained this all along—things will not change overnight just before 1st April 1991. The important point is to establish the appropriate structure which will enable these developments to take place in response to local requirements. That is what we expect the Bill's proposals to achieve. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendments and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I did not quite see the logic of the Minister's thoughtful reply. She said that health authorities will have objectives and will produce targets. If this is to be so, of course they must be locally produced and locally worked out. I cannot imagine that a regional health authority would publish a statement of health needs without consultation with the district health authorities.
I suppose that in drafting the amendment I should have said, "It shall be the duty of each regional health authority, in consultation with the district health authorities, working within its region, to publish a statement of health targets". However, in the general operation of business and organisation, to set targets—whether of membership levels, of profitability or turnover or, in this case, health objectives—seems to me to be good. I do not believe that it imposes new worries or new problems. To set targets gives a greater sense of participation, and perhaps sometimes excitement, in trying to move towards those targets. I do not know why the Minister seems to feel that there is something rather damaging and dangerous about this. I should have thought it would be extremely good for the health service that we should look at the particular targets that we need to achieve. As the Minister rightly said, it is not enough merely to do this at a national level. We used to do it at a national level in publications that were prepared every year. However, I am proposing that it should be done at a regional and local level. However, regional targets would only be set after consultation upon district targets. I do not understand why the Minister is opposed to this measure and why she feels it would be damaging.
I wish to make a few comments on the rubber windmill. I am full of admiration for the initiative of the East Anglian region. I am a former soldier and we used to do this kind of thing in terms of simulated military exercises. I thought that idea was brilliantly planned. I do not believe it was intentionally pushed to breaking point. I do not know what the grounds are for saying that. The initiative was pushed to find out the consequences
1582
of that pressure. Everyone was playing a realistic role and in the course of time things were being done in a day which might otherwise have taken a year. However, that is often the case in simulated exercises. The intention was not to reach a breaking point. Those who participated in the exercise began to see problems that had to be faced. That was the whole purpose of doing it. I thought it was an imaginative, constructive and well conceived exercise. I do not share what I sense was a criticism of an admirable initiative. Neither do I accept the criticism of the amendment. I shall not press it to a Division, but the Minister has not convinced me that this measure would not be innovative for the National Health Service. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be a primary function of a District Health Authority to ensure that budgetary provision allows for an integrated, comprehensive child health service which links effectively with services delivered by the local authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, were we to pass Clause 3 of this Bill unamended we all, whichever party we belong to, would earn a new title. We would be accused of being careless, that is to say heedless, thoughtless and regardless. Although Clauses 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the Bill refer to the financing of the family health services, Clause 15(3)(a) states:
"by making payments on account of the allotted sum at such times and in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct".
At present the "allotted sum" to a practice must cover drugs, medicines, listed appliances and child health care. The latter covers the extensive and very expensive comprehensive so disabled child. That health care may well be overshadowed by the requirements of the majority which comprises those who are not congenitally afflicted or have not suffered at birth or in infancy and who might bear their malady throughout life. The Government's paper states that a district health authority will meet any outstanding financial burden. But what a severe burden this will be for certain health authorities, especially those whose responsibilities include inner city precincts.
I wish to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said in Committee when she feared for the future of a comprehensive child health service which related to severely disabled, mentally retarded or abused children. She feared such a service could become fragmented and thereby force families, perhaps in the lower income bracket, to move to a different district in order to obtain the correct care facilities. They are then faced with another cost. The health care of the nation's children who will form the next generation is not just important when they are born when paediatric care is on hand. Of equal importance is continuing care and support outside the place of birth when paediatric attention—this is specialist care—is constantly needed and vital to the future of a growing individual.
The Court Report was produced in 1976 and was commissioned by the Labour Government. It made many valuable points relevant to family health care. It emphasised the financial and medical benefits of preventive services including immunisation. Noble Lords have heard me talk previously of prevention rather than cure. The report urged the major responsible body—the Government—to ensure that child health cards which are vital for the monitoring of health progress should be in the possession of the family and should be regularly checked, up to the age of 15 years.
At present the director of public health for each district health authority oversees the needs of a district's population. That includes all age groups. The Court Report, among many other valid and worthy pieces of advice, suggested that a district consultant community paediatrician would be of enormous value to the health and welfare of the nation's children and youth and an invaluable aid to the district director of public health. How much did that Court Report cost to produce? What happened to it? It lies among the civil service "forthcoming events files" gathering, sadly, the dust of complacency with financial consequences and at the expense of the state of health of this country's younger generation.
During the earlier stages of the Bill we repeatedly referred to child health. Section 22 of the 1977 National Health Service Act stipulated the link between a local district authority and a health authority to ensure that an executive body monitored care for children with special needs. That infrastructure ought to be strengthened and it must be strengthened. I pray that the consciences of noble Lords will persuade them to emphasise to Her Majesty's Government the need for more specific funding and more attention to child health care. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, in his recommendation for an integrated, comprehensive child health care service which would deal with prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. But, in practical terms, how should this be done? Such a service is recommended by the British Paediatric Association, the family practitioner committees, the Health Visitors' Association, the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales, the National Children's Bureau which has affiliated to it 70 child care organisations including the Children's Society, the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital, the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children and the British Medical Association. It is, therefore, not only doctors but also health visitors, social workers and all those dealing with children who support this amendment.
How is this measure to be achieved? We recommend that a doctor-manager with responsibility for child health care in a district should be appointed at district level. This doctor-manager would be responsible for linking the health of children with the social and environmental factors that affect the health of children. If such a post had existed, would we have been in quite such
1584
a mess as we are at present with regard to our housing policies? Would not such a doctor-manager with responsibility for child health care have made representations to housing departments so that people did not live in bed and breakfast accommodation? Could he not take note of such matters as accidents in the home and in children's playgrounds? He would be responsible for preventive care services such as immunisation and vaccination, and for the fields of diabetes, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and spina bifida.
Having myself dealt with many such cases, I know that often a child goes into hospital too late because it has not been recognised what is wrong with the child. The child receives the most wonderful care in hospital but once out of hospital, although the doctor gives advice to the parents as to what care the child should receive the parents do not know where to go for the practical help and advice which lies in the community.
I should like to cite one or two areas of deep concern, for example, dyslexia. We have had debates on dyslexia. Many of us know of parents who have been told by doctors that their child is dyslexic but who have been unable to obtain the facilities and education required for their children. A doctor-manager with responsibility for child health would be able to give help and advice in such cases. I could go on for some time on the subject. Such a post could provide co-ordination between those dealing with health and environmental problems. I believe I am right in saying that such a post already exists in Hackney, and I am grateful to see the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in his place because I believe that at Guy's Hospital, where he works, there is also an integrated child health care service.
Those of us proposing the amendment recognise that we have not given my noble friend the Minister much time to consider the argument and that it is a very big subject. We also recognise and are worried that while a GP service receives £5,000 per patient, spina bifida cases, for example, cost a great deal more to look after. If those patients cost £4,500 will the GPs feel able to take on such cases?
As the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has said, the Court Report made such a recommendation as long ago as 1976. I submit that if there were to be such a post, if there were to be such an integrated service, it would save the National Health Service much in that we would have much healthier adults, and therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like very much to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for having brought the amendment before us. When he made his maiden speech several of us said that we hoped to hear more from him. It is good to hear more from him in such a constructive way.
I was glad that noble Lord referred to the Court Report. I was Secretary of State at the time. The report aroused a great deal of interest, and a great deal was done. I am sure that the noble Lord would say that not enough was done and that a number of new appointments might well have been made. I expect that those who were members of the Court

1585
Committee were dissatisfied; nevertheless a great deal was done. The situation regarding children has improved not only as a result of that report. The infant mortality rate has fallen from 34 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1948 to 9.1 per 1,000 in 1987. Childhood mortality rates have likewise declined. There has been an enormous improvement. However, we have seen new problems arise. Although more children's lives are saved there is nevertheless increasing survival of children with mental, physical or sensory disabilities or a combination of disabilities.
Modern health care for children requires a service with closely related community and hospital elements. That must be taken into account when planning facilities for children. It is right that at the time when we are looking at changes in the National Health Service we should see this as being a field in which we should now seek to make more progress than has been made in the past. An integrated, comprehensive child health service brings together the health care services needed by children. It provides an acute service able to respond immediately to the needs of the acutely ill or injured child, services for the chronically disabled or ill child, and services for the prevention of illness such as immunisation, vaccination and child care surveillance programmes.
This is a very important amendment. We have said that about all the amendments that we have put forward, and our hope is that at some moment the Government will agree that the amendments that we seek are very important. I want to add such weight as I have—and there is not much left of it—to this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too, support the principle of the amendment, but I am not quite sure about the wording.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no question but that it will be the duty of district health authorities to promote comprehensive health services for children as the amendment proposes. The Secretary of State already has a clear duty to provide a comprehensive range of health services under Section 1 of the 1977 Act. That duty will be delegated to health authorities through the definition of their primary functions. The definition must include services for children. 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.
There is no doubt about the priority we attach to the development of child health services. Children are the key to our future and the true wealth of a nation. It has been the policy of successive governments since publication of the Court Report in 1976 to encourage the integration of hospital and community health services for children, with close
1586
links to local authority children's services, to ensure continuity in the care and support given to families with children. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has restated our commitment to the integration of services. In a letter to the president of the British Paediatric Association on 3rd August 1989 he set out some of those points in detail. He indicated how there will be greater scope for flexibility and innovation under the new arrangements to secure swifter progress towards effective integration than has been achieved so far.
However, I do not see this primarily as a financial issue. I expect district health authorities, when they are negotiating contracts, to specify that they require an integrated children's health service. It will then be for the providers to take the necessary organisational and management measures to deliver an integrated service. They will also need to demonstrate that they have effective liaison arrangements with local authority staff working in social services and education departments to implement provisions for the planning and assessment of need under Clauses 42 and 43 of this Bill and Part III of the Children Act. By definition, health authorities will need to secure adequate financial provision to secure these services, as they do now.
I have referred to the Secretary of State's letter; I shall read one paragraph from it. It is a very comprehensive letter and I can make sure that it is placed in the Library if Members of the House would like to see it. The paragraph reads:
"Implementation of the White Paper should not impede progress towards the integration of comprehensive hospital and community services for children. I am aware that successive expert studies—the Court Report, the Maternity Services Advisory Committee reports—have described the need for integration and I have no doubt that this is necessary for the effective delivery of services. I expect districts to share this view and to seek to contract for integrated children's services. This will create a demand which, under the new arrangements, providers will have greater incentive and organisational flexibility to meet. I hope, therefore, to see innovation in the delivery of children's services and swifter progress towards effective integration than has been achieved so far".
I advise noble Lords to read the letter fully.
Reference was made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull to some authorities having a specific post. I believe that she mentioned Guy's Hospital and Hackney. I am not arguing about the objectives of the amendment. We are talking about means to an end and the way in which authorities set up the services. It seems to me that the two examples mentioned show the way in which those authorities meet that objective. We are arguing for managerial freedom to meet those objectives.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull also referred to a genuine anxiety shared by many people about fund-holding practices running out of money over and above the £5,000 which is allocated for each patient. No patient in a fund-holding practice will go without treatment. The first £5,000 of an individual patient's hospital treatment costs will be met in full by the practice, but any additional treatment costs—reference was made to spina bifida cases—will be met by the relevant district health authority.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone ended by saying that he was concerned about the objectives.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I said that I approved of the principle of the amendment, but that I was not sure about the wording. That was my only criticism.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I was reading too much into what my noble friend said. We—I include myself and the Government—support the principle. I thought that my noble friend was saying that he was not certain whether that was the way to achieve it. That is what I should prefer to leave it at. I hope for that reason the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that she has somewhat avoided the primary question; namely, what would happen if appropriate budgetary provision was not made? As I understand it, it is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that he would like it to happen and to write some letters. However, if it does not happen, there is nothing in the Bill to enable him to ensure that it happens. Therefore, setting aside wording, which never bothers us—we can always get that right—surely the point of the amendment is this: if the Government are serious about the matter—I understand that they are strongly committed to it—they should either accept the amendment or rewrite it in a form which meets those aims. I believe that I am right in saying that the Secretary of State has no powers to insist that an integrated, comprehensive child health service should be appropriately financed. At present, all he can do is to encourage and advise. The amendment is at least important enough for the noble Baroness to take it away and see what she can do with it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I read the amendment, there will be a requirement to provide an integrated, comprehensive child health service to meet the needs of children within the area. It will make demands on the education services, on the social services departments of councils and on the medical services. There must be a strategy to meet those needs across the board. We all agree with that.
However, I must depart with the noble Lord when he pleads with me to agree with him. The amendment pre-empts a call on the budget. That need will have to satisfied, but many other needs will have to be met and it will be for individual authorities to allocate their budgets, taking into account all the needs that will have to be met. The proposal specifically meets the needs without any quantification.
Lord Peston: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, perhaps I may rise again. I have checked with the Clerks that I am able to rise so long as the noble Lord does not object to me doing so, which I hope that he does not.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the noble Lord must ask a question.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall ask a question; namely, will the noble Baroness address herself to the point that she raised? The point of the amendment is
1588
to give priority to such matters. As I understand it, the amendment seeks to achieve precisely the point that she makes. It does not regard those matters as on a par with all the other objectives. Does she not agree that such matters should have priority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall reply. The House is being patient on this issue. The overriding objective of the amendment is to ensure that there is an integrated approach to meeting the needs of children which will be variable and will call on the services of local authorities, health services and the education service. There is an obligation to meet those needs. If those needs are not met, they will be picked up through management accountability. There are powers in the Bill which are more than sufficient to back up matters and ensure that thsoe needs are met.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask for a little enlightenment. She said that an integrated comprehensive child health care service would be implemented; but where in the Bill does it say that it should be? I am not clear about that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will be for the authorities to pre-empt the needs of all the client groups within their areas which will include children, elderly people and people with medical needs. By and large, we are talking about medical needs because some of the educational needs are also medical needs; for example, young children with dyslexia. There will be some quantification of those needs and they will have to be met. Under the community care parts of the Bill, those needs will be met, sometimes by the health authority, sometimes by the education authority and sometimes by the social services department. I suspect that the powers are peppered throughout the Bill. I am not being very specific, and if that answer is incomplete I shall write to noble Lords.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for her reply. She will understand that it is not to the total satisfaction of all the listeners here tonight. It is a sensitive subject. Most of us have had children and some of us have had experience of those who suffer, either in infancy or at birth. It would probably be a good idea if a meeting were held with the Minister so that a select body of people can look into the business a little more prior to the Third Reading when another amendment to the clause will probably be tabled. That being the case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Masham Baroness Masham moved Amendment No. 31:
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: My Lords, I bring back this amendment because the organisations

1589
supporting it were most disappointed by the reply given by the Minister in Committee.
It is most important that district health authorities provide a service to those people who need advice and help over the problems of incontinence. I shall not go ever all the difficulties and dangers with which people have to contend due to incontinence, as that subject was well covered by many of your Lordships in Committee. The Minister's reply failed to address the issue. The Minister referred to government health notice 88/26 which, she said, had been placed in the Library. That circular is what the Government recommend. It is from that circular that the wording of the amendment comes. It is what the Government want, but the Minister went on to say that district health authorities should be left to decide on their own priorities.
The situation has continued to deteriorate since the health notice went out. That shows how ineffective notices without legislation can be. At present, there is no means of ensuring an improvement in services. There is therefore a need for an amendment such as this so that provision is guaranteed under legislation. We badly need some minimum standards covering incontinence needs. Otherwise, there is a strong feeling that some districts will neglect that service. It would be interesting to know what the plans of health authorities will be. We are told that they will be public documents. The Minister said that they would help to ensure that services were provided to meet the needs of the people in the districts. How can we be sure that incontinence provision will be included in those plans?
Many of the senior managerial nursing positions are now filled by men. Incontinence may not come very high on their list of priorities. Incontinence provision can make all the difference to the quality of life for people. It is one of a number of areas of service provision where there is considerable overlap between health and social service departments. That could be problematical. How will the mechanics of the overlap work? For instance, will a person living in the community who is in need of incontinence pads be able to obtain them easily, or will he or she have to be referred to a nurse? Will arrangements vary from one district to another? Many health district areas are different from social service boundaries. Many disabled people and their families are worried since so much change is planned in the Bill with no safeguards for the most vulnerable patients.
The Government are full of rhetoric on how the situation will be improved after the Bill is enacted. But very often in practice what is meant to happen does not come about, and the opposite occurs. One factor will be the need to employ many more accountants and a new tier of expensive administration.
Incontinence is a subject that is often hushed up through embarrassment on the part of an individual person needing help. The amendment simply aims to ensure that people needing help and advice over incontinence problems will receive it. I hope that your Lordships will support it. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I speak briefly in support of this important amendment. It might affect over 2 million people. Incontinence can affect a wide range of all age groups. A survey a few years ago indicated that a third of the people who replied were aged between 25 and 40. Incontinence may also be associated with accidents, which often affect young people. It is also one of the problems associated with some of the tragedies than can come with increasing age, especially cerebrovascular accidents.
The problems associated with incontinence are legion. They are physical, psychological and social. Apart from the discomfort of incontinence, it may, if not treated properly, contribute to the development of pressure sores and the infection of those sores. It may also be associated with psychological distress and embarrassment, leading sometimes to social withdrawal and isolation.
In 1977 the Department of Health and Social Security (as it then was) recommended that a specialist nurse for the care of incontinence should be appointed for every district health authority. The amendment is entirely consistent with the intentions of that suggestion, although it provides for a more comprehensive service.
In conclusion, given the enormous cost in human terms of the failure to provide for adequate incontinence care, and the transfer—as will occur when the Bill comes into effect—of many people with incontinence problems into community care, with responsibility for care residing primarily in staff who are not clinically trained, I suggest that it is of the greatest importance that a comprehensive, readily available incontinence service should be ensured in every district health authority.
I very much hope, therefore, that this provision will be assured and that support of the amendment which would provide that assurance will be forthcoming.
Lord Rea: My Lords, on listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, moving the amendment, I recalled my Amendment No. 21. It called for legislation to regulate the hours of duty of junior hospital doctors. If one substitutes "junior hospital doctors' hours" for "incontinence service" the arguments are similar.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, a ministry circular has gone out to all health authorities suggesting that such a service should be provided. Unfortunately, the implementation of that circular has been very patchy throughout the country. That is precisely what has happened with regard to junior doctors' hours. The department is very sympathetic to the idea. It has set up a working party and asked for matters to be improved throughout the country. It has asked health authorities to work hard on the matter. But progress is slow and patchy.
That is why I support the suggestion that the idea should be incorporated in legislation rather than simply being a part of a department circular, however laudable.

1591
As a general practitioner in the National Health Service, I can testify how useful incontinence services can be when they are introduced, having not been in place previously. I have numerous patients suffering from incontinence who are both middle aged and elderly, although, luckily, not many young such patients, whose situation is even more poignant. But the service is enormously beneficial. It is difficult for people who do not have this problem to realise what a difference such a service makes.
I fully support the amendment. Every health authority should provide the service. The personnel are there. If they are not, they can be trained relatively easily. It is not a terribly expensive service. The benefit obtained compared with the cost is very great. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment. I support what my noble friend said about the disappointment of the disability organisations at the Minister's reply in Committee and the fact that the situation has been deteriorating since the issue of the health notice.
I hope that the Minister will have been convinced by my noble friend and others who have argued so cogently that the incontinence provision needs to be guaranteed by being written into the Bill. Will the Minister also indicate how she views the idea of ensuring through guidance—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Peston in his seat; he is a firm supporter of guidance, which is strong, as opposed to guidelines—that health authorities make a clear and positive statement about their plans for incontinence provision? That would be a minimum requirement. I should much prefer some provision in the Bill. That is why I support the amendment. Perhaps the noble Baroness will indicate how she considers providing such guidance.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too support the amendment. In a reply given on 24th April to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, my noble friend Lady Blatch said:
"the Government believe that … 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".—[Official Report, 24/4/90; col. 550].
I see no way in which they can accurately determine the local needs unless this amendment is agreed and a proper incontinence adviser and consultant is appointed. There will then be someone in the district health authority with that expert knowledge and he can advise the authority accordingly.
In supporting the need for good incontinence advice I wish to tell your Lordships a little about a man in Essex who is disabled and in a wheelchair. If he had received proper incontinence advice he would not have cost the National Health Service tens of thousands of pounds. Due to the incontinence he developed severe pressure sores which were further aggravated by the incontinence. He was admitted into hospital where he stayed for at least six weeks and was finally given a skin graft. All that could have been avoided if he had received proper incontinence advice at the beginning. The advice
1592
would have cost a maximum of £100 but because it was not given he probably cost the National Health Service tens of thousands of pounds.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there has been support for the amendment from Members on all sides of the House. Some noble Lords have spoken with a great deal of experience about the subject. I do not wish to be unkind to the Minister—I like her very much and she is always helpful. However, I sense that her reply will be the same despite whatever any of us say or how many of us say it. Let us suppose that everyone now sitting in your Lordships' House spoke on the subject and that the debate took another 45 minutes with short speeches such as those made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I believe that the Minister would still give the same reply. I find that most unsatisfactory not only in Committee—we heard it then—but on Report.
The Government are good on generalisations but poor on specifics. What is legislation for if not sometimes to set priorities? It is not merely to create structures but to say that in our health service certain things must be done. We have tried to say that in relation to children and the elderly, and now we are trying to do so for the incontinent. I do not know what the Minister will say but I guess that it will be, "Don't worry. It is the responsibility of the district health authority; it is not for us nationally to intervene".
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is right in saying that unless provision is made in the Bill the health authorities will have only guidance to respond to. Is guidance as important as legislation? Are we satisfied that everything can be achieved by guidance? I hope that there will be an answer to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). What is the guidance? Shall we be able to see it and consult about it? It appears to me as though the guidance will be more important than the legislation. Will the guidance be a code of practice and presented in a document? Or is it an easy way of getting out of making provisions in the Bill?
As I have said in respect of a number of other issues, I believe that the provision should be put on the face of the Bill. We are trying to shape legislation in an unsatisfactory way. Noble Lords come to this House with great experience and do not expect that the answers from Ministers will be the same regardless of what is said. So, Minister, dear—dear Minister—we look forward to your response!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me if I am suspicious of his flattery. Of course, I am totally seized of the sensitivity. I hope that he will not, as I believe he did, cast doubts on my sensitivity in the answer that I shall give. Once again the noble Baroness has raised this important issue and has done so in a most sensitive way. It is a difficult issue to talk about in isolation and one that she strongly feels has been neglected under the present system.
As I said in Committee, the Government fully accept the importance of these services for the people

1593
in all age groups who are incontinent; the disabled people mentioned by the noble Baroness, some elderly people, and others, including many young people. I am grateful for this further opportunity to provide some reassurance about the future of incontinence services.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, we have already issued guidance to health authorities along the lines of the amendment. Health Notice (88) 26, which is in the Library, asked health authorities to consider the provision of a district-wide incontinence service. It further stated that:
"Good Practice would include a Continence Advisor acting as a focal point, provision for regular and adequate supply of incontinence aids and reasonable access to a urodynamic clinic. Authorities should identify a consultant and physiotherapist to take a special interest in incontinence".
We are therefore clear that we wish to see health authorities move in the direction indicated by the amendment.
Where we differ from the noble Baroness is as to how to achieve the objective of high quality, easily accessible incontinence services for people who need them. In general, we do not believe that it is helpful for the department to try to tell health authorities that they must provide a particular pattern or level of service. We do not have access to the detailed informal ion about local needs and competing priorities to enable us to do this.
In incontinence, as in other areas of health care, health authorities must determine what is an appropriate and affordable level of service at any given time. Health authorities know from our guidance that we wish to see incontinence services developed and they will continue to be responsible for this development when the changes in the Bill come into force. The performance of health authorities will continue to be monitored through the review processes. If we find evidence that incontinence services are not developing as we would hope in some places, it will be possible to use the review mechanism to ask health authorities to account for this.
Under the new arrangements the responsibility of health authorities for meeting the health care needs of their resident population will also become much clearer. That is an important point to make. I take the point made by the noble Baroness that we keep saying that matters will improve when this Bill is on the statute book and the system is up and running. With a note of cynicism she said that that is all very well but. in practice, things do not always work out in that way. All noble Lords have described the present system with all its faults. Under the new system, there must be plans and those plans have to be made: public. People will know that those needs are identified. If they are not met, the situation will be much more exposed under the new system than at present. Because that will be much clearer, it will be possible for people such as the noble Baroness to do something about ensuring that that accountability is properly met.
There will be a requirement for health authorities to publish plans setting out their community care policies and the arrangements which they propose
1594
for securing community services and community care. That will ensure that health authority plans for the development of incontinence services which, as the noble Baroness said, are crucial to community care can be scrutinised by those who require these services. In those circumstances, health authorities will have every incentive to ensure that incontinence services are adequately resourced.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen told us a very distressing story about a patient who had not received the proper advice. Therefore, thousands of pounds were spent quite unnecessarily and, also, considerable distress was caused to that patient. The hope is that two lessons will be learned from that. First, it is a scandalous waste of public money not to have provided a proper service in the first place. Under the new system one hopes that that situation will be exposed. Secondly, that need was clearly not being met and a new mechanism is provided so that something can be done about it.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said; namely, that he wants this matter to be written on the face of the Bill. However, if we put on the face of the Bill the creation of a particular post dealing with incontinence, however important that is—and I agree that that is a very important part of the service—there are thousands of aspects of the service for which it would be very tempting to say that there should be a consultant or adviser. I hope that the noble Lord will understand the sincerity of the point which I make; that is, that it must be a management decision. Authorities must be made accountable for services to make sure that they meet them in the way which is most appropriate in those areas.
I question the need for statutory backing. Those are management and service delivery questions and should not be dealt with by legislators. We do not set out how other community based health services should be managed. I believe quite sincerely that those matters can only sensibly be decided at local level based on clear objectives.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I have not intervened in the debate so far. As I understood it, the noble Baroness said that the circular would advise the districts to consider that something should be done. That is not a very strong indication that the Government want something to be done.
The Minister also said that we do not want to prescribe in legislation how things should be done. That is something with which some of us may agree. Before Third Reading perhaps the noble Baroness will consider the possibility—the House has made it quite clear—that a service of this kind should exist in every district. If we stopped at,
"shall provide a district-wide incontinence service",
and left it for them to decide whether they needed an adviser and consultant, it would make clear that that should be done. It would leave it to the districts to decide how it should be done.
Surely there is a case for arguing that, if it is felt that that particularly service needs to be provided,

1595
it is not enough to say that a circular should advise people to consider it. One can do damn all in response to that kind of instruction. If we say, "There must be a district-wide incontinence service: get on with it", we shall get what the House wants. Perhaps the noble Baroness will consider that before Third Reading.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe the noble Baroness is making the same point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. One very small part of the service has been identified and it is desired to deal with it in detail on the face of the Bill. I suspect that there is not a health authority in the country that does not have to deal with problems of incontinence in the community, and therefore that subject must be addressed by health authorities.
I am grateful for the suggestion that we should look again at the guidance. Clearly, I can take that back to the department and give the noble Baroness an assurance that we shall look carefully at strengthening the guidance. I repeat that Notice (88)26 said that good practice would include an incontinence adviser acting as a focal point and provision for regular and adequate supply of incontinence aids and reasonable access to urodynamics clinics, and that authorities should identify a consultant and physiotherapist to take a special interest in the subject of incontinence. That is very important and we shall look again at strengthening of guidance.
There is no disagreement between the noble Baroness and the Government on the importance of the subject of incontinence. However, I feel strongly on behalf of Government that it would be wrong to limit local decision making in the manner proposed in the amendment. I hope that the assurances I have given will be accepted. We will certainly do all we can to strengthen the guidance and ensure that the accountability links are such that, if there is any shortfall in the service, there will be mechanisms for ensuring that something is done about it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, before the Minister sits down and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask her to define guidance. She referred to Health Notice (88)26 as "guidance". I hope that I was suggesting something stronger. As the health notice does not seem to have had much effect I totally withdraw my suggestion regarding guidance. Are there two kinds of "guidance"? There is appealable guidance in law—is there not?—which is very strong. Is that what the health notice is?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the House has been very tolerant. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that the distinction we made in the past on that issue was the distinction between guidance and guidelines. "Guidance" is by far the stronger of the two. I was referring to guidance. I should also say that with guidance and the combination of the new reforms there is a much better opportunity to, first, identify the needs and publish plans; secondly, ensure that that service is properly delivered and, where it is not delivered, ensure that there is a mechanism to see that something is done about it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I should like to say that I am still worried. Universities are places that can look after themselves. We are talking of people who cannot look after themselves, the very vulnerable; those people who cannot speak of their problems because they are embarrassed about them. We also have the carers to consider. They give up a tremendous amount of time and need guidance and help from people who are experts in the district.
I had a letter today from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. At the end came a small paragraph referring to the subject of incontinence and saying that the Government would still be looking at it. I must ask the House to decide this point. We must do our best. If we lose the amendment we lose it. But at least we have tried our best. I therefore ask your Lordships to divide.
9.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 48.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Peston, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Rea, L.

Cox, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Russell, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Seear, B.

Ennals, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Caithness, E.

Lindsay, E.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Lyell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Coleraine, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Morris, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Denman, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Eccles, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Elton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Wynford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Young, B.

Grantchester, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert:
("(4A) In giving directions with respect to the exercise of function; by District or Special Health Authorities or Family Health Services Authorities, no direction shall act so as to restrict a general practitioner's right to refer patients for investigation, diagnosis or treatment to Health Authorities or NHS trusts acting other than pursuant to NHS contracts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here and so the burden falls on me to explain the amendment. It concerns an extremely important issue for general practitioners and for their patients. It is an issue quite different from those previously discussed.
There is a fear among doctors and their patients that, far from increasing patient choice, the Bill as it stands may have the opposite effect and reduce patient choice. There is a concern that people will not be able to have the same range of opportunity. Currently, GPs are able to refer their patients to consultants that they think are the most appropriate, having regard to their clinical needs, their convenience, the length of waiting lists and other considerations. This may sometimes include the patient's views on the choice of consultant as the patient may have seen a certain consultant before. It would seem that financial considerations will now enter into these decisions for health authorities and for GP fund holders, who would shop around for the most economic contract with a hospital.
Until now it has been the right of every patient to receive all necessary and appropriate treatment from his general practitioner. It is also the right of every patient to be referred to the consultant most suited to his or her needs. This amendment seeks to write into the Bill the right of every general practitioner to be able to refer the patient to any hospital even if a contract is not held with the hospital. That means it gives to the GP the choice to say, for a whole range of reasons, who is the most appropriate consultant for a patient with a particular condition.
The clause as it stands can only work against patient choice because GPs who are not budget holders—that will be the majority of them—will be restricted, except in exceptional circumstances, to referring their patients to only those hospitals where their district health authorities have placed contracts. That underlines the disparity between the services that budget-holding GPs and non-budget-holding GPS can offer to patients. Much as district health authorities might try to accommodate the wishes of doctors and patients, the size of the budget at DHA level will compel them in the direction of the cheapest option.
The Department of Health document Contracts for Health Services: Operational Principles states:
"A presumpton of the right to make an extra contractual referral cannot therefore be a guarantee that the DHA would in all cases agree to meet the cost".
I find that unacceptable. I know also that most general practitioners find unacceptable that such a change should be made in the opportunity for choice which they and their patients have had. That power
1598
alone is enough justification for the amendment. The plans for change in the hospital service could reduce patient choice by restricting the freedom of the general practitioner to refer patients to the consultants and hospitals which, in the doctor's opinion, provide the most appropriate clinical care.
In cases of emergency if a bed is unavailable in the contracted hospital, or the GP decides that the patient should be sent elsewhere for clinical or social reasons, GPs will be able to refer outside the contract and the cost will be met by the district health authority. But that would need prior clearance between the doctor and the DHA. It is certainly not clear to me how that procedure would work.
Therefore we must preserve the right of the GP to refer a patient to the consultant whom the GP thinks is most appropriate for that patient regardless of a contractual arrangement that may have already been made. I beg to move.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, perhaps I may draw attention to the present situation. Psychiatric patients cannot be referred outside their districts now. Therefore, there is no choice right now for psychiatric patients. The present situation for other patients is that most general practitioners will refer a patient to a particular hospital. There are many places in the country where there is only one hospital, anyway.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has spoken repeatedly about the cheapest option. However, he has also advocated evolutionary change based on existing practices. I believe in that, too. He has also supported the principle of the money following the patient, so that if a patient is referred to a particular hospital then money will eventually follow. How can we combine those principles to give us the best answer? In fact, the Bill proposes that general practitioners will continue to refer their patients to the same hospital on an agreement which will last for a year. In other words, the Bill is simply continuing the present practice.
However, in order for us to be able to try out other evolutionary changes, we have these pilot studies where those with a GP budget will be able to refer their patients to any hospital they like. Clearly there would be chaos—as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, keeps telling us—if every general practitioner in the land was able to refer his patients to whatever hospital he liked and money was to follow the patients. In that case we would need hundreds of thousands of accountants to get it right. Clearly we could not introduce such a radical change. Therefore, we are building upon existing practices—that is, what is actually taking place at present—and we are trying out in certain areas the concept that a general practitioner can refer his patient to any hospital he likes.
I understand the feeling of general practitioners that their freedom will be curtailed. However, let us suppose, for example, that a patient was suffering from a particular type of cancer. Let us confine this to women and suppose that it is a particularly rare form of cancer. The expert for that condition in London would be Professor Bagshawe at the Charing

1599
Cross Hospital. General practitioners would want to refer such a patient to that particular person. Let us further suppose that the patient with this particular form of cancer is referred to a hospital which does not have this expertise. Clearly that hospital would refer to the specialist at Charing Cross Hospital. I do not see any problem in that process. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is right when he says that this will be an enormous change. It is really based upon existing practices and, in addition, we have these pilot studies where we shall find out the problems and difficulties of a general practitioner with his own budget referring his patients to any hospital he likes.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he is dissatisfied with the present situation in which GPs have the right to refer patients wherever they wish and to inquire about the length of waiting lists and so on, and whether a patient is prepared to go to Birmingham or elsewhere? Does he believe that the current situation is so unsatisfactory that the present rights of GPs to do this should now be taken from them and should be restricted?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the current situation is entirely unsatisfactory because the GPs do not refer their patients to hospitals where the waiting lists are shorter. One of the strange facts in the National Health Service is that general practitioners will not refer their patients to a hospital 20 miles away where the waiting list is shorter. I do not blame them. There are many reasons why they do not do so. Tradition is one of them. They may say "We have always sent our patients to Hospital X and we shall continue to do so". They have been very reluctant to consider sending their patients further afield.
General practitioners will say that the patients do not want to travel. It is true that sometimes they are not asked; but sometimes the patients are not prepared to travel because they want their relatives to visit them, even though they may only be in hospital for a few days. However, they go to Paris for the weekend without their relatives—
Lord Ennals: That is patients' choice; that is what it is all about!
Lord McColl of Dulwich: Indeed.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I was quite interested to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I practised medicine in the National Health Service until 31st March 1985. I practised medicine in Euston. I lived first in Willesden Green and latterly in Hampstead. I used University College Hospital, Middlesex Hospital, the Royal Free Hospital, the Central Middlesex Hospital and St. Mary's Hospital. I used the hospitals with consultants in whom I had confidence. I was not an atypical GP. I am sure that I was a typical GP. A GP sends his patients to the consultants in whom he has confidence. He expects the consultants to treat his patients as he would wish. If they do not, he does not send patients to them again.
1600
That has been the situation until now for every GP. After the Bill is enacted there will be two types of GP, because there will be GPs who are budget holders. If the GP is a budget holder, he will be able to do what I have been doing for all these years with the additional advantage of being able to send the patient to a private hospital. The advantage of being a budget holder is that the patient can be sent anywhere. The GP balances his budget as best he can.
If the GP is not a budget holder, he will have to send the patient to the hospital with whom the DHA has contracts. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord McColl, or anyone else, trying to suggest that that does not restrict the GP. The GP is restricted to the hospitals with which the DHA has contracts.
At our meetings with him, the Minister pointed out that the way in which the contracts will be arranged leaves a large contingency fund which will allow GPs to send patients to places other than those with which the DHA has a contract. I accept that, but the contingency fund will need to be large if GPs are not to be restricted. There is no sense in pretending that in this measure we are not restricting the GP's choice in terms of his patients. The noble Lord says that we are building upon existing practices. I do not agree. While most doctors will send their patients to hospitals which are convenient to the patient—it is usually more that than anything else—there is always the relationship between the consultant and the GP. Consultants build up their practices in that way. The noble Lord is a consultant, and he will have built up his practice in the usual way, which is through the relationship that consultants have with the GPs who trust them.
It is essential that the GP should be free to send his patient not just to the consultant with whom the patient feels happy—that is also important—but to the consultant with whom the GP feels happy. It is that relationship which is being undermined, except, I admit, for the budget holders. Budget holders are not undermined by this measure. However, GPs who are not budget holders are undermined because the DHA will have made contracts with hospitals.
Noble Lords will be aware how Ministers answer when they are asked whether there will ever be an occasion when a patient cannot obtain the drug he requires. The Minister says that that position will never arise, but noble Lords will remember what happened in March when DHAs overran their budgets and had to close wards and so on. When that is charged to the budget holder, the GP, he will be in the same position as the DHAs today. In March he will probably run out of his budget. There will then be the same difficulties unless the Government are prepared to put additional finance into the service.
So far, there is no way that we have been told of in which the finance which is lacking will be put into the service. Up to now we have not been told that the service will no longer be underfunded. Everyone who has studied the National Health Service and its situation knows that the reason why we are in that state is because the service is underfunded. We know how it is underfunded. Every year the Government say that inflation is lower than it really is. They allow for five patients when there are eight. However that

1601
is not the only way in which they do it. They accept payment for the staff when the doctors', dentists' or the nurses' review bodies accept it. Then they pay part of it and therefore the health authority has to find the other part.
This combination of not making a full allowance for inflation and not paying the full costs of wage increases has caused people to lose treatment because hospital beds are regularly closed. That is the situation. We have not yet been told that this will cease. It may well do so. I admit that if the Government change their ways then this will work. However so would the present service. With the present service the GP has the right to send his patient to the hospital and consultant of his choice. In the new arrangement he will not have that choice unless he is a budget holder. There is no point in anyone saying in this House or anywhere else that that is not so, because that is the situation.
The amendment merely says that we commit the Government to not putting general practitioners into a position where they cannot send patients to the consultant of their choice. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. The consequences of doing so would be that the Government must be willing to ensure that the service is properly funded. There is no other solution. There must be proper funding of the service.
As long as we go on pretending that we are funding the service, whereas we are underfunding it, we shall be in the same position as we are today. Whether we create an internal market—because that is what we shall have—what will happen is not the ward closures that we have now, but hospitals that will do well and hospitals that will not do so well. There will be GPs who find themselves in a difficult position because they are unable to organise their budgets, which are not up to scratch. They will be in the same position as the district health authorities are in now.
Basic to all this is a decision which we have not heard from anyone—a decision that the service will be properly funded. Unless it is properly funded it is nice to have cosmetic treatment, but that is all it will be.
Lord Rea: As a fellow general practitioner I too worked for a number of years in Bloomsbury health authority. There is little more that I can add to the remarks of my noble friend. I have enjoyed over approximately 30 years the right to refer my patients to any consultant within reason, and almost without reason, throughout the country. However, I wish to ask the Minister who is to reply how many patients in non-budget holding practices are likely, as the situation is now, to be referred to hospitals outside those which will have contracts. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, said that current practices will be largely embodied in the new contracts that are to be drawn up.
In my case it is perfectly true that the great majority of patients that I and my partners refer go to the three nearest hospitals, two of which are teaching hospitals and one of which is the Whittington Hospital. They are all equally distant from the practice. However, occasionally, we wish to refer patients to hospitals outside that group. I
1602
consider that the new contracts will allow us to refer patients to the three hospitals that we now refer them to, but they may restrict us as regards sending patients to other hospitals which are usually specifically requested by a small number of patients because they or their relatives have had previous experience of going to that hospital or they know a doctor at the hospital.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, hinted, we may know someone at a hospital outside our normal run of hospitals who is specifically skilled in a particular condition. I believe the noble Lord will find that the number of patients who wish to go to those hospitals outside the normal run of hospitals represents a pretty small proportion of the total number of patients who are referred to hospitals. I believe it would be easy for the Government to accept this amendment. It would allow what the White Paper suggested was the object of the reforms, which is to increase patient choice. This amendment would be useful for the Government because it would make some patients and some GPs feel slightly warmer towards the reforms. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say about this.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if a GP cannot send a patient to the consultant of that patient's choice and the patient goes to the consultant and hospital that the district says he must go to, what happens if an operation goes wrong? Can the GP and the patient sue the district health authority?
10 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it seems rather late at night to have to refute yet again the allegations of underfunding that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, put to us. However, I have a duty to do so and I shall do so. I shall repeat what 1, my noble friend Lady Hooper and Ministers in the Department of Health have said before, which is that there is no underfunding. We have increased spending in real terms by some 45 per cent, in the 10 years or more that we have been in office.
I accept that, whatever level of funding we arrive at, there will still be allegations of underfunding. However, an increase in spending in real terms of 45 per cent, is a figure we can be proud of. Some 1-5 million more patients are treated in hospital each year than in 1978. There are also more doctors and more nurses. I could go on, but I shall not do so. I totally refute—
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, will the Minister give way?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords. I shall not give way. I now wish to return to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, some time ago. As my noble friend Lady Hooper said in Committee, the Bill's proposals are designed to assist GPs to obtain the best available services for their patients. 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. At the present time GPs'

1603
choices may in practice be restricted if their preferred hospital is unable to take on additional work within the budget allocated to it at the start of the financial year. The new arrangements will therefore bring greater flexibility and choice. Contracts will also give all providers an incentive to improve, and they will specify the standards of care that can be expected.
I know that some GPs continue to express concern that the district health authority contracts will restrict their freedom of referral, and that point was put admirably by the noble Lords, Lord Pitt and Lord Rea. Such fears are groundless. We have made it absolutely clear that the districts must consult their local GPs closely on contract placements with the object of securing the referral patterns which local GPs wish to see put in place. I hope that that deals with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The regions will be responsible for ensuring that the districts achieve that objective and that any differences between the districts and GPs are resolved. GPs will therefore have a much more direct influence over the hospital services available to their patients than now.
There has also been much misunderstanding about the arrangements for referrals to non-contract hospitals. Obviously the need for these will to an extent depend on how successful the district has been in matching the contract placements to GPs' referral patterns. In any event, districts will maintain contingency reserves to enable GPs to refer patients to non-contract hospitals when they judge it necessary to do so, whether on clinical, social or other grounds. We have made it clear that the arrangements for administering the contingency reserve must be simple, quick, non-bureaucratic, and designed in discussion with local GPs. In non-urgent cases GPs will be encouraged to consult their district health authority if in doubt—but they will not be obliged to do this.
Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts states that:
"Districts will not challenge the GP's choice of provider unless it can be shown that the proposed referral is wholly unjustified on clinical grounds or where an alternative referral would be equally efficacious for the patient, taking into account the patient's wishes."
Lord Ennals: My Lords, who decides? Is it the health authority or the GP who decides what is in the best interests of the patient?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I repeat that the district will not challenge the GP's choice unless it can be proven that the proposed referral by the GP was not wholly justified. It is a matter of proving that the GP has not chosen correctly.
In emergencies GPs will always be able to refer to non-contract hospitals in the confidence that the cost will be met.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the legal liability—the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—if the patient suffered some injury in that hospital as a result of an operation and the hospital was one with which there was a contract.
1604
Perhaps the noble Baroness could repeat her question.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the question was, if the GP has to send the patient to a hospital which is not the hospital of his choice or of the patient's choice but is the choice of the district and something goes wrong, have the GP and the patient i the right to sue the district for making the wrong decision?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the legal liability in that case would rest with the person who had committed the tort, in other words the doctor or with the health authority which is responsible for that hospital. However, that is a legal point and I had better come back to the noble Baroness on that matter.
I believe that a major benefit of the new contractual system will be improved co-operation and better understanding between the districts and GPs. I believe that there is a real and exciting prospect of achieving a new partnership between the districts and GPs for the benefit of patients. Many health service managers share that view. However, that partnership will not be achieved if GPs are encouraged by this amendment to see contracts as something they can ignore rather than as a means of securing the services they think best for their patients.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his reply. The case has been powerfully made. I made it only in a modest way. It was greatly strengthened by two general practitioners who know far more about the matter than I do. And it has been overwhelmingly supported in the country by GPs through their national representatives. For good reasons or bad, depending on which way you look at the matter, patients seem to agree with the general practitioners. So the Government find themselves unable to persuade most people that they are trying to achieve what they say they wish to achieve.
As my noble friend Lord Rea said, the amendment is directly in line with what the Government claim to be their objective; namely, to widen patient choice. Yet everything that the Minister said would limit, not widen, patient choice. He said that choice would be there and that GPs could do what they wanted unless the district health authority sought to prove that their action was unjustified. I do not know how a district health authority will prove that a GP's judgment is wrong. A GP is far more likely to know what is in the best interests of his patients than some bureaucrat in the district health authority.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly because I should have dealt with that point more fully. It will be a matter for the independent clinicians at the regional health authority if there is a dispute.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, that will mean more staff with more independent inquiries, challenges and questions from GPs about their rights. Why not

1605
allow them to have the rights that they now have? Why are we determined to go down a route to restrict the rights of general practitioners?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I think that I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Let us suppose that a general practitioner in Southend insists on sending his patients to the London Hospital for an ingrowing toenail. That would be deemed an extravagant use of resources when surgeons in Southend are perfectly able to treat the condition. It is an extreme example, but it is valid.
Let me take a much more common condition such as a hernia in the groin. Why should general practitioners in Southend send their patients up to London when the surgeons in Southend are perfectly adequate and extremely good surgeons? That is the kind of thing that we are trying to avoid.
Perhaps I may give another example. When patients are sent to me from Greece for treatment for common conditions, I try to persuade them that there arc: many able surgeons in Greece who could perform the operation there, saving the patient a great deal of money.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, most doctors would say that it was a matter of their clinical judgment. Since the health service was created in 1948, great emphasis has been laid on the clinical judgment of doctors as to what is in the best interests of their patients. A new system is being imposed here in which other people decide what is in the best interests of patients. Inquiries will take place, people will hear evidence and presumably litigation will follow as to whether the health authority or the general practitioner is right. That is grossly unsatisfactory. The Minister pretends that that is broadening choice. Of course it is not; it is limiting choice for reasons which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the Minister must think satisfactory.
I am unimpressed by any of the arguments that I have heard against the case. I realise that the Minister was provoked by my noble friend. I agree with my noble friend Lord Pitt about underfunding. I did not mention underfunding when I moved the amendment. The amendment was not related to underfunding, but I certainly understand my noble friend's concerns as he suffers from underfunding. It is not a question of whether more money is provided every year. The Minister must know that in all the 45 years—or however many years it is—since the National Health Service came into existence, governments every year have provided more money than the previous year. Sometimes they provide little more than the previous year. As regards underfunding, the question is whether the National Health Service is able to do its job on the amount that is made available. We know that in relation to other countries, this country makes available a much smaller percentage of the national gross product.
I did not wish to enter this argument but if the Minister comes up with those figures I shall respond to him. I cannot agree with anyone who says that the National Health Service is not underfunded. They may be doctors, nurses, those on district health authorities or regional health authorities. I am
1606
replying to the Minister's response to the debate. It is my amendment. I really must do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No, Divide!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am being encouraged to divide, but I shall not do so. I shall withdraw the amendment. I know that I shall lose a Division. Everyone knows how we stand on this. I totally disagree with the Government. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment because I know that a Division is pointless at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 49, at end insert:
("or;
(c) the condition of the individual is such that he requires open access to genito-urinary medicine; drug dependency units and family planning services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after that rather dramatic debate, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to an important question of public health. Your Lordships will have to be patient with me for perhaps four minutes.
In its current form, the Bill recognises and makes provision for only three broad types of situation whereby a health authority will provide goods and services for the benefit of the individual. Those are, first, where it is within the primary function of the authority—that is, the individual is a resident of that authority; secondly, where there is an appropriate NHS contract with another authority; and, thirdly, where the needs are such that the urgency of care required by the individual precludes the possibility of negotiating a contract first.
Omitted from those contractual arrangements is a category of services where there is not necessarily urgent individual need but where encouraging early contact with the service is in the interests of wider public health. For this group the open access or self-referral services include in particular the clinics for genito-urinary medicine and sexually transmitted diseases, drug dependency and family planning.
In each case the open access nature of the service has developed for very good reasons. Widespread provision of open access—confidential, self-referral clinics for sexually transmitted diseases—has been the cornerstone of public health control since the 1916 Veneral Diseases Regulations. It is only by encouraging individuals to seek treatment on their earliest suspicions that they may have contracted an infection that we can prevent such diseases as gonorrhoea, syphilis and herpes from being passed on to subsequent partners.
The epidemics of viral illnesses such as hepatitis, HIV and AIDS are not at present so amenable to treatment. However, the clinics for genito-urinary medicine and drug dependency, while attracting self-referral on the basis of personal need, allow also the high risk users to be brought into contact with the health promotion and disease prevention services.
One to one health education sessions and counselling, and provision of material such as condoms and clean needles, are the main strategies for containment of epidemics of HIV and hepatitis B. The prime consideration contributing to the success or otherwise of the strategy are, first, convenience of access to the clinics and, second, confidentiality. They are of course linked. Many clients might delay their contact with services if it would mean explaining time off work to an employer. However, unrestricted, open access services allow even commuters to attend clinics in working hours close to the place of work. Similarly the opportunity to self-refer to distant sites removes the potential barrier of embarrassment at the possibility of being recognised while attending a local clinic. The desire for anonymity extends to confidentiality of information. Many clients, at least initially, are unwilling to allow information about their condition to get back even to their family practitioner. Rightly or wrongly, they often assume that that is less likely to happen if their contact is with services outside their home locality.
The third main self-referral service is family planning. That differs slightly from those that I have already mentioned, although it has many similarities. Once again the possibility of being able to preserve anonymity by contacting services distant from the home locality is an important factor in increasing uptake, particularly by the young.
It should be clear that, if the Bill in any way reduces the access to clinics or threatens patient confidentiality, it will have an adverse effect on public health as well as on the personal health of the users. Unfortunately, as currently worded, the Bill threatens both those aspects of service. First, it does not make clear that current open access services should continue to see patients for whom there is no contract provision in their district of residence. Although a statute exists for genito-urinary clinics in the sexually transmitted disease regulations, which require that all patients presenting must be seen, that must be confirmed by the present Bill if there is to be no conflict or confusion in the new environment. As regards drug dependency and family planning services, there are not even any separate statutes to provide a safety net under the loophole in the Bill.
While representing a free market more than most, self-referral services do not lend themselves well to the contracting process. Clients will not be respecters of contracts and will continue to present at their clinic of choice, whatever the contractual arrangements made by their purchasing district of residence. At present district residents represent only 15 to 20 per cent, of users of the large inner-city clinics, the remainder coming from a wide catchment area. Thus much of the cost of recovery of the clinics would depend on retrospective billing on a cost per case basis. With little money coming in up front to run the service, authorities or provider units may opt to abandon such troublesome resources, thereby reducing the access of even their own residents.
The best way round the problem, as suggested in the first of the group of amendments, is to support
1608
those services to which I have referred by block funding for open access, thus ensuring that money is available in advance to maintain the service. Such contracts could either be held directly with the region or with local district authorities. They would be provided with funding above capitation to allow for cross-boundary flows.
The block contracting system would also reduce concerns about confidentiality. If retrospective billing or even cost and volume contracts were necessary for cost recovery after self-referral, they would require provision of a data set about patients receiving treatment to be sent to districts of residence. Many patients would regard that as a breach of confidentiality. With block contracts, such data transfer would not be necessary.
It is apparent that the Department of Health recognises the problem that self-referral services pose for the new contracting process. As we all know, several working papers followed the White Paper Working for Patients. In Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts it is recognised that different arrangements need to be made for such services. The need to allow patients to continue to self-refer is stressed. For genito-urinary services in particular, the confidentiality issue is recognised as being particularly important.
I wish to quote from the working paper on self-referral services. Paragraph 4.24 states:
"Slightly different arrangements are needed for self-referral services because there is no-one between the patient and the provider with whom the DHA can discuss contract placements. The essential objective here is to guarantee choice for patients, particularly where services are provided on a walk-in basis. However, no single model for contractual funding of self-referral services is likely to suffice, because of local factors such as the use of services by commuters and tourists. RHAs will be expected to ensure that relevant units are funded in a way that allows patients to self-refer".
I shall repeat that sentence.
"RHAs will be expected to ensure that relevant units are funded in a way that allows patients to self-refer".
However, there is no guarantee of that in the Bill.
At Paragraph 4.25 it is recognised that for genito-urinary medicine, confidentiality is particularly important. That point is addressed in the second of these two amendments. The paper goes on to say:
"Where this is the case the need to preserve confidentiality may require districts to accept responsibility on the basis of anonymised or aggregate data. The A and E model may well prove suitable for other common self-referral services".
Those problems are recognised and half addressed in this working paper, which followed the White Paper. It seems a pity that the Bill does not pursue and give effect to those important insights by the authors of the White Paper.
Therefore, in my view and certainly in the view of all the professionals concerned, there is an important lacuna in public health legislation which these amendments seek to remedy. I revert to my starting point. These are public health issues of great importance and it would be less than responsible of the Government to leave them in this limbo. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the noble Lord has made the case so comprehensively that I shall spend only a few moments highlighting my reasons for supporting these amendments by reinforcing the principles which underpin them. They are the key principles of the possibility of self referrals, confidentiality and ease of access.
In areas of genito-urinary medicine, particularly those relating to sexually transmitted diseases, drug dependency and family planning, there may be many understandable reasons for people wishing to attend the facilities outside their own locality, where they have no personal contracts and are assured of anonymity and confidentiality.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, indicated, at present in large inner city clinics about 80 per cent, of those who attend them come from areas outside the immediate catchment area of the clinics. Unless there are provisions such as those stipulated in the amendments, it may be difficult to ensure continuation of funding for those special facilities and the implications in terms of both individual and public health could be very serious indeed.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as a GP, I am happy to support this amendment. I know that a number of my patients suffering from such conditions would be embarrassed to visit me or my partner as a general practitioner. They would rather go directly, as the noble Baroness said, perhaps to a facility outside the immediate neighbourhood, although a number will use the facilities within their own neighbourhood without having been referred by their local GP.
I suspect that the noble Lord will say that a provision in the Bill covers those eventualities. He will say that the paragraph previously mentioned can be construed as including those services. However, I do not believe that that is sufficient and, as on several other amendments which have already been discussed, the words of the amendment should be written into the Bill.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I support these amendments as probing amendments in the confident hope that the Minister can satisfy the anxieties expressed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too support this amendment. I should like to mention the difficulties of STD clinics. It is not just a question of the patients who go there but is also a question of the follow-up of contracts of infected people, counselling and the work which must be very confidentially carried out. How will that be done? Is it to be done by numbers or initials if the billing is to go to the districts? Perhaps patients will not want their districts to know about attendance at clinics. That is why it is important that we consider the confidentiality aspect.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I can answer the arguments on the amendment briefly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for reading out most of paragraphs 4.24 and 4.25 of Operating Contracts. That saves me doing much the same.
1610
The Government fully accept the importance of open access to services like genito-urinary medicine, drug dependency and family planning services. We also recognise the particular need for confidentiality in such cases. However, there is no need to include specific provisions in the Bill.
Guidance on contractual funding has already stressed the need for health authorities to give particular consideration to services which patients use on a self-referral basis. That is not because there is a risk of such services being overlooked. As has been stressed many times, district health authorities will have a duty to ensure that their residents have access to a comprehensive range of services. Nor is it any less appropriate to fund genito-urinary clinics or other self-referral units through contracts. As with other services their patients can only benefit from the specification of quality in contracts and a closer link between workload and resources.
It is therefore simply a matter of ensuring that the contractual arrangements for self-referral services secure open access and confidentiality. The Government have taken a rather different approach to this from that proposed in the amendment. In the case of genito-urinary medicine, Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts made it clear that, unless alternative arrangements are agreed with RHAs, DHAs, will be expected to provide funding in the same way as for accident and emergency services; that is, by placing contracts which cover all patients who present themselves for the service regardless of district of residence. The guidance has also suggested that this may be an appropriate model for other self-referral services since it avoids the need for a contract or exchange of information with the patient's own DHA. However, different considerations may apply to different services in different districts and we believe it is important to allow proper scope for local decision-making. Generally, therefore, we expect DHAs to decide themselves the most appropriate arrangements for funding self-referral services used by their residents. In view of the particular importance of these services, however, Operating Contracts places a specific responsibility on the regions for ensuring that satisfactory arrangements for both confidentiality and access are made.
I hope the House will accept that the Government have taken adequate steps to ensure that open access and confidentiality are secured in these cases. I hope that they will also accept that our approach, which aims to be flexible and not over prescriptive, is preferable to the proposal for regional contracts contained in the amendment. I trust therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I feel a little less grateful to the Minister than I frequently do for his replies, which are always lucid and often helpful. First, it must be recognised that the genito-urinary clinics play a very important role in the reduction of venereal disease and particulary in the relatively successful containment of the AIDS HIV epidemic in this country which has commanded admiration from many countries abroad. Anything which

1611
militates against the continuance and the confidentiality of the service in terms of that epidemic would be disastrous. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
Secondly, the Minister said that self-referral services should be treated by districts on the same basis as accident and emergency services. However, there is a considerable difference. In an accident or emergency one can in most cases eventually trace the point of origin of the patient. When the patient regains consciousness one can find out where he came from and a costing and billing system can follow on. That is not the case where there are anonymous self-referrals which are so important in the containment of disease.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks when introducing the amendment, this is a crucial public health issue. Therefore, I am slightly less than satisfied with what the noble Lord said, because, if the DHA for some reason or other, cannot afford to keep these clinics going, then it is up to the RHA, and that is what is said in this working paper. But we do not have anything more than that. We simply have the statement that RHAs will be expected to ensure that relevant units are funded in a way that allows patients to self-refer.
I shall not press this amendment at this time of night, but I may want to come back at a later stage. But can the noble Lord tell me that there will be some direction or guidance—we have had a lot of guidance this evening—to RHAs making it clear that they will be expected to keep up this absolutely vital service, if it shows signs of faltering, in the interests of public health. That would go some way to reassuring those of us who are worried about this matter. If the noble Lord cannot give me an assurance of that sort. I shall have to read the report of what he says and possibly come back at a later stage. But I want to stress the crucial importance of this matter for the maintenance of public health in this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 35:
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

1612

(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: My Lords, there is a temptation at bedtime—this used to be thought of as bedtime—to try to reduce the presentation and not to deal seriously with issues. We are now coming onto the role of community health councils. We have not had at Committee stage any debate on the role of community health councils and, although I shall try to be brief, their case has to be set out.
The community health councils were established in 1974 with the clear purpose of being a community watchdog and, on the whole, they have done a very good job. It is our responsibility to see that we make adjustments to their role as we are making adjustments to the health service's structure. So I beg to move Amendment No. 35, standing in my name, which seeks in summary to improve the involvement of CHCs as user representatives in the health service by, first, setting up an independent establishing body for CHCs; secondly, allowing CHCs to take part in regional health authority and NHS trust meetings, as well as DHA meetings; and, thirdly, allowing CHCs to inspect private hospitals where NHS patients are treated.
Virtually all aspects of this Bill impinge in some way or other on the work of community health councils. Some of the key effects are the creation of a market system which may lead to more complex, short-term and unstable relationships between hospitals and health authorities which will require closer monitoring, partly because these arrangements are new and we must see that they work properly if they are to be established.
NHS trusts need hold only one public meeting a year and thus community health councils are effectively excluded from their decision-making process. There was a Department of Health document reported in the Guardian, I hope correctly, on 17th April 1990, which clearly states that trusts will not need to consult CHCs about service changes in the same way as DHAs at present do. I hope that that is not true and that we shall hear an answer to it. More use will be made, inevitably, of the private sector as health authorities contract out services to private hospitals and nursing homes.
There was also a Department of Health report in November 1989 which stated that whether or not CHCs can inspect private hospitals in such cases will depend on the contract that the DHA negotiates and that there will be no automatic right to inspect. This would be deliberately to downgrade CHCs, and the purpose of this amendment is to set out clearly the role of CHCs in the future.
Subsection (1) of the amendment sets up an independent national establishing body for CHCs and aims to allow the development of a clearer and more independent voice to express the anxieties of users at national level. That is essential. In all the debates about membership of authorities, no

1613
assurances have been given about the extent to which any of them will be able to represent the interests of users.
Secondly, it seeks to ensure that CHCs generally have a clearer and more consistent set of policies and priorities and a stronger sense of direction. Thirdly, it seeks to ensure that the activities, the level of resources and the staff of CHCs are more consistently and equitably spread across the regions. Fourthly, it seeks to provide better and more professional support and training for CHC members and staff across the country in order to allow a clearer relationship between CHCs and RHAs in order that users' representatives can express their views to RHAs without at the same time being dependent upon them for resources. That is a very important point. It is the whole argument behind the setting up of a national establishing body. Community health councils should not be beholden to those who fund them.
Subsection (2) will enable CHCs to attend both RHA and NHS trust meetings as well as those of DHAs. It aims to give user representatives a say in important regional meetings which shape the general strategy of health policy and co-ordinate health services and which will have a role in regulating the market. It gives to CHCs a say in trusts. Otherwise the trust boards may be able to develop or reduce services. especially non-designated services, according to contracts with the private sector and other DHAs without reference to local people. This may in turn affect what services are available in the future for local residents. The CHC observer seat—I emphasise "observer seat"—on the board would help to ensure that patients' views are taken into account.
Finally, subsection (3) gives to CHCs the right to enter and inspect private hospitals and nursing homes which are under contract to treat NHS patients I would not have said that if it were private hospitals which were not treating or under contract to treat NHS patients. It aims to ensure that as more and more patients are treated under contract in private hospitals, if that be the fact, they enjoy the same rights and level of representation as patients in NHS hospitals. It aims to ensure that experienced lay representatives are able to compare standards of care in private and NHS hospitals and ensure that those are adequate. It aims to ensure that the terms of DHA contracts with private hospitals do not mean that patients are discharged too quickly or that continuity of care with the NHS is impaired.
The amendment has been drawn up in consultation with the community health councils which take their responsibilities very seriously indeed. I hope that the House will give serious consideration to the future role of community health councils as we move into a differently structured NHS. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the first paragraph of the amendment puts on the Secretary of State the duty of setting up an authority to establish and fund community health councils. The National Health Service Act 1977 does much the same in Section 20 and the Secretary of State in the Community Health
1614
Councils Regulations 1985 delegates that duty to regional health authorities. Wherein therefore lies the difference between the RHA and the new body that the noble Lord seeks? It must be in the description of the new body as "independent". But the amendment does not seek to change the 1977 Act and leaves the Secretary of State responsible for setting up the new body, as he is for RHAs now.
The body that the noble Lord proposes will therefore be only as independent as regional health authorities are now. They already do what the amendment wants the new body to do. The second subsection of the amendment is looking to achieve for community health councils three legal rights which the Government agree should remain denied to them. Community health councils already have the right by agreement to send a representative to district health authority meetings as an observer. The amendment seeks to make that right statutory. But what is the purpose when the arrangement works well without statute? Is it really necessary to bring the law into areas of life which work adequately without it?
The second subsection would also give CHCs a statutory right to send observers to meetings of both National Health Service trusts and regional health authorities. But the relationship of the CHC has always been to its DHA and each DHA district has its own CHC. That relationship will be enhanced when district health authorities become purchasers rather than providers of health services as the Government lay great emphasis on DHAs seeking the views of all consumer groups on services provided. The local population's concern about services which regional health authorities or NHSTs provide will be passed to their DHA which contracted for the services. I see no need for a statutory relationship between the CHC and any body other than its DHA. I can assure noble Lords that community health councils will have visiting rights in National Health Service trusts.
The last subsection of the amendment would set in law arrangements which work perfectly well without. Most community health councils will tell you that an important part of their work is the right to inspect premises controlled by the district health authority. That right is enshrined in regulations as part of the philosophy of relating the CHC to its own DHA. Many CHCs, aware of the need for good relations with other providers of health services to NHS patients, have made arrangements with the owners or managers of private hospitals and nursing homes which take in NHS patients. They allow CHCs to enter and inspect much the same as DHAs do by statute. Those arrangements work without the law intervening. What would be the point of statutory provision? Laws which are clearly unnecessary have no place in the statute book. I urge noble Lords to resist them.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Can she say what consultation the department and Ministers have had with community health councils and their national organisation before that reply was given? I shall speak long enough for an answer to be given. I do not believe that it would be right for the

1615
Government to give an answer on a major amendment like this without consulting the community health councils. What is their role? If it transpires that the Government have not consulted the councils about that reply then I believe, as I have said, that there is some attempt to denigrate, lower the status and undermine the role of the councils at a time when I believe that that role needs to be enhanced.
The Minister referred to the three subsections. I thought I had made it clear why I and the community health councils think that it is important that they should not be dependent on the regional health authorities. I recognise that that is now the case. There is something very unsatisfactory about being dependent on a regional health authority which is providing the resources for their work. I said that there should be allowed a clearer relationship between community health councils and regional health authorities in order that representatives can express their views to the regional health authorities without at the same time being dependent on them for resources.
That is a very good reason for change and for some independence. If such community health councils are not to be independent then who is? They are the watchdogs of the community. If we say that they must be dependent on authorities that makes for a very difficult situation. It has always been the case that they will be dependent financially. They have been financially dependent since they were established in 1974.
The Minister also referred to the second subsection of the amendment which enables CHCs to attend RHA and NHS trust meetings as well as those of DHAs. She said, "Why change what is working well?" The reason is partly because there have never been NHS trusts before. If we are to create such trusts, as she well knows—because we have debated the matter often enough—one of the principles of an NHS trust is that it is independent of the health authority. As it is independent of the health authority and as the Government place great emphasis on the importance of these independent trusts, then as they have in a sense opted out of the district health authority—not the National Health Service; and I shall not go into that argument—and opted out of responsibility to the district health authority, we need to opt in the role of community health councils as the community watchdog.
I did not, perhaps, fully understand all that the Minister said in relation to subsection (3), but that was my fault and not hers. That subsection concerns the right to enter and inspect private hospitals and nursing homes which are under contract to treat NHS patients. I know that they have rights, but I do not know whether such rights cover all private hospitals where NHS patients are being treated. If I can get reassurance on that aspect, perhaps we may look again at that subsection. However, none of the Minister's answers about it satisfied me. But, since I have raised a number of important issues, it is only fair to give her the opportunity to reply. Moreover, even if no one else reads the report of this debate, it is also only fair to give the community health
1616
councils the opportunity to study what was said from both sides of the House. I am sure that the Government would want their case to be fairly stated. That is why I give the Minister another opportunity to respond.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a number of accusations; indeed, he has certainly done so during the course of the evening. I think that he referred to the fact that we were denigrating the role of CHCs. I give him an absolute assurance that that is not what we have sought to do. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made clear only two days ago that the Government have no plans for changing the role of community health councils, let alone denigrating them.
The noble Lord also asked whether we have had consultations with CHCs. The councils have made all the points which he has made to the Government. We have listened to them and the noble Lord has had the benefit of a detailed response. He also quoted back to me the reference that I made of, "Why change the rules when they are working well—and why was it necessary to put it on the statute book?" However, he applied that remark to National Health Service trusts. I made that remark in relation to observer status at district health authority meetings which I understand is working well. The comment I made was:
"Why do we need statutory provision when the observer status at district health authority level is working well?"
Regarding National Health Service trusts, I said that the CHCs will continue to have visiting rights when they are up and running. In my view that is important. It means that they will be able to go on to the premises and visit the establishments. I am not sure whether I have a specific answer to the noble Lord's final question. However, if I have not satisfied him in this respect I shall write to him on the matter.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I must say that I did not fully understand the position with regard to visiting rights. I take it that this means that they can go on the premises. However, does that mean that they have observer status at annual meetings? Does it mean that they can visit any premises for which an NHS trust is responsible?

I return now to the point about district health authorities. I was not implying that there was something new in this respect. However, if we are establishing a new pattern, I think that it would be absurd not to include those things which are already happening. With this amendment I was trying to set up a pattern which, of course, includes aspects of the process which are working well; that is, in the relationship between CHCs and DHAs.
In relation to the Minister's first response, I was glad that the Government had considered the representations made by CHCs. Clearly, what I was saying was in line with what CHCs feel. The Government presumably disagree with the representations that have been made by CHCs at

1617
district regional and national level. That is serious. The views of CHCs as the consumers' watchdog should not just be taken seriously; some action should follow.
The Government seem to think that they are right about everything and that it is enough to say, "We have heard the views, and we disagree with them". I have heard the Minister's views, and I disagree with them. Again, I am not going to press the amendment to a Division. There is no point at this stage. I have stated my case. I disagree with the answer but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [NHS contracts]:
Baroness Masham Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 36
Page 4, line 29, at end insert:
("It shall be the duty of every health service body to ensure that such services include those considered to be regional and supra regional specialties.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. When the Secretary of State spoke to your Lordships before the Committee stage of the Bill I asked him about the machinery for the transfer of patients from district general hospitals to specialising units beyond regional boundaries and even to regional units within the region. He seemed to think that there might be a few difficulties.
When people are transferred to specialising units, they are generally seriously ill or in need of expert opinion and treatment. There should be no delay. There is a genuine fear that some districts, as has been the problem in the past, sometimes with disastrous results, will try to hold on to a patient. That can be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Some districts can be parochial. Patients often have faith in their local hospital and do not want to go far away. I can assure your Lordships that if one has a serious condition, it is far better treated by experts who know for what to look and what to expect.
Over the years I have been involved with many people who have been treated in hospitals without having the expert knowledge and equipment needed. Months and often years have been wasted when people have contracted severe problems such as pressure sores and urinary tract infections which could have been avoided.
The amendment covers all types of specialised units. Had the late Lady Lane-Fox been here she would have supported the amendment. There is only one unit which serves former polio patients and others with high respiratory problems. That unit is a lifeline to many people. We have many hospitals with specialised units of which we should be proud. It would be terrible if patients who need such units were not sent for the treatment they need because of local bias.
As president of the Spinal Injuries Association, I shall give its views of why it considers the amendment to be necessary although it covers all types of specialties. The purpose of the amendment
1618
is to ensure that every health service body has a contract with the regional and supraregional specialties so that there is the option of referring patients to them should that be required.
The Spinal Injuries Association has a number of worries which lead it to fear that regional and supraregional specialties may not fall into the category of core services in which case DHAs need not have contracts with them. So the amendment is vital to ensure future access to such services.
In Committee the Minister said that specialist units offer the higher quality service that people want, and that DHAs will have to respond to the wishes of patients and GPs by placing contracts with them. We ask the Government to accept the amendment to ensure that all 11 district health authorities have contracts with such units. The amendment does no more than write into legislation a practice that the Government believe will and presumably should be carried out.
A fundamental point is whether spinal units will be considered to be core services. One of the key criteria for core services is that demand must be of a sufficient minimum level to be a cost effective viability. Another is that a service provides timely intervention crucial to determining outcome at a local level. Spinal injury units do not fit into either of these categories. Will the Minister confirm categorically that spinal injury units will be considered to be core services?
A second area of concern is the contracts. There are a number of different ways in which contracts may be drawn up with different implications in each case. There is the block contract or a fee for service contract. Research shows that district health authorities are likely to prefer the fee for service contract, and this is the more likely scenario.
Under this system, the following perverse incentives may arise. District health authorities will be reluctant to refer patients to a specialist unit as the fee per person would be high and there would be an attempt to minimise referrals with particularly high costs. District health authorities would attempt to minimise the stay of a patient in an extensive specialised unit and arrange premature transfer of the patient back to the local hospital. From the point of view of the spinal injury units, the perverse incentive will be to keep patients in the unit as long as possible by concurring with, rather than pushing against delays by the housing and social service agencies providing care after a stay in hospital.
These problems can be resolved, but until we know the future funding arrangements for specialised services, the position is worrying for users of these services. The progress of the Bill also means that it will not be possible to legislate against problems arising. The Spinal Injuries Association has been told that the supra-regional services advisory group is looking at the future of all supra-regional services and the Minister will look at the recommendations.
The recommendations will come too late to do anything to amend the legislation and this is regrettable. This is a serious matter and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may return the compliment to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who was good enough to support an earlier amendment of mine. She has argued the case totally successfully and I wish to emphasise, how much I support what she had to say.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I explained in Committee that no special legislation is needed to secure the position of regional and supra-regional services. In a legal sense this is simply because district health authorities will have a clear duty to ensure that a comprehensive range of services is available to their residents. This must include services which need to be provided on a regional or supra-regional basis.
I also explained in Committee that there is a further reason for confidence in the future of specialist services. This is that the Bill's provisions will strengthen patient choice and reward units which provide the services that patients want. I have no doubt that specialist units with their high quality services will benefit greatly from this. District health authorities will have to respond to the wishes of patients and GPs by placing contracts with them.
The noble Baroness Lady Masham was concerned that the new funding arrangements for supra-regional services have not yet been finalised. The principle is clear—that there should be a mixture of national and local funding. The precise arrangements are however currently being considered by the supra-regional services advisory group. This is the body, representing both the medical profession and National Health Service management, which advises Ministers on the services which are designated as supra-regional, the units that are to be designated as centres for their provision and the level of funding to be allocated to each. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the advisory group is best placed to consider the issue of future funding. We expect to receive its advice shortly. I am sure that that will not satisfy the noble Baroness, but I can only say that until we have received that report I can go no further on future funding. I think there is some confusion on the part of the noble Baroness as regards core or designated services. Core or designated services are those services for which local access is essential and there is only one possible supplier—that is, a National Health Service trust. Supra-regional services stand apart from this but, as I have explained, our proposals for their funding will give them equal funding. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I think he realises there is concern about this matter because the report has not been made yet. Therefore something needs to be written into the Bill. I can assure the House that I am not going to divide it at this moment. The subject will be taken away and we shall discuss it. It is an enormously important subject. It may come back at what I imagine may be a rather long Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) A patient of a health service body shall have the right to treatment within a period of time equal to the average waiting time in a particular speciality (as determined by the Secretary of State) in the best 20 per cent, of District Health Authorities.
( ) If suitable treatment is not received during such period he shall have the right to seek treatment from another health service ("the provider") and in such cases the health service body of origin ("the acquirer") shall have a legal obligation to meet both the costs of treatment and any necessary travelling costs.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to strike an overdue blow for the patient. Despite the rhetoric of the title of the White Paper Working for Patients, there is nothing in the Bill that enhances patients' rights. I am probably less ideologically opposed to the idea of the internal market than most noble Lords on this side of the House. I have accepted the crucial division, which is essential to the Bill, between the purchaser and the provider. However, we should recall—I do constantly—all those fine words about patients' choice to which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred on a previous amendment, and about money following the patient. There is no guarantee that it will follow him or her where he or she wants to go within a reasonable time span and there is no guarantee that waiting lists will magically be reduced. On the contrary the evidence of the Government's waiting list initiative is that, when extra money was put in under the current system, waiting lists rose to accommodate unmet need.
The Government will no doubt say that this will no longer happen because hospitals will be able to take as many as they can accommodate and for whom they can secure payment. However, in some parts of the country waiting lists may well increase. My guess is that the overall level of waiting lists in the country will stay fairly static, with significant bulges in some areas and reductions in others. That would not be a satisfactory outcome for all this upheaval, and the simple idea embodied in the amendment of giving the patient a statutory right to treatment within a period of time equal to the average waiting time in the best 20 or perhaps 25 per cent, of district health authorities would, I suggest, have two important results. It would stimulate local purchasers to get the best possible deals for their populations, otherwise the population would fly elsewhere. Thus it would oil the wheels of the market. But, equally important, linking the internal market to a statutory limit on time spent waiting for treatment would bring about a steady improvement in the quality of service available to the patient. Writing the hitherto rhetorical declaration that money will follow the patient if the district health contract fails to deliver the goods within a reasonable time on to the face of the Bill would bring about an important transfer of power in favour of patients. It is high time that we addressed ourselves more directly than we have hitherto in this Bill, which is essentially concerned with reorganisation, to their immediate and pressing needs. I believe that my proposal would go a long way to turning public mistrust and misunderstanding of

1621
the Bill into positive enthusiasm for it. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I bitterly regret that we should be discussing it at 11 o'clock at night because the topic of National Health Service waiting times is one of the most interesting and one of the most difficult to account for.
I have never denied that during the period of this Government, resources, measured in the way that they are measured, have increased. Nevertheless one of the simplest measures of performance does not seem to have improved at all. It is a measure of performance which, although simple, is intuitively relevant. If we have a National Health Service the very least it should do is to provide most treatments within a reasonable amount of time. It is not only this Government which can be criticised on that score, but regrettably, they are the Government at the moment and therefore the one which must be criticised. They particularly have to be criticised for it because they also want to claim the credit for anything good that happens.
The amendment seeks to achieve two objectives. One is to raise the question of what is a reasonable waiting time and on that basis, one would hope, generate policies that would do something about the problem. I accept what noble Lords opposite often say; namely, that simply throwing money at it does not necessarily solve the problem, although one cannot solve it without resources. Clearly that is something that needs to be looked into, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has said very clearly, the amendment at least provides a baseline for looking at the matter.
The second point is extremely interesting to me as an economist. The rhetoric of the Bill states that this is a Bill which is concerned with patient choice, yet when I scrutinise any part of the Bill I see that it is about limiting patient choice. It is about what you cannot have rather than what you can have. Again, the second part of the amendment at least gives back some rights to the patient in terms of what he or she can legitimately do in order to obtain treatment.
This is an important amendment. It is one which in better circumstances, if your Lordships were more efficient, we should debate at great length. I believe that it is a subject which is worth discussing. At the very least I hope that we can have a response from the noble Baroness that will enlighten us as to the Government's thinking about these matters.
I accept the lateness of the hour and that we cannot go on endlessly, although there are many other aspects of the subject that I should have liked to raise. I shall leave it at that for the moment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the amendment as it stands has one great defect. If one works it out mathematically the waiting lists will eventually be measured in hours because, of necessity as it is written in the amendment, waiting lists will have to become shorter and shorter. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Kilmarnock, have in mind.
1622
Leaving that aside, the amendment ignores the important fact that time is a great healer. People are healed on waiting lists. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has interrupted and said that they die. That point needs to be clarified. An article appeared in a very reputable newspaper which said just that: that patients are dying on waiting lists. I asked the gentleman who wrote the article if he could give me some evidence. He said that he did not have any evidence; it was more a matter of polemics than of fact. It is very important that we state clearly that if allegations are made that people are dying on waiting lists we want the details. It is very important that we have that information.
Having dealt with that interruption perhaps I may also point out that some patients do not want their operations until next year. They have a choice. They do not all want their operations next week. Returning to the original point, the wording would have to be changed; otherwise it would not make sense in terms of the eventual time.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to clarify a point. I am asking a question. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that the rules of procedure allow me to ask a question. The noble Lord has been jumping up and down for the past two hours, implying that we cannot ask questions. I have consulted the Clerks on this matter and I assure him that I am allowed to ask a question. He may not want me to ask a question. He may feel that it is rather late. I too feel that it is rather late and I wish that the Government would organise the business so that I was not obliged to discuss serious matters of this kind at such a late hour. However, if the noble Lord insists on interrupting me, I shall deal with his point, but I shall waste a great deal more time. I should be most obliged if he would allow me to ask my question. I should also be obliged if he would not interrupt me every time I ask a question.
Does the noble Lord, Lord McColl, accept that I am aware of the mathematics of the question? However, is he not aware that the point of the question is to bring the worst in the direction of the best? I am perfectly aware of the nature of the logical problem. But does he not at least agree with me that the objective, whether or not we achieve it, is worthwhile?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am allowed to answer the question.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, by leave.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord is trying to do. It is just that the mathematics does not make sense.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I endorse the intentions behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. A key aim of the reforms is to improve waiting times by enabling health authorities to place contracts with units where waits are short. The need to attract funding through contracts will in itself encourge all hospitals to become more efficient

1623
and to keep their waiting times down, but, in addition, we are looking at best practice, as in other areas, with a view to disseminating good practice.
That meets one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
However, the amendment creates some difficulties to which my noble friend Lord McColl referred. Furthermore, how would the average waiting time in the best 20 per cent, be determined and by whom? It would have to be based on the level achieved at some time in the past. So, by definition, the worst 80 per cent, can never catch up with the best 20 per cent. Moreover, no allowance is made for the relative urgency of cases within a specialty. Clinical priorities would be distorted. Doctors would be under pressure to treat non-urgent cases at the expense of urgent cases just to keep their health authority from having to pay for treatment elsewhere.
Those are some of the difficulties. The proposal would be costly and awkward to administer and would not be effective in tackling the underlying problems as we seek to tackle them. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we shall see where we all are a year after the implementation of the Bill. We shall see whether waiting lists are much as they are at present, as I suspect they will be.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that waiting lists would mathematically eventually have to be reduced is a witticism which I enjoyed, but it is essentially a reductive and absurd argument. Clearly, waiting lists would not disappear, but they would be reduced because they would be more widely spread.
The noble Baroness cast doubt on the possibility of measuring such things. Perfectly efficient measurements are already made annually, if not by the Government then by voluntary bodies such as the College of Health, so the information is certainly available.
Patients and their organisations still look slightly suspiciously at the Bill and say, "What is there in it for us?". I do not say that there is nothing in it for them, but it is not particularly clear to them. A provision of this kind would have greatly increased their enthusiasm for the Bill. We shall have to wait upon events to see what happens. We may return to these issues at a later stage when we have seen the Bill in operation when it becomes an Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) Notwithstanding this section any person may access local speech therapy services through self-referral or through referral from any appropriate health or local authority representative.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset I must apologise profusely to your Lordships for bringing back a matter that was raised by me at
1624
Committee. I apologise because I abhor the practice. However, the matter was not raised properly, directly as a result of my own shortcomings. I did not make myself clear. As a result, there was a certain ambiguity in the response.
As noble Lords are aware, under present arrangements the district health authority acts as the provider of services. The district health authority holds the budget for the district and various health services receive their individual budgets directly from the authority. The speech therapy budget is agreed by the district or unit in discussion with the district speech therapist and is then managed by the district speech therapist.
The Bill now provides that the district health authority becomes the purchaser of services and will perform this function by means of contracts with the various units and with individual health services.
I ask my noble friend: will the district health authority be consulting with the speech therapist profession prior to the drafting and engrossing of the contracts? The Government have previously emphasised their commitment to maintaining the principle of open access, most recently at a meeting on 21st May between inter alia the College of Speech Therapists and my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health. The Minister stated on that occasion that when contracts were introduced they would be established in accordance with current referral patterns. Will my noble friend confirm that that is still Her Majesty's Government's intention?
I suffer from a niggling doubt as to whether legislative expression is absolutely necessary in order to address these fears. It may well be that directions to the district health authority from the Department of Health not to restrict or proscribe the current referral pattern by means of contract would suffice. If that is the case, then I shall be most happy to withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment. As everyone in this House knows, because we have discussed it on numerous occasions, the speech therapy service is extremely important. As perhaps have other noble Lords, I have been approached by the College of Speech Therapists on this question. Speech therapists are a very committed group of people. They are most concerned about the service that they provide and its availability.
At present patients are referred to speech therapy services from a wide range of sources. According to Government figures, referrals which do not come from medical sources constitute 58 per cent, of speech therapists' work. Of the total figure, 9 per cent, are self referrals—namely, patient, guardian or carer directly contacting their local speech therapy department and requesting an appointment. That practice enables easy access for people with communication difficulties. As a group, speech therapists regard that as very important. They believe that the right of direct self referral should be retained irrespective of the organisation of NHS budgetary systems. The existing potential purchasers—that is GPs, consultants, health authorities and local authorities—do not as a group have an acceptable knowledge base from which to

1625
evaluate the specialised needs of the communication handicapped population.
Direct self referral enables a clearer identification of levels and type of need and allows subsequent prioritisation by both providers and acquirers of services on the basis of sound clinical evaluation. That is surely the most appropriate and acceptable way to ensure the effective use of limited resources. The system remains cash limited by the number of therapists available and the budgets allocated. It does, however, enable a clear comparison of need and supply of resources.
I am also aware that the College of Speech Therapists has had a meeting with the Minister of State in the other place. The impression that it received is that the Government acknowledge the need for direct access. However, the college remains anxious that, without specific reference in the Bill, there will be no protection of the direct access which is currently available. In those circumstances, the amendment should commend itself to your Lordships. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government and I support it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, a few weeks ago I was invited to open a splendid new rehabilitation unit at a hospital in Swansea. I saw self-referral speech therapy in action and thought it a good idea. It saves time and the patient does not have to go through a doctor. It worked well and if one can save time one is saving money.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the principle set out in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, applies to other professions allied to medicine. It applies to physiotherapists, in some cases to occupational therapists, and perhaps to chiropodists. Indeed, one could go through the list. It is an important principle and perhaps if we had thought about it we may have tabled an amendment which comprehensively dealt with that whole range of services. I wish to have my name associated with the amendment in view of the contact that I have had with speech therapists and my great respect for their work.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can again assure my noble friend that the Government fully recognise the importance of speech therapy services. Nothing in this; Bill will prevent those who need speech therapy from obtaining it. District health authorities will have a clear duty to ensure that their residents have access to a comprehensive range of services. That will include speech therapy. The only difference will be that in future speech therapy services will be placed on a contractual basis in the same way as all other health care services.
I know that concern has been expressed, and not only in this context, that the introduction of contracts may affect the existing pattern of services. Such concern is unfounded. Any changes will take place gradually in response to the needs and wishes of those who use services. Plans prepared in the first year can and no doubt will be modified on an annual basis.
1626
Your Lordships will recall that the aim is to help authorities obtain the services they consider best for their patients through consultation., the effective placing of contracts and the maintenance of contingency reserves to provide for flexibility outside contracts. Guidance already issued made it absolutely clear that the same approach applies to other health care professionals whose referrals will be covered by contracts. Close co-operation will also be needed with local authorities and other agencies through whom patients obtain access to services. The ability of patients to self-refer, which is essential for a number of services besides speech therapy, must also be secured.
I appreciate the anxieties. I have met representatives of speech therapists, as has my honourable friend. We are well aware of their views. I hope that in the light of the assurances which I have given my noble friend will withdraw his amendment. The fact is that speech therapy services are not at risk from the Bill. Indeed, they can only benefit from it.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I know that she and her department will look with care at the questions that I asked but which I shall not repeat. I am grateful for her assurances. She has suggested that I might withdraw my amendment as a result of those assurances. All I can say is, you bet! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) Except in such circumstances as may be determined by order by the Secretary of State, a health service body shall take all reasonable steps to consult any relevant community health council before entering into an NHS contract.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment ensures that the acquirers of health care consult local community health councils before entering into contracts while making allowances for emergencies where such consultation may not be possible.
As we know, all the Government's proposed reforms rest on the contracting system. Therefore, we feel that it is rather surprising that there is no formal consultation procedure in the Bill regarding the placing of contracts. As we also know, there is no statutory role for the consumer. In passing, one notes that it is a curious marketplace which excludes the ultimate consumer.
We feel that it is crucial that proper consultation is built into the contracting process to ensure that patient choice as envisaged in the White Paper is truly exercised. This amendment is intended to ensure that consumer input is built into the contracting process by ensuring that there is proper consultation with community health councils. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, establishing close links with the community they serve will be a key aspect of the DHA's new role. However this does not mean

1627
that bodies like CHCs should play a part in the day to day details of contracting.
CHCs are essentially local bodies whose task is to represent the interests of their local population in the health service. Under the new arrangements a CHCs remit will relate to all services purchased by its DHA for that district's resident population, regardless of whether the services are provided by a district managed unit, an NHS trust, or the private sector.
The Government expect that NHS management will take account of the consumers' interest in all its activities, and the views of CHCs should be sought, along with those of other interested parties, on the strategic provision of services which districts are required to commission for their residents, especially taking account of such factors as the accessibility and convenience of services being commissioned by the DHA. This means that CHCs may require information about a district's objectives and be able to express views as DHAs formulate plans to meet priority needs or consider what might be done to meet these needs more economically and effectively. They may also have views to offer on standards and quality.
We agree therefore that CHCs should expect to be consulted along with other interested parties on the strategic provision of services which districts are required to meet in response to their agreed objectives. We do not agree however that CHCs should be involved in the day to day details of contracting. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that disappointing but revealing answer. We felt that it was important that there should be a formal procedure built into the Bill. We hope that the Government's expectations regarding the role of community health councils are fulfilled. The answer was disappointing but, at this hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 26, after ("payment") insert ("which may include payment by way of compensation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to look further at the nature of NHS contracts. When we started our proceedings today I hoped that we should reach this matter at a time when we could really look into it because, as a result of your Lordships' deliberations in Committee and letters which I have received from the noble Baroness, I have learned quite a lot about the nature of the NHS contract as it is emerging.
It is apparent that it is not a contract in the legal sense of the law of contract. I now understand that very clearly indeed. However, we sometimes drift away from that because the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, earlier asked, apropos of the contract, who was legally liable when she quoted what I thought was an extremely interesting case in which, because
1628
of the contract, both the patient and the GP agreed that the treatment given was not the best available or the most appropriate but because of the nature of the contract, that was the only treatment allowed to be given.
Similarly the noble Lord, Lord McColl, put his finger on an interesting aspect of the matter when he referred to the GP choosing what he thought was an absurd provision of treatment for ingrowing toenails. The key point is that if the general practitioner's judgment is that that is the right place to go, then under contract in the correct legal sense of what one can claim damages for—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to a tort—that issue will arise.
I hoped that in the course of discussing this amendment we could begin to explore the relationship between contracts as they occur in the proper legal sense and contracts as they occur in the NHS. As I said, even if the noble Baroness or the noble Lord is able to explain, at 11.30 at night I am not sure that I shall be able to follow the arguments. I feel obliged to emphasise, however, that that is the important matter.
Subsection (3) of Clause 4 says,
"it shall not be regarded for any purpose as giving rise to contractual rights or liabilities".
That is referring to the NHS contract. It immediately comes to a point at which anybody who knows anything about contracts in the real sense would see that if any dispute arises, the matter has to be resolved.
The Bill says that the matter will be referred, "to the Secretary of State for determination".
I am not clear what "determination" means; whether the Secretary of State will take the decision as to who is liable, but not legally liable, and who will then do whatever has to be done. The whole matter seems to be rather messy. I do not say that as a criticism. It is the kind of mess that arises when one attempts to enter new fields and do new things.
The essence of the amendment seeks to focus partly on how the Secretary of State will determine the contract which is alleged to be in default. If he determines it one way or another, will he be able—will he in any sense be obliged—to intervene using funds to compensate one side or the other for default?
It may be that the Government do not know the answer to those questions. It would not surprise me if they did not know the answer because in my view they are technically extremely difficult questions. It may be that we shall only arrive at the answer when we have to deal with the problem. When one enters this field and recognises the nature of the problem in the Bill, as it is recognised in subsection (3), one is under a further obligation to indicate that one has started to consider these matters and has the beginnings of a solution to them.
Again, I make the point that there is a great deal more in my brief that I should like to explore. I am not concerned about imposing pain upon the Government at this hour, but I am concerned about imposing pain upon myself, so at this point I shall stop.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord does not wish to engage in a long discussion on contract law. It is a long time since I took my Bar exams and my memory of contract law is somewhat hazy. Can I stress again that, as the noble Lord knows well, NHS contracts are not the same as contracts in contract law.
I should expect disputes over NHS contracts to require determination by the Secretary of State, or an appointed person, only rarely. It is in the interests of all parties to work together for the benefit of patients. If there are disputes, I should expect RHAs to act as conciliators. Good management should mean that recourse to the procedures laid down in this clause is not often necessary.
However, if it does become necessary for the Secretary of State or his appointee to resolve a dispute, we have ensured that there are sufficient powers in the Bill for a fair determination to be reached which takes into account all relevant circumstances. The intention is not that dispute resolution should be a legalistic process; rather it should seek to promote the basic objective of the Secretary of State, which is better health for the people of this country. I must confess that I do not at present see how any NHS body may need to be compensated over and above the terms of any NHS contract. But I hope that I have sufficiently reassured the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. My response was quite simply that the person who committed the tort would be liable, and I confirm that that is the case. If someone suffers accident or injury as a result of an operation or whatever, it is a matter for the courts to decide on compensation if a wrong has been committed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I wish that we had time to pursue the matter further still; in particular, the point arising from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The real point is that there is, as it were, tort and tort. If an operation goes wrong, one can see the nature of the problem arising with respect to the operation. But if a person wished to argue that he did not want the operation done in that hospital in the first place, he would be seeking damages from the district that produced the contract. That seems to be something that requires more thinking about.
I am not pressing the noble Lord. I think he said that he took his Bar examinations. I only went to a single year's course on law. I think I passed at the time, but I cannot remember. But I remember that the law of contract is incredibly difficult. We are probably a little naive in assuming that these contracts that are not contracts will work out as easily as that. We have set up here a basis for continuous disputes, continuous arguments and a lot of work for the Secretary of State.
I have made my points in such a way that, when in future years people ask why we got into such a mess, I can at least say that I tried not to get into this mess in the first place. So, having thanked the
1630
noble Lord for his helpful attempt to clarify some aspects of the matter, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 4, at end insert—
("(10) No National Health Service contract shall be valid unless it requires the acquirer to provide appropriate hospital transport to, or to reimburse the travel costs incurred by, such categories of patients as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(11) Before bringing forward regulations under subsection (10) above the Secretary of State shall take into account the views of organisations representing the interests of disabled and elderly people.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and myself. I explained earlier that the noble Lord was unable to be here and had asked me whether I would move the amendment in his stead.
The amendment seeks to ensure that certain categories of patient will be protected from the additional costs of travel to and from hospital which are likely to arise from proposals in the Bill to open up the possibilities for non-local treatment and for care of people in the community wherever possible and desirable.
So the amendment is, in a sense, a trigger measure which will allow the Secretary of State, after due consultation, to bring forward regulations defining the patients who are eligible for assistance as and when it becomes apparent that increased travel or decreased hospital transport services are creating difficulties.
Surveys carried out by local community health councils in a number of areas show that elderly people are very heavy users of hospital transport provision. The Milton Keynes community health council found in 1988 that 93 per cent, of patients using non-emergency transport were aged 71 or over, and there have been other surveys which have given similar results.
There are a number of reasons for this greater dependency on hospital transport services. There is a low level of car ownership among elderly people. The general household survey in 1986 found that only 12 per cent, of elderly people living alone owned a car. The prevalence of disability, which may make it more difficult for people to negotiate public transport, increases among the older age group; and the OPCS survey to which I made reference earlier found that 73 per cent, of people aged 60 to 74 living in private households, and 82 per cent, of those aged 75 and over, had some difficulty with mobility. Almost 70 per cent, of disabled adults are aged 60 or over and nearly half are aged 70 or over.
The National Health Service and Community Care Bill is likely to lead to an increase in the number and length of journeys being taken to hospital as more people are cared for in the community and a greater number of cross-boundary contracts are used. In the Department of Health publication entitled Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts 1990, the Government concluded that it "would not

1631
be sensible" for contract prices to be adjusted for the hospital travel cost scheme. They recommended instead that providers should bill health authorities separately for any payments they make. The travel costs incurred are part of the costs incurred by providers that it is possible to identify in advance. Age Concern finds the government's view difficult to understand in this respect.
If the amendment were accepted, NHS bodies would be required to consider the travel cost implications of placing contracts and to bear the costs for certain groups of patients either directly, by footing the bill, or indirectly, by providing appropriate transport. The amendment would clearly benefit patients and ensure that any additional costs which arise from proposals in the Bill are not passed on to those who are unable to meet them. That is perhaps the most important statement of the case. It would minimise the number of inconvenient and uncomfortable journeys which patients are required to make under their own steam. By making it a requirement for contracts to take account of costs for those patients who qualify for help, the amendment would also allow a more accurate comparison to be made between competing providers, facilitating a more accurate assessment of the efficiency of different providers. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. I speak with a certain amount of feeling on this subject, having once lived in a place in Cornwall 60 miles away from the nearest hospital. I remember visiting that hospital on the day of the Lynmouth floods. It was in a place named Swilly, which seemed on that day quite peculiarly appropriate. It has always been a real problem. It is likely to become a much more real problem under the Bill.
It is envisaged in the Bill that it should be possible to seek out the cheapest or most treatment in another area, which may give rise to a considerable amount of travelling. This concerns patients' relatives as well as the patients themselves. Visits are capable of having a therapeutic value. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, pointed out, this is part of the true cost. Treatment in a different district is only cheaper if when the transport costs have been taken into account, it still remains cheaper.
The point about the importance of the amendment to the elderly is of some substance. Car ownership among the elderly is a good deal lower than among the rest of the population and very often there is less willingness to drive. The hesitation of people to go on driving is sometimes misplaced but I think it would be an unwise exercise of public policy to force people to use cars when they have some distrust of their safety in doing so. Such a measure could result in additional costs to the health service.
This is arguably not a new provision. On 7th May 1974 in another place my noble friend Lord Winstanley asked a question of Dr. David Owen, then Minister of State at the Department of Health, who undertook to issue a leaflet, which was printed and then lost. Two million copies of that leaflet were subsequently discovered in a warehouse in
1632
Blackpool. I am curious to know its present legal status and whether there is the possibility of resurrecting an old regulation and simply bringing it back into force. If that is possible it might solve the problem in a comparatively painless way.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I wish to refer to the problems of disabled people. There is a scheme called Dial-a-Ride which disabled people can use. However, they are not allowed to use it for attending appointments at hospital. The reason is that if they did that there would be no Dial-a-Ride provision for other purposes. I am fortunate enough to have a car.
Not long ago I visited Guy's Hospital in order to attend a conference. Even if you have a car it is almost impossible to find a parking space for it. It was only because I was one of the speakers at the conference that a parking place was arranged for my car. If one travels as a patient to Guy's Hospital it is very difficult to park a car. It is very important to look at this matter. Vulnerable elderly and disabled people often need hospital treatment. Hospitals have become so large; and many community hospitals have closed. This issue is becoming a greater problem for the future.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this amendment cuts across the arrangements that exist already to help people travel to hospital. The scope and extent of these arrangements are not affected in any way by this Bill. Ambulances or other forms of hospital transport will continue to be provided free of charge for all patients for whom this is medically necessary. Guidance has already been issued on the way in which these transport services will fit into the contractual system. The most appropriate approach is likely to be for health care providers to arrange transport in support of their services. This will make it easier to integrate transport services into the overall package of patient care.
Help with travelling expenses will also continue to be provided through the hospital travel costs scheme. I say in passing that we hope to republicise the hospital travel costs scheme. As regards the document that my noble kinsman mentioned, we are not in the business of republicising 14 year-old documents. As I said, we intend to re-advertise the hospital travel cost scheme under which people on low incomes may be entitled to have their travel costs met in whole or in part.
This is a statutory scheme and is not affected by the present Bill. All NHS hospitals, including NHS trusts, will continue to meet the travel costs of those eligible, in advance where necessary. The arrangements I have described already meet the needs of those who require help in travelling to hospital whether on medical or financial grounds. They do not need amending in any way. I should also like to quash the notion that the new contractual arrangements will force people to travel more than they do now. That is simply not the case. The object is simply to improve choice and access to the best available services.

1633
The fact that contracts will be placed in line with GPs' referral patterns will itself ensure that patients only travel for treatment if that means they get a better service. Clinical considerations and the convenience of patients and their relatives will also dictate that many services should be provided locally. Where, however, there is an opportunity to obtain a better quality of treatment—for example, a shorter waiting time by going to a hospital some distance away—patients should be given the choice to do so.
I end by quoting one part of Operating Contracts, 427. The last sentence states:
"If DHAs wish to place contracts with more distant providers they should consider whether in some cases the benefits to be obtained might not be outweighed by the expense and inconvenience to patients. Convenience for relatives visiting patients should also be considered".
In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, and particularly for the last part of his response. I thought that his disrespect for 14 year-old documents was out of place. Those documents are of some historic interest. They should be preserved, embossed, reproduced, published and sold widely. They may never appear again.
Secondly, only time will tell whether the fears upon which this amendment is based are true. We shall have to see whether people are prepared to travel further. I do not know the answer. One has to anticipate what might happen. This amendment sought to do so. However, I thought that the Minister went out of his way to be reassuring in terms of the Government's intentions regarding the provision and reimbursement of travel costs. In view of the spirit in which he responded, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Application of Local Government Act 1972 to Health Authorities
—(1) Sections 100A to 100C of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meeting 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 and 100C 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 reference 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, except that references to section 100D shall not apply,

(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 1001(2) of that Act to vary schedule I2a to that Act (exempt information) shall include power to vary that schedule as it applies by virtue of this section.
1634
(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 a Health Authority where that authority has delegated to such a committee or sub-committee the power to discharge functions of the authority.
(6) In the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (which makes similar provision to that made by sections 100A and 100B of that Act of 1972), paragraph 1(f) 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 authority 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) The register maintained under subsection (7) above and the list maintained under subsection (8) 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 of 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: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment to extend to the public rights of access to information about health authorities, which they have enjoyed for five years now under the local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 in relation to local authorities. The amendment was moved at some time after midnight, so I am achieving a slight improvement in that respect tonight. Despite the lateness of the hour on that occasion, it received widespread support in the Chamber. My noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out in reply that health authorities are already subject to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. She said that failure to comply with that Act was unacceptable.
I do not propose to follow the line of argument which would ensue from that point tonight, but my noble friend also urged—and it is to this aspect of her reply that I should like to address your Lordships—that because the new health authorities

1635
are to be essentially managerial and not representative bodies, they should not be subjected to excessive red tape and that they should be left free to get on with their business.
There was also the question of expense to be considered in complying with the requirements which my amendment would have introduced. I withdrew my amendment in Committee in order to consider the Government's view on the matter. Subsequently, I, and a representative of the community rights project who had been advising me, attended a meeting at the department with my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lady Hooper where we discussed the matter. I should like to express my appreciation for that meeting.
The amendment I have put forward this evening identifies two areas where I feel that it might be appropriate not to seek to apply to health authorities access to information rights which are applied to local authorities. I do so in order to take account of government feeling on the question of excessive red tape and expense. First, the revised amendment would no longer extend public rights of access to committees of health authorities, except to committees which have powers to take decisions on behlf of the health authority concerned. I submit that if it is appropriate for the public to have access to the health authority, it is equally appropriate for the public to have access to the committee when the committee is taking active decisions.
The advice I have received is that by comparison with local authorities, health authorities are less likely to create a structure of decision-making committees. There will be many committees under various guises and names which will talk about and solve problems but then refer the matter to the health authority concerned for a decision. I should like to stress the fact that the amendment is not in any way designed to give public access to these committees.
The second principal change introduced by the new amendment is that health authorities would not be required to throw open their background papers to the public, nor to keep them for a specified number of years just in case someone came along and wanted to see them at some time in the future. I believe that that would mean a very substantial lessening of the burden in respect of red tape and expense.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to say any more about this matter tonight. I hope that the amendment will prove more acceptable to the Government than the one I moved in Committee. With a view to probing the Government on this matter, I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that a similar amendment was debated at some length in Committee and my noble friend acknowledged that the issues were discussed in some detail with my noble friend the Minister Lady Hooper and officials of the Department of Health.
I note that in framing the current amendment my noble friend has endeavoured to meet some of the Government's concerns about imposing additional burdens on health authorities. As I understand the
1636
current amendment, there would not be a requirement on health authorities to have background papers available for inspection, nor would a health authority be obliged to maintain a written summary of rights regarding access to meetings and documents. However, as I have explained previously the Government are opposed in principle to further legislation being placed on the statute book which lays down detailed rules as to how health authorities conduct their business and establishes bureaucratic procedures with regard to the details of which aspects of their business should be open to the public.
Much has been made of the comparison between local authorities (to whom these provisions apply) and health authorities. Your Lordships will be aware that they are different types of body and indeed will be more different following our reforms in health authority membership. Local authorities are elected representative bodies, with members appointed through the party political system. They raise revenue directly from their local population. It is right and proper that the provisions of the Local Government Act apply to them. Health authorities are funded by central government and act as agents of the Secretary of State in providing a comprehensive national health service. Through the NHS management executive they are accountable to the Secretary of State who is in turn accountable to Parliament for their activities. Following our reforms they will be run by small but effective management bodies at local level comprising members drawn primarily from the local area who have been appointed solely on the basis of the personal skills and experience which they can bring to the work of the authority.
All that is not to say that their meetings should not be open to the public, as has been acknowledged. Listening to the debate one might form the impression that health authorities conduct all their business in secret behind closed doors. That is not the case. As I explained in Committee all regional and district health authorities are now, and will continue in the future to be, subject to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, which incidentally was placed on the statute book as a Private Member's measure by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
The 1960 Act requires regional and district health authorities to give public notice of the time and place of their meetings, to supply copies of their agenda to any newspaper that requests it, to provide reasonable reporting facilities and to open their meetings to the public unless resolving that it should be excluded because of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted. In addition, the department's guidance to health authorities on the implementation of the 1960 Act contained in circular HC(81)6 makes it clear that there is a presumption in favour of open and public discussion wherever possible.
It has been alleged that health authorities flout both the 1960 Act and the department's guidance about its implementation. It bears repeating in the House today that if my noble friend Lord Coleraine or the Community Rights Project provide us with

1637
evidence of where that is taking place we shall take action to rectify it. There is another important difference between health authorities and local authorities here. Because of their accountability to the Secretary of State, if health authorities are flouting the law there is a direct line of accountability which means that we can ensure that they put the matter right.
Following Royal Assent for this Bill, the department will be issuing guidance to health authorities on their new membership and the basic procedures they will need to follow in conducting their meetings. As I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, we shall consider including in our guidance some of the points made in this amendment which are clearly good practice. But to impose them lock, stock and barrel through legislation on the reformed regional and district health authorities simply would not be appropriate, or in keeping with the changes that we are making.
To sum up, the Government are opposed to this amendment for three reasons: first, it is unnecessary. The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 makes adequate provision for openness of health authority meetings. Secondly, although difficult to quantify, it would inevitably mean and impose some additional administrative and financial burdens on health authorities. Thirdly, and most important, its provisions are incompatible with the reforms in health authority membership and our aim to make health authorities into more effective management bodies.
If, as it is alleged, there are problems we would be grateful to receive more detailed information about them from the community rights project. We will then take action to sort out any problems. The current system is a good one in that it provides for openness, without a surfeit of bureaucratic legislation. The answer is to make it work properly. In the light of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I shall do exactly that. However, I must tell the House that I find all that my noble friend has said extremely unsatisfactory. I say that principally because the objections to the present situation arise not so much because health authorities are failing to comply with the requirements of the 1960 Act as because the requirements of that Act as to when a health authority may go into closed session are so unclear as to make it a matter for a fleet of lawyers to determine whether the circumstances apply and the authority can properly exclude the public.
It is principally with that in mind that I take this amendment away now with the intention of bringing it back at Third Reading. For tonight, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12 midnight
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
1638
("NHS contracts: quality assurance
The Health Services Management Board shall be responsible for maintaining and improving standards of organisation and delivery in respect of goods and services purchased or provided by any Health Service (or private sector body) under an NHS contract.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was put down as a probing amendment to give the Minister the opportunity to tell the House more about the role and function of the management board. Under the circumstances, and because of the lateness of the hour, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 29 [NHS contracts]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 29, line 9, leave out ("any hospital provided by the Secretary of State under section 90") and insert ("a State Hospital Management Committee under section 91").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. The description of the state hospital in Clause 29 uses different words from the description elsewhere in the Bill, for instance, in Clause 61 on page 65. The amendment brings the wording of Clause 29 into line. It makes no change to the effect of the Bill. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [NHS trusts]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 6, line 6, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) or, as the case may be, subsection (1B) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 48 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 80 and 81. The Government have always been committed to full and proper consultation on proposals to establish National Health Service trusts and our plans were set out clearly in Self-Governing Hospitals: An Initial Guide.
We believe that it is critically important that those with an interest in such proposals should have the opportunity to make their views known and that the Secretary of State should be able to take account of those views in considering an application for trust status. We have, as your Lordships will know, hitherto taken, the view that it was not necessary to write the provisions for consultation into primary legislation.
However, since our discussions on this matter in Committee, we have given further consideration to the matter in the light of the arguments which were put forward. We have concluded that there would be merit in making statutory provision for consultation on the establishment of trusts. The amendments which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sanderson therefore place a statutory duty on the regional health authority to consult with the relevant community health council and such other bodies and persons as it is either directed to consult or considers it appropriate to consult on proposals for establishing a trust and to report the results of that consultation to the Secretary of State. In Wales, where there are, of course, no

1639
regional health authorities, it will be the duty of the Secretary of State to undertake the consultation.
These amendments will enshrine in legislation the proposals for consultation which the Government have previously set out. They would, as we have always proposed, make the relevant RHA in England responsible for carrying out the consultation. We believe that this is right because the RHAs, rather that the Secretary of State as proposed in Amendment No. 49, will be best placed to determine the appropriate range of interests to be consulted on a particular application. They do, however, provide specifically for the relevant community health council to be consulted—something which I hope will be widely welcomed. As I indicated earlier, in the case of Wales, it will be the Secretary of State.
The amendments also give the RHA the duty to consult such other persons and bodies as it considers appropriate. We have always been clear that we want wide consultation but that there should be flexibility to allow the consultation to be tailored to the circumstances of the individual application. The range of interests to be consulted on an application from a major teaching hospital, for example, may be very different from that concerned with an application from a community unit or an ambulance service. We do not therefore think it would be helpful to spell out a list of groups which have to be consulted for two reasons. First, there is a real risk of lengthy arguments and legal challenges as to whether particular groups should be consulted. For instance, how is the local community to be defined? How are GPs or CHCs with an interest to be determined? Would any GP who may want to send a patient to the trust be seen as having an interest? What would be the position of any CHC whose residents have been, or may be, treated at the unit?
Secondly, defining those groups which have to be consulted in this way may lead to a failure to consult with other groups and organisations with a legitimate interest. The amendment which the Government are proposing leaves it to the RHA to determine which groups have an interest, and it will no doubt wish to consult the applicants on this, but with the safeguard that the Secretary of State may direct regions to consult particular bodies or persons if, for instance, he is not satisfied that the region has consulted appropriately.
Thirdly, these amendments require the region to report the results of consultation to the Secretary of State. This is clearly necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State has the benefit of the comments of those consulted when considering an application.
I shall now turn to Amendment No. 51, which concerns the publication of the criteria for consultation. We believe that this is unnecessary because, as I said, we have already made clear in the White Paper and subsequent published documents the criteria that applications for trust status will have to satisfy. First, management must be able to demonstrate the skills and capacity to run the unit, including strong and effective leadership, sufficient financial and personnel management expertise and adequate information systems.
Secondly, senior professional staff, especially consultants, must be involved in the management of the unit. Thirdly, we shall want potential trusts to demonstrate the benefits which trust status will bring to patients and to demonstrate their financial viability. The amendment would therefore require the Secretary of State to issue guidance which would duplicate what already exists. With those comments, I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Robson, whose name is down to Amendments Nos. 49 to 52, which I gather from the groupings are to be taken in conjunction with the amendment which the noble Baroness has just moved, I should like to say that the amendment is an improvement. However, it would have been so much better in our view if at any rate some of the prescribed groups which appear in Amendment No. 52 had been incorporated.
To leave the decision as to who is to be consulted to the regional health authority and the community health councils is to make them too much judge in their own cause. It is surely highly desirable that the people who are likely to be dissatisfied should have a right to be consulted. That includes the staff, the local community and the general practitioners.
The noble Baroness has said that it will be difficult to define who those people are, but it should not be beyond the wit of the authorities to find a way in which they can be so consulted. I believe that, if there was a role to consult, that could most certainly be done.
The Government show a marked reluctance to consult and a marked reluctance to recognise that, if changes are to be acceptable and to work thoroughly and satisfactorily, they require the consent of the people involved. Not to incorporate in this proposed change the right for them to be consulted seems to us to be a very regrettable omission.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. I endorse all the points that she made. I, too, am grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendment. It is definitely better that there should be a responsibility on the regional health authority to consult rather than that there should not be a responsibility to consult. I am grateful for small mercies—those are all the mercies that we have and we must be grateful for them.
On the question of who will be consulted, like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I did not understand why that is difficult to prescribe. It is not difficult to prescribe because we have done so in Amendment No. 52, which stands in the name of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. That requires the Secretary of State to:
"seek the views of those with an interest, particularly health authorities"—
that is clear; "staff at the hospital"—that is clear; "general practitioners"—that is clear; "community health councils" are already included. I agree that "the local community" leaves some range for consultation—the wider the better, I suggest.

1641
I wonder whether there will be some guidance. It may be that the new streamlined and efficient regional health authorities will not be much in the business of consulting. Often managers do not go around consulting; they know what is best. They will not have a long list of bodies to consult. Even if they do, what notice will be taken of the views of those consulted?
I was grateful to the noble Baroness when she answered a question that I asked on Monday of this week, when she told us:
"Staff and the local community will … have an opportunity to express their views on individual proposals to the region concerned before any formal applications are made. We are nevertheless aware that ballots canvassing the views of various interests have taken place, but we have consistently made clear that it would not be appropriate for changes in management of NHS services to be subject to such ballots".—[Official Report, 4/6/90; col. 1075.]
I do not know whether she meant such ballots which carry wording which implies that they are canvassing one point of view or another. That has been the case with some ballots. However, there could be a properly supervised ballot, carried out by a health authority and supervised by the Electoral Reform Society or some other appropriate body. I do not understand why the noble Baroness thinks that there is something wrong about a ballot, particularly if it is properly organised.
As I asked earlier, what notice do the Government take of the views? If they find after the consultation that 80 per cent, of the staff or the community or community health councils do not want what is proposed, will the Government go ahead? What will be the criteria for determining whether the result of the consultation will lead to one decision or another?
I must ask specifically: will the reports referred to by the noble Baroness in her amendment be published? The amendment states:
"within such period (if any) as the Secretary of State may determine, the relevant Regional Health Authority shall report the results of those consultations to the Secretary of State".
I hope that the Minister will say that the results of those consultations will be made public. If they are not made public and are just for the benefit of the private eye of the Secretary of State, they are not of much value. It is important that the public should know what the Secretary of State thinks that the public is saying. The noble Baroness gave me a helpful reply on Monday. She pointed out that at present any ballots or forms of consultation concern only whether a hospital or another unit should apply or show an interest. Eventually we shall have to move on from that position.
Paragraph 5.3 of Working Paper 1 produced by the BMA states:
"It will be for Regional Health Authorities to give all proposals to seek self-governing status local publicity".
That is good. I imagine that the Minister will confirm that that position still stands. The working paper goes on to state:
"They [the regional health authorities] will seek the view of those with an interest, particularly the health authorities concerned, staff at the hospital, general practitioners, CHCs, and the local community'.
I drafted the amendment based on the wording in the consultative document. I was surprised that the
1642
Minister did not think it was appropriate. The wording was taken almost directly from that working paper. Amendment No. 52 seeks to write that commitment into the Bill.
The Government claim that the proposers for self-government would have to demonstrate that they carry "a substantial commitment" of those likely to be involved in the new management. That was an important statement made some weeks ago. The word "demonstrate" presumably means that they will have to publish, so that the results of the consultations will be made known to the public as well as to the Secretary of State who ultimately takes the decision. It is only right that staff in the hospital, the local community that it serves and local general practitioners should all have a say in the future of their hospital. They look upon it as their hospital.
According to an article in the Guardian of 3rd June, it appears from a leaked Department of Health document that suggestions are being made that managers should conceal the business plans, even suggesting that:
"If the Trust does not wish to make the business plan public, the application should avoid referring to it in any way which implies that a document will be publicly available".
One of the regional health authorities, Trent, suggests that the NHS trust sponsors should prepare a summary of the application document to be published in leaflet form.
We must know what mechanism there will be for regional health authorities to take account of the views which they are now required to seek in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. She must recognise that at present almost all ballots show strong opposition to the proposals. I saw that Mr. Paddy Ross made a speech yesterday evening in which he said:
"We [the BMA] have now collated the results of ballots that are available relating to those hospitals with more than 250 beds that appear on the lastest list of so called front runners for self-governing status. In the vast majority of cases where ballots have been held these results show that the consultant staff, other members of staff and the local population are opposed to their—and I stress "their"—local hospital becoming a self-governing trust".
Those views have been strongly expressed. I believe that we have made a little move forward with the amendment but it does not go far enough.
The Government must say that the results of the consultation will be made public. If they do not, there will be suspicion that the Secretary of State will go ahead and approve the establishment of trusts, asked for by perhaps a limited number of consultants and others who may not necessarily be representative. I hope that the Minister can tell us a little more about the Government's intentions while we debate this group of amendments.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that I dealt fully with the matter when moving the amendment. In response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the regional health authority being in effect a judge in its own court, the decision is for the Secretary of State. The regional health authority simply acts as his agent in carrying out the consultation. I can categorically assure your

1643
Lordships that every response to consultation will be considered.
There will be further guidance on consultation on the applications that are being made. In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, earlier this week, I listed the various ways in which guidance has already been issued and referred to the fact that in the autumn a compendium guide was likely to be issued.
I can also give categoric assurance to the noble Lord that the comments of those who have been consulted will be put in the public domain.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert:
("(1 A) In any case where the Secretary of State is considering whether to make an order under subsection (1) above establishing an NHS trust and the hospital, establishment or facility concerned is or is to be situated in England, he shall direct the relevant Regional Health Authority to consult, with respect to the proposal to establish the trust,—
(a) the relevant Community Health Council and such other persons or bodies as may be specified in the direction; and
(b) such other persons or bodies as the Authority considers appropriate;
and, within such period (if any) as the Secretary of State may determine, the relevant Regional Health Authority shall report the results of those consultations to the Secretary of State.
(1B) In any case where the Secretary of State is considering whether to make an order under subsection (1) above establising an NHS trust and the hospital, establishment or facility concerned is or is to be situated in Wales, he shall consult the relevant Community Health Council and such other persons and bodies as he considers appropriate.
(1C) In subsections (1A) and (1B) above—
(a) any reference to the relevant Regional Health Authority is a reference to that Authority in whose region the hospital, establishment or other facility concerned is, or is to be, situated; and
(b) any reference to the relevant Community Health Council is a reference to the Council for the district, or part of the district, in which that hospital, establishment or other facility is, or is to be, situated.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 6, line 19, after ("who") insert ("subject to subsection (4) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53 and speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 82 and 84. Our proposals for National Health Service trusts aim to give units the scope to manage better, and so to care better for patients. The drive for better management will be led by the boards of National Health Service trusts, with their membership of executives closely involved in the day to day management of the trust, and non-executives appointed for the particular skills and expertise that they can bring.
It is clearly important that National Health Service trusts' boards should consist of people with the right qualifications and experience for that particular trust. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve. It may be that a trust will in future have a
1644
chief officer or other senior manager who is a secondee from another organisation—for instance, from the Department of Health—and is therefore not an employee of the trust. Similarly, in a teaching hospital which becomes a trust, the medical director may well be a university employee with an honorary contract with the hospital which does not legally constitute a contract of employment. The amendment ensures that such key staff should be able to be executive members of the boards of the trust where they serve despite the fact that they are not its employees.
These provisions will ensure that no officers of trusts—whether managers or senior clinicians—are excluded from executive membership of National Health Service trusts on a technicality. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
Page 6, line 31, after ("office") insert ("or may be suspended from performing the functions of the office").
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
("(cc) the circumstances in which a person who is not an employee of the trust is nevertheless, on appointment as a director, to be regarded as an executive rather than a non-executive director").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—("Hospital Incentive Fund
—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a fund to be known as the Hospital Incentive Fund ("the Fund").
(2) The purpose of the Fund shall be to provide loans to encourage hospitals to develop new approaches to more effective management of hospital resources and to provide enhanced care for patients.
(3) The resources of the Fund shall come partly from hospitals and partly from the Secretary of State who shall contribute an amount equal to that contributed by hospitals up to a limit of £250,000 in each case.
(4) The provisions of this section shall apply to all hospitals including those falling within NHS trusts and authorised to hold a budget.
(5) The Secretary of State shall define the conditions under which the loans from central Governmental are repaid.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, considerable anxiety has been expressed in this House and elsewhere about the financial proposals underlining the new health service Bill. Those in the lives of many are tied up with the financial provisions relating to NHS trusts and the conditions under which they operate. Schedule 7B states:
"an NHS trust may borrow (both temporarily, by way of overdraft, and longer term) from the Secretary of State or from other persons".
It also provides that:
"Interest on any sums borrowed from the Secretary of State by an NHS trust shall be paid at such variable or fixed rates and at such times as the Treasury may determine".
In relation to the guarantees of borrowing it states that:
"The Secretary of State may guarantee, in such manner and on such conditions as, with the approval of the Treasury, he considers appropriate, the repayments of the principal of and the payment

1645
of interest on any sums which an NHS trust borrows from a person other than the Secretary of State".
I understand that none of those possibilities is open to the remainder of the National Health Service, except in a somewhat clumsy way for regional health authorities, to top-slice their grants and then form such a fund. I believe that at least serious consideration must be given to an alternative way of making some resources available to National Health Service hospitals and other units; otherwise the Government will truly have created a two-tier health service.
For those reasons I propose that there should be a hospital incentive fund open to all hospitals and designed to encourage them to develop new approaches and more effective management of resources and provide enhanced care for patients. I propose that hospitals should finds sums sometimes from private sources and that the Secretary of State should be prepared to offer equal amounts.
To my mind that encourages initiative in a community and for it not to be rewarded for that appears to be wrong. We do not as yet know the standards which will be applied by the Secretary of State in agreeing National Health Service trusts. There appears to be a grave weakness before that stage is reached. Unless opportunity is offered to those who are prepared to use their own initiatives, something of the spirit of the National Health Service will be irretrievably lost. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord's remarks about the proposed hospital incentive fund and agree with much of what he said about the need to support innovative work at local level. I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, that sufficient statutory power exists at present to allow such schemes as he has described to operate at a national or regional level. Of course, a management judgment must be made about the desirability of channelling resources into such incentive funds as opposed to going into the main allocations to health authorities. However, the option is always there. I hope that the noble Lord finds that reassuring.
However, I cannot follow the noble Lord in his belief that every hospital should have the financial freedoms given to National Health Service trusts. Trusts will have those freedoms only because they will have demonstrated the capability to manage them. That is what the whole application and consultation process which we have discussed is all about. If a candidate for trust status, however enthusiastic, does not meet that criterion, then that will not be approved. Much can be done to delegate greater financial control and autonomy to all units, of course, and the proposals in the Bill will give further impetus to the major steps we are already taking to encourage that development. The possibility of trust status will give an added spur to many units to develop their systems and expertise further. Competence and enthusiasm have to go hand in hand.
The White Paper made clear that we would look at our general guidance about the use of private sector finance by the NHS, and that we have done. Of course, there are important points to be borne in mind which apply to all public sector finance to
1646
ensure that due probity is observed and best value for money obtained. But the use of funds from the private sector is not totally precluded. With those assurances, I trust that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.30 a.m.
Schedule 2 [National Health Service trusts]:
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 71, line 41, leave out ("whether") and insert ("where").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unfortunately the noble Baroness, Lady Young, cannot be here this evening and she has asked me if I will move this amendment in her stead, which I gladly do.
Amendments Nos. 58 to 62 are replicated as Amendments Nos. 89 to 93 so as to apply to the situation in Scotland. In other respects they are identical.
Your Lordships will remember that Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 9, 11 and 14 to Schedule 1, which the Government accepted earlier, will ensure that regional health authorities and, where appropriate, district health authorities have a member drawn from a university. The Bill already provides for a NHS trust which has teaching responsibilities to have a non-executive director or, in certain very special circumstances, to have an executive director, as was explained a few moments ago by the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am for that concession by the Government which will add greatly to the work of any trust set up which has teaching responsibilities. That executor may be drawn from a university.
However, the Bill does not require that a NHS trust with such a responsibility must make proper provision of resources for the discharge of the teaching and research functions, although, of course, the university may well have a voice in the management of the trust through a special non-executive directorship. However, at present there is nothing in the Bill which requires such a trust to make resources available for medical education and research if, when it has been designated by the Secretary of State, he does not specifically indicate that it has significant teaching and research duties. It is a matter solely for the Secretary of State's judgment as to whether he chooses to designate a trust which incorporates a hospital which already has those responsibilities as having significant teaching and research commitments.
From what the Secretary of State has already said, those of us who propose the amendment have little doubt that this Secretary of State will give the right decision in those matters. However, we hope that he has recognised also that the matter is of sufficient importance that every Secretary of State should be placed under a duty to include teaching and research as a function of a NHS trust of the kind which I have described.
For my own part, I am sure that modification of the Bill is not only desirable, but essential, not just to the efficient functioning of the hospital, but also

1647
to the proper functioning of other bodies like the Universities Funding Council and the Medical Research Council. In the course of exercising their own responsibilities, they place considerable funds in such hospitals, and must be assured that those hospitals are capable of making, and are willing to make, the necessary provisions.
I could speak at greater length on this matter, partly from experience not of trusts but of health authorities. However, I shall stop at this point because I think the logic of the argument is impeccable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government recognise and fully share the commitment of your Lordships' House to the highest possible standards of medical education and research. The amendment provides reassurance to the academic community and properly enshrines the Government's intended commitments in the law. I therefore urge your Lordships to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendments Nos. 59 to 62:
Page 71, line 42, leave out ("and, if so").
Page 71, line 44, leave out the first ("or") and insert ("with").
Page 72, line 2, at end insert—
("(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (l)(d) above, an NHS trust is to be regarded as having a significant teaching commitment in the following cases—
(a) if the trust is established to assume responsibility for the ownership and management of a hospital or other establishment or facility which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, has a significant teaching and research commitment; and
(b) in any other case, if the Secretary of State so provides in the order.").
Page 72, line 6, leave out ("or medical or dental school").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 73, line 44, at beginning insert—
("Subject to paragraph 10A below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, cannot be present; she has to travel abroad very early in the morning and therefore asked me to move Amendment No. 64. Paragraph 19 in Schedule 6 of the National Health Service Act 1977 placed upon health authorities the duty to consult the professional advisory committees on their provision of services. It is also the duty of health authorities to consult the committees on such matters.
There is no move in the Bill at present to extend that duty to NHS trusts. When a similar amendment was proposed in Committee there was considerable discussion, and that amendment required health authorities to consult professional advisory committees before entering into a contract. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, replied to that amendment in committee that he has a good deal of sympathy with the point underlying the amendment. The planning and provision of patient services needs to be informed by the judgment and expertise of health care professionals. That is an argument which he at
1648
that time appeared to accept. He replied by saying that the future role of those committees in relation to NHS trusts was being carefully considered.
The purpose of tabling this group of amendments was to probe the intentions of the Government in relation to the role of the advisory committees in the NHS trusts. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my name is associated with this amendment and I shall do no more than say that I support it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, let me first say that I fully accept the need for National Health Service trusts to have proper professional, and particularly medical, advice in order to manage and develop their services. We have, as the House will know, already made clear that most trusts will have medical and nursing directors on their boards which will ensure that there is proper input at the very highest level of management. But clearly that will need to be supplemented by advice at other levels in the trust. Where I differ from the noble Lord moving the amendment is in respect of the way in which trusts should obtain such advice.
The amendment would require trusts to consult with any recognised local advisory committee—and, as well as medical committees, there could be dental, nursing, optical and pharmaceutical committees—before placing contracts. I see three difficulties. First, it would take away from trusts the freedom to determine for themselves how best to obtain professional input to decisions on contracting. It seems to me important that trusts should be able to choose for themselves the extent to which they wish to seek advice from outside the unit in this area. Trusts may well feel that the advice they have available from their own clinicians is the advice on which they wish to reply, especially as more clinicians, and other professionals, have become involved in management.
Secondly, I am not convinced that the existing local advisory committees are necessarily the bodies best placed to provide advice to trusts in this area. Where such committees have been established and are recognised their duty is to advise the health authority on its provision of services, and I think it would be difficult for the same body to advise both the district health authority and a trust on service provision. There needs, I believe, to be clearly separate advice to districts in their commissioning role and to trusts as providers, and giving local advisory committees the sort of dual role which the amendment proposes is a recipe for confusion.
Finally, not all districts, as I understand it, have formally recognised advisory committees. It would seem unreasonable to place a requirement for consultation on trusts which only some of them would be able to fulfil. Furthermore, to the extent that different districts have recognised local advisory committees for different professional groups, the burden of consultation could differ significantly from trust to trust and could, in some cases, be quite onerous.
The noble Lord says that this is merely a probing amendment. I hope that I have been able to satisfy

1649
him as to the Government's thinking on the matter, and that lie will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I believe I can take it from his response that, for the reasons he gave, the existing established advisory machinery is not likely in all cases to be appropriate for the advising of NHS trusts in future. It will nevertheless be the Government's intention to see that such NHS trusts establish a formal professional advisory machinery to advise them in the pursuit of the functions under the Bill. In receiving that assurance—and I see the Minister nodding his head—I believe it appropriate at this hour to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
12.45 a.m.
Lord Butterfield Lord Butterfield moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 74, line 30, after ("employ") insert ("non-clinical")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank your Lordships very much for the opportunity to speak on this matter. As the Bill stands, it states, under the duties, powers and status of the trusts:
"An NHS trust shall comply with any directions given to it by the Secretary of State with respect to all or any of the following matters".
Among those, the Bill lists:
"compliance with guidance or directions given (by circular or otherwise) to health authorities, or particular descriptions of health authorities; and the implementation of awards relating to the distinction or merit of medical practitioners or dental practitioners".
I must confess that I assumed that that meant that there was a blanket understanding that the trust hospitals would be dealing with their medical practitioners, their professional people, under the usual regulations put out by the Department of Health. But, coming to the point where I am concerned to make an amendment of the general powers, the Bill states under paragraph 16(l)(d),
"to employ staff on such terms as the trust thinks fit."
That would appear to make it possible for the trust to employ clinical staff outside the terms of usual circulars and regulations. That is the concern which lies behind the amendment.
I believe that it would be to the detriment of the health service as a whole if some doctors, dentists, nurses and professional people working in hospitals which we are assured are part of the NHS were to receive different remuneration. Under this clause officers of trust hospitals could offer considerably higher salaries to professional people. I do not like that and I am pleading with your Lordships at this very late hour not to let it happen.
Since 1971 in the case of doctors and dentists, and since 1983 in the case of nurses, midwives and the other professions there have been special pay review bodies. They consist of about seven or eight distinguished men who give up their time to try to work out what they regard as fair remuneration for doctors and dentists in relation to the other professional people up and down the country. I know that some doctors in the health service would not be
1650
in a position to command high "private patient" salaries because of the very nature of their work in the health service. In particular, I think of those men and women who work in the laboratory services. I am very anxious that they should not be allowed to think, because of anything the trusts can do to increase the salaries of some of the people working for them as is implied in the Bill, that they are—I do not want to use the phrase "second class citizens"—ordinary troops rather than special troops. It seems inevitable that that will happen.
I give as an example a blood transfusion consultant. He will not have much opportunity to have new patients. One does not find very many blood transfusion consultants in private practice. I realise that commercial market forces will not be involved in the planning of the coming health service but it seems highly likely that groups working in laboratories such as blood transfusion consultants, clinical immunologists and those concerned with viral diseases will not have the same kind of power to command high salaries and will not have to be drawn to the trust hospitals by high salaries.
The wonderful thing about the health service is that for 40 years we have gradually achieved a more even distribution of medical services around the country. No one can say that ill health can be attributable to maladministration by the Department of Health. There has been a constant effort to achieve this distribution. General practitioners were not allowed to practise in certain parts of the country and medical schools were set up in areas that needed them.
We have been very much concerned with trying to achieve a uniform distribution. I am anxious that directors, managers, general managers and the people running the trust hospitals should not be in a position to start disturbing that achievement. I know that some people will say—I have had it said to me—"I don't understand why you are worring about this. You know as well as I do that there are people in the health service at the moment who are on standard salaries but who in their spare time make very high incomes. Why are you concerned that the trust hospitals may be offering higher incomes to some of the men?" My reply to that is very simple: if it is possible for men to make very high salaries while they are inside the health service, why change it? Why start the possibility that we shall see a disturbance of this even-handedness and even distribution as between different parts of the country and different consultants?
I have been trying to think of a suitable idea to give noble Lords. This occurred to me though it may or may not move your hearts. The guardsmen who walk down The Mall and the officers who command them are on the same pay as the men in the ordinary line regiments up and down the country. All those men are loyal soldiers of the Queen. I am very anxious that we do not get into a situation where some professional men inside the health service working in the trust hospitals begin to feel that they are not quite as equal as some other people in the service.
I have absolutely no objection to the trust hospitals finding ways of getting very able men to work with

1651
them. At Committee stage I said that as far as I was concerned they could be given company motor cars; they could be given the resources to see patients privately. If necessary, they could rent accommodation to have private clinics inside the main hospital. They could rent the operating theatres. In those ways they could augment their incomes.
Most people will be able to walk away from this problem. Those of us who are concerned with recruiting the kind of people whom we want in the medical, nursing and other professions are likely to be left with a recruitment situation where financial objectives are in people's minds from the moment they start medical or nursing school or wherever.
There is a famous Chinese proverb which says "Find the key link". That means that when you are about to cast a fishing net there is one link in the net which, if you use it to cast the net, will spread the net evenly over the surface of the river. I believe that ensuring standard, uniform salaries for the professionals inside all parts of the health service—we must bear in mind that we have been reassured and I believe that the trust hospitals will be inside the health service—is very important to the even distribution of the health services. That is why I see this situation rather like the key link in the Chinese fishing net. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am extremely grateful (and I hope the House will be) to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, for raising this issue. One of the great charms of the noble Lord is that he combines both outstanding intellectual abilities and a simple naivety, which we all love. We are talking about something which the Government have planned and intend to do quite consciously—that is, to ensure that the NHS trusts are enabled to do just what the noble Lord fears that by accident they will do. I am referring to their ability to attract the best people; to have pay levels which are designed to suck in the best doctors, nurses, occupational therapists and the rest, and to create a two-tier health service. That is one of the great problems.
I was very sad that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, was unable to be here to move his amendment, which clearly raises a central issue to which we shall have to return at Third Reading.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, in that what is proposed in the Bill is very dangerous. I am aware of the extent of the concern among the medical profession—the British Medical Association, and especially the Royal College of Nursing—that what is proposed will cause great damage. It will be very damaging to the service to move way from national terms and conditions of service. It means a break-up of the principles upon which the review bodies were based. It means that we shall have two classes of nurses and of everyone else—that is, those who will be able to compete for the top jobs in the NHS trusts, and those who work in the common second-class hospitals and health service units across the country.
I admit that on some issues we have made some progress here in your Lordships' House. I pay tribute to the Government for the improvements which we have been able to achieve. However, somehow or other we have to achieve parity; we have to ensure that the NHS trusts are not given special privileges. I say that because if some hospitals and units have special privileges, then other hospitals and units will have reduced privileges. Therefore, there will be a two-tier system. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue in his gentle and courteous manner, and I am sorry that I have done so in my blunt and political way.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, due to the lateness of the hour, I shall be extremely brief in what I have to say. I very much support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. However, I have one caveat. I was amazed to hear him say that while he wanted to keep the basic pay the same, he was quite happy if these hospitals could offer Rolls-Royces to the people who went to work for them. On the basis of 13 years on the Top Salaries Review Body, I must say that if there is one really dangerous thing to do, it is to introduce benefits of that kind. It distorts the situation in a far worse way than salary differentials.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I have no wish to delay the House for more than a moment at this late hour of the night. However, I should like to say that one of the things which concerns the medical profession most is the problem that will arise in relation to the employment of university clinical staff in NHS trusts. They are employed by the university, they have complete parity of their salary scales with those in the NHS, and as they are paid by the university and not therefore employed by the trust, a very serious situation could arise if there is a differential between the salaries of those paid by the NHS and those paid by the universities.
A problem is also likely to arise in relation to the transfer of trainees, registrars and senior registrars from trust hospitals to other hospitals. This could be a serious problem. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, about company cars. But having accepted—as I hope the Government will—the principle of parity of salary scales on the national basis, I see no objection to the payment of weighting, such as London weighting, in special circumstances to assist in the recruitment of staff, provided that the basic salary scales are the same.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may supplement what my noble friend Lord Ennals said so that we are all clear about what we are debating. I must point out to the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Butterfield, that these are not problems that can arise; these are the intentions of the Government. If one does not see that their purpose in the area of salaries is to free these people to choose the salaries they wish, one does not understand the nature of the reform.
We on these Benches are totally opposed to the Government in this matter. But to regard this as an unforeseen or unfortunate consequence is a

1653
misunderstanding, just as is any other notion of parity to do with availability of funds; it is their intention that this change should take place. There is no parity left. Some people will be awash with money—that is, those who win the game—while others will be perpetually broke.
It must be realised that if at any stage you have supported the Government on this Bill, that is what you are supporting. That is the essence of the Bill. It is not an unforeseen consequence; that is what the Bill is all about. Moreover, that is why we have opposed it from the beginning. There is no way back now. This is what the Government are determined to do.
1 a.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I am sorry to take a view opposite to that of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, because one of the reasons why I went back to Guy's to be Professor of Surgery was that he was Professor of Medicine. When he heard that I was coming he promptly left for Nottingham, but I can forgive him for that.
One of the problems that worries me is the business of parity between the university side and the NHS side. That was a mistake from the beginning. We should never have gone for parity; we were worth more than that. Who needs life-long contracts? They are a great mistake because life-long contracts are merely an excuse for not paying people the proper rate. No one worth his salt needs a life-long contract. Self-governing hospitals will not be able to price themselves out of the market because they will have to compete on equal terms with the directly managed hospitals. If they pay their staff inflated rates, they will not win the contracts. The amendment is contrary to the whole spirit of what we are trying to do in the Bill.
Lord Ennals: Of course it is. That is what my noble friend Lord Peston and I have been saying.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we discussed similar amendments in Committee and the Committee divided on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, which was lost.
The amendment explained by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, is aimed at exempting clinical staff from the general freedom which trusts will have to set their own terms and conditions of service for staff, although I fear that it could have the effect of preventing them from employing such staff, since it effectively excludes them.
We have it made clear that staff, including clinical staff, will transfer to trust employment on existing contracts and it will then be open to trusts to negotiate changes to those contracts. It will be for trusts to determine the terms and conditions of service lor new employees. We do not believe that any special provision is necessary to exclude clinical staff from those arrangements. Teamwork is at the heart of medical practice and leads to the high standards of care on which we pride ourselves in this country. The amendment would be detrimental to such teamwork and would lead to accusations of there being double standards for clinical and
1654
non-clinical staff. That cannot be to the benefit of the trust as a whole. Furthermore, it would seem perverse for clinical staff to be unable to benefit from any improved terms and conditions of service which a trust might wish to make available to its staff. It must be for the trusts themselves to determine the most appropriate terms and conditions for all their employees.
The fear has been expressed that trusts will offer high salaries to clinical staff and therefore affect the standard of service offered in other units. However, I do not believe that to allow trusts to determine their own terms and conditions will necessarily lead to that, unlike noble Lords immediately opposite me, who believe that that is our express intention.
We are gradually introducing pay flexibility in all parts of the NHS to ease recruitment problems and reward skills and performance. I am confident that trusts will use their greater freedoms wisely and in a way which will benefit patients. Furthermore, we have made it clear that trusts will have to live within their income, and, like other units, will have to contain their costs if they are to remain competitive.
Conversely, I am sure that trusts will be conscious that if their terms and conditions of service are perceived to be undesirable or unfavourable they will have difficulty in recruiting staff and in delivering high quality services.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I do not wish to press the amendment at the moment. I shall read carefully what she has said, but I am not completely convinced by some of the logic she produced when she averred that the trusts would not disturb the smooth distribution.
Having been a medical student in America, I know that there the prospects of what one can earn are important. One reason is to pay off the loan one has had to raise to become a doctor. I found that there was a, to me, rather unethical attitude towards possible financial gains. One of the great points in my working career under the National Health Service has been that, just as when working in the Army Medical Corps, we did not have to worry about money, somebody else had more or less decided what we should make. Unless we needed money to educate children, by and large people concentrated on the job, as did the noble Lord, Lord McColl. We spotted him as the obvious man to make into our professor of surgery. However, with the permission of the House, I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 76, line 93, at end insert:
("Compulsory acquisition
25A.—(1) An NHS trust may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of its functions by means of an order made by the trust and confirmed by the Secretary of State.

1655
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 shall apply to the compulsory purchase of land under this paragraph.
(3) No order shall be made by an NHS trust under Part II of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 with respect to any land unless the proposal to acquire the land compulsorily—
(a) has been submitted to the Secretary of State in such form and together with such information as he may require; and
(b) has been approved by him.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208. Amendment No. 69 would give National Health Service trusts, subject to safeguards, the power to purchase land compulsorily. Amendment No. 208 is a purely technical change to Section 17 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 77, line 16, at end insert:
("(aa) on the application of a majority of the officers of the National Health Service trust concerned, or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. My remarks will be simple because the amendment is simple. There is nothing like licking one's chops at the thought of the dissolution of the NHS trusts that have not been established! However, there is a real point here. On page 77 of the Bill we see the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may make an order by statutory instrument to dissolve an NHS trust. There are two sets of circumstances:
"on the application of the NHS trusts concerned;
or
"if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in the interests of the health service".
It may be that one of the reasons why the trust is being dissolved is that it has fallen apart and there is no trust left. It seems sensible to have a form of words which refers to the majority of the officers of the National Health Service trust. Then it would be clear that if the trust had fallen apart, there would still be ways in which the Secretary of State could receive an application for a dissolution. I beg to move.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, Amendment No. 70 brings us back in essence to the question of ballots, because it will presumably need a ballot of staff to determine if a majority would wish the trust to be dissolved. The decision to apply for dissolution of the trust is not one to be taken lightly, and I do not believe that it is a suitable issue to be decided by a ballot. In addition, the proposed amendment would discriminate against other interested parties who would not be given the right to ballot on applying for the dissolution of the trust. Furthermore, the amendment would mean that the majority view of the staff of the trust would itself be grounds for dissolving the trust, however small the majority and
1656
even if such a vote went against the view of the board of directors appointed to manage the trust, who are the appropriate people to take the decision as to whether to apply for a dissolution.
Finally I have to say that there must be a risk that such a power would be used frivolously or as a weapon against trust management. For instance, if there were industrial relation problems it would be possible for trust employees to be balloted on a proposal for the dissolution of a trust even though the trust itself was thriving and successful. As I have said earlier, I do not believe that decisions on applying for a trust to be dissolved should be taken lightly and I do not believe that the Bill should permit this to happen.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it was certainly not my intention nor, I believe, that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, that such a decision should be considered as something to be taken lightly. The words,
"a majority of the officers of the National Health Service trust"
would make that clear. However, there is some merit in what the noble Baroness has said. I suppose the measure could be used as a form of threat. Someone could say that one-third of the officers were in favour of a trust being abolished and if he had another two in favour he would have a majority in favour of abolition. I can see that there is some strength to the argument of the noble Baroness.
I may have misheard the noble Baroness but I thought she mentioned some doubt. If she did, I hope she will explain that. I thought the noble Baroness was very much opposed to ballots in these circumstances. Perhaps I misheard. I hope the noble Baroness can reply to that point before I finally beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I rather assumed that the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord would be to bring us back to the question of ballots, whereas we have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to consult if dissolution appears necessary. He would therefore wish to take account of the views of all staff before making a decision as part of that consultation process. We would not wish to follow the course suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I do not think this brings us back to the question of ballots. I hope the Minister will consider that there is a problem here. She said the measure could represent a form of threat. However, it could also work the other way for a group which wanted to retain a trust. It is the basis of what might be an unfortunate argument. This is an issue which could be dealt with in some form of guidance. I hope the Minister will get the department to give some thought to this question. There is a problem here and I know that my noble friend Lord Hunter feels so too. Perhaps the Minister agrees with us. In any case I shall withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that precisely how the views of staff were obtained for the purposes of dissolution of a trust could be specified, for example, in regulations.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill
Reported from the unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past one o'clock.

  COMPUTER VIRUSES AS BATTLEFIELD WEAPONS
  COMPUTER VIRUSES AS BATTLEFIELD WEAPONS
  FREEZONE EXPERIMENT: REPORT
  FREEZONE EXPERIMENT: REPORT
  USED TYRE DISPOSAL
  USED TYRE DISPOSAL