Sitting of 12 June 1990

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

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (NO. 2) BILL
    Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
    To be considered on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Opting Out
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the aims of the policy that allows schools to opt out of local authority control.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Before I answer the question, may I offer the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is unavoidably engaged visiting schools and training establishments in Germany? He sends the House his apologies. The engagement was fixed some time ago.
    The aim of the policy is to improve parental choice and the use of resources to benefit the pupils. That is being achieved in the first grant-maintained schools. They are showing the way in maximising the commitment and enthusiasm of governors, parents and teachers. The policy is already proving an overwhelming success.
    Dr. Twinn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does she agree that many more schools would benefit from grant-maintained status? Will she make the success story of grant-maintained schools more widely known, so that parents, governors and staff can give more consideration to applying for grant-maintained status?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The success of the policy is demonstrated by the growing number of schools that are beginning to apply for grant-maintained status. As my hon. Friend will know, there are already 29 grant-maintained schools and there will be 12 more in September. A number of further proposals are about to be made. Therefore, the best way of informing the general public and particularly schools about the success of the grant-maintained policy is by the growing number of schools that are obtaining that status.
    Mr. Flannery: Is not the Minister literally whistling in the dark because the policy is an utter failure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good Conservative Members shouting me down. The policy is being resisted all over the
    120
    country. Like the city technology colleges and various other programmes, it is a partial step towards privatisation. Will the hon. Lady tell us the truth, because the eduation system is moving steadily into semi-chaos?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am not sure whether to take the hon. Gentleman seriously, but for the moment I shall do so and point out that the best way in which he can establish whether grant-maintained schools are a success is to visit one. He will then see the immense improvement in the morale of teachers and parents and in the way in which those schools are organised. The benefit of self-governing schools is indubitably for the best.
    Mr. Pawsey: I hope that my hon. Friend will disregard the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Does she agree that one of the ways in which we could create further interest in grant-maintained schools and increase the number of schools applying is by abolishing the wholly artificial threshold of 300 pupils? If that were abolished, many more schools would apply for grant-maintained status.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend puts forward an interesting thought and I can assure him that we shall consider it, but at present we are extremely busy, as he will no doubt appreciate, with the number of applications and parental ballots that have already been successful.

    Tinnitus
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources are currently being provided by the medical research council for research into tinnitus.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): In 1988–89, the latest financial year for which figures are available, the medical research council spent £149,000 on research into tinnitus.
    Mr. Sumberg: Would not it be a good idea for research to be carried out on tinnitus caused by working in ships' engine rooms so that people such as my constituent, Mr. Harmstone, could claim industrial injury benefit? Will my hon. Friend have a word with the medical research council and put that idea to it? At the same time will he have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Social Security to see whether they can do something to rectify an extremely unfair situation?
    Mr. Jackson: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to my hon. Friend's question. The medical research council and the universities are autonomous institutions at arm's length from Government, but I shall draw their attention to the question.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that many researchers tend to shun research into intractable problems, however great the suffering may be? The suffering with tinnitus is great, because of the roaring and shrieking sounds that people have to endure. Little research is coming forward and any help that the Minister can give to the MRC would be very much appreciated.
    Mr. Jackson: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The MRC has spent just over £2 million on research

    121
    into hearing generally and it will see the remarks about tinnitus that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) have made.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is well aware of the depth and breadth of research carried out by the MRC. What has been the increase in the MRC's vote since 1979?
    Mr. Jackson: I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that question. The amount is substantial. There has been a 28 per cent. real terms increase in the MRC's funding since the Conservative party came into office.

    School Buildings
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the repair and improvement of school buildings.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I believe that it may be in order to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the position of education spokesman for the Social and Liberal Democrats. We shal take a cordial interest in seeing how quickly the hon. Gentleman proceeds along the cursus honorum trodden by his predecessor in office, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
    In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend has received a number of letters and other representations from local education authorities, hon. Members, diocesan bodies and others about the repair and improvement of school buildings.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for his kind comments. How does he envisage following the lead set by his predecessors who, in 1981, laid down minimum standards for school buildings, to be reached by 1991? It is clear in my county and in other parts of the country that schools will not reach those standards. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to put in extra money to allow them to reach those standards, or does he—to echo the words of the Minister of State to me in an Adjournment debate—intend to review those standards, presumably to cut them?
    Mr. Howarth: We shall continue to make the excellent progress that we have made over the past 10 years in making money available to improve school buildings. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the capital expenditure per pupil in our schools has increased by 13 per cent. since 1978–79, the last year of the previous Labour Government, when Labour was supported in office by the hon. Gentleman's party, or its predecessor. Of course, I recognise that there is a considerable backlog of work. We must look at the needs sensitively and practically. We are examining the implications of the 1981 building regulations.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Do not those concerns have their roots in the maladministration of some local authorities? If they do not make rational, sensible analyses of their surplus school places, clearly there is not enough money to maintain the places that they really want. That problem must be addressed.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our best estimate from Her Majesty's inspectorate and the Audit Commission is that there are still more than 1
    122
    million surplus school places in the system. Authorities that are not willing to grasp that nettle are guilty of tying up resources that are lying unproductive in the system, instead of making that money available for the benefit of children's education.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minister aware that in the county of Northumberland there is a repair bill of £1·5 million for all schools? Will he do something about that problem, or is he just going to stand there and let off bags of wind?
    Mr. Howarth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not able to join the all-party deputation from his county, which recently came to see me and the Department. We had a useful discussion about the problems of school buildings in Northumberland. I am pleased to be able to say that my officials are involved in a close dialogue with officers of the authority. I hope that we can assist the authority in formulating reasonable proposals for the next round of allocations, so that Northumberland can make the further progress that is necessary to deal with the pressing problems of repairing some of its village schools.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as opposed to capital spending, if extra revenue were made available through the grant system, there would be no guarantee that it would be spent on school maintenance? Does my hon. Friend recall, for example, that when the Government made additional money available to local authorities for spending on road maintenance, only a tiny minority of it ended up being spent on roads?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable about these matters, has put his finger on a real issue. I am hopeful that local management of schools will make an impact on that problem. Local education authorities are obliged to devolve a significant proportion of their schools' budgets to school level. In that way, we can at least ensure that school governors, head teachers and their colleagues in the schools will have a proper say about the allocation of resources within the system.

    Gene Manipulation
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has given to the proposals of Professor Beringer of the department of botany in the university of Bristol for the expansion of the United Nations framework for covering problems related to gene manipulation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jackson: Professor Beringer has made no formal proposals to Ministers on this subject. However, the United Nations Environmental Programme, together with the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and the World Health Organisation, set up an informal working group in 1985 to consider all aspects of biosafety. Britain was invited to be an observer to some of the discussions of that group and the British Government will continue to support initiatives of the United Nations in that area.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who is responsible for this complex and delicate issue? Is it the Department of the Environment, the Department of Education and Science or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or is it the Prime Minister who, as far as we know, has not gone back on what she

    123
    told the House in 1981, which was that she was the Minister who was personally responsible for co-ordinating science policy? It is not easy.
    Mr. Jackson: The Prime Minister has a general, overall responsibility as chairman of the relevant committee. However, it is an area of responsibility for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have drawn his attention to the question and I am sure that he will consider its implications sympathetically.

    Local Government Finance
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will meet representatives of those local education authorities which have been charge-capped to discuss the implications for education.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet representatives of charge-capped authorities. The authorities designated for charge capping had the opportunity to put forward an alternative cap to that proposed by my right hon. Friend. Those who have done so have been given the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), to make oral representations.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is not the Minister simply abandoning the children of the capped authorities? I draw her attention to the document—a copy of which I have placed on the board for the Minister—from the secondary heads of the Calderdale Secondary Head Teachers Association, which highlights the crisis that will occur in education in Calderdale should the Minister go ahead with the cap. May I also draw her attention to the discrepancy between the £1,799 spent on each pupil in Calderdale and the £2,961 spent on the private sector at Leeds grammar school? Is not that simply immoral?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady misunderstands. The responsibility for the policy of charge capping rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He will be making his decisions on the matter in due course. I also remind the hon. Lady that education is only one part of the total budget on which an authority is judged.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Calderdale council set a community charge of £450 and a safety net of £160 was granted by the Government. Is my hon. Friend aware of that? I hope that my hon. Friend also realises that Calderldale council has before it a budget, which could be instituted, that would reduce spending by £50 a head with no redundancies. Secondary school heads and others are appalled that the socialists push the children to one side.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I respect my hon. Friend's views about his own local authority. It is perfectly true that Calderdale authority set its spending an excessive 21 per cent. higher, equivalent to £160, which is a considerable amount of money for each charge payer to pay. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's condemnation of his irresponsible authority.
    Mr. Straw: Is not it shameful that the Secretary of State for Education and Science appears to have washed his
    124
    hands of the consequences of poll tax capping on our schools? Given that one half of local authorities' total spending is on education, is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State takes no view as to whether poll tax capping will or will not harm education in those 20 areas?
    Will the Minister now answer the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon): what conceivable justification can the Secretary of State for the Environment have for objecting to poll tax-capped authorities spending £1,900 or less per pupil when, in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, the Government are spending £4,650 on the fees of pupils at Kingswood school, a private day school? Does not that expose the deeply hypocritical double standards operated by the Government?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman would be better placed were he aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering proposals for charge capping. When he has made up his mind and has come to the House with his view, the point will come when the total budget for local authorities confronted with any sort of cap is known and they can then decide for themselves where their priorities lie. That is a matter entirely for the local authorities.
    The hon. Gentleman's question about the assisted places scheme was ridiculous. He should look closely at the figures that he is comparing, as he is not comparing like with like. Instead, he pursues the posh socialist's patronising view of the ability of working people to choose where their children go to school. What the people want is choice in education. They do not want to be directed by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the charge-capped authorities and ensure that, when they reduce their expenditure on education, as I am sure many of them will, they do not do it with the maximum pain to parents and children and to maximise the political capital that they can make out of it? Will she also ensure that, where there is local management of schools, central bureaucracies at county hall are dismantled so that the money drifts downwards to the schools, where it is needed?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I note with great interest what my hon. Friend said. He is obviously very knowledgeable about the way in which the education service is organised in his authority's area. It is for the local authorities, should they be confronted with charge capping, to make their own decisions. Of course, there is a route by which schools can ensure that they get the maximum amount of money from the local authority, and it is called seeking grant-maintained status.

    Teachers' Pay and Conditions
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about teachers' pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold rose—
    Hon. Members: Get on with it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is having a busy time.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend receives—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that there was so much reaction from the Benches below the Gangway that I did not hear the Minister's answer.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to repeat that my right hon. Friend receives frequent representations on the pay and conditions of teachers.
    Mr. Nellist: Has not the Minister even considered the representations from her Department's hand-picked interim advisory committee, which says that, given inflation, the offer made to teachers this year means that a majority of them will still be paid less in real terms this year than they were last? How is that supposed to help morale and to stop the haemorrhaging of teachers from the profession?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is interesting that the local authority in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has only recently adopted some of the flexible arrangements provided by the interim advisory committee over the past two years. If the authority follows the interim advisory committee's recommendations on flexibility more closely during the coming year, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that some of his allegations about that committee's recommendations are far from accurate.
    Mr. Norris: In areas such as west Essex, we are grateful for the special assistance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given us to recruit teachers because of the high costs of housing. When monitoring organisations such as Reward have shown in regional surveys that the cost of living in London is about £8,000 a year more than it is in an average shire county, will my hon. Friend the Minister bear it in mind that we still need to do more to reflect those cost differentials if we are to attract the right people to teaching in the south-east?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that there is a requirement for greater flexibility within the south-east and the London area, particularly in the home counties, because of the clear differential between the cost of living and the cost of housing there and the costs in other areas where such things are not so expensive. The interim advisory committee has addressed that and one hopes that there will be continuing progress when any future negotiating machinery is set up.

    Teacher Vacancies
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the latest estimated number of teacher vacancies in schools; what were the similar figures for the same month in 1976 and 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In January 1989 there were 3,116 full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery and primary schools in England, and 2,424 in maintained secondary schools. We hope to be able to publish the 1990 survey results shortly.
    No figures exist on teacher vacancies in 1976, and only secondary schools' figures for 1979. In January of that year there were 2,600 full-time vacancies in maintained secondary schools in England. Where we can make a direct
    126
    comparison between secondary school vacancies in 1979 and 1989, we find that there were rather more vacancies in 1979.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I addressed a packed meeting opposing vicious cuts in education and in the supply of teachers in January 1969 when the Labour Government were in office?
    Mr. Cryer: Oh.
    Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Blackburn was then president-elect of the National Union of Students.
    By 1976 those of us who were running schools had to trawl the area to get teacher bodies to put before classes because there was such a shortage of teachers under that Labour Government. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that everything possible will be done to ensure that the national curriculum goes ahead with a sound supply of good teachers to implement it?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend speaks from his experience of the responsibility of running a school during the very difficult period when the previous Labour Government were cutting public expenditure. The House should heed what my hon. Friend said and we certainly do.
    No one should pretend that there will not be formidable difficulties in recruiting all the teachers whom we need during a period in which the demand for highly skilled manpower in the economy is growing and the number of people entering the work force is falling. That is why we have been introducing a range of measures targeting the problem. They include bursaries to attract teachers to train in shortage subjects; new routes to qualifications for graduates and mature entrants; support for distance learning courses and specific grants to support recruitment strategies for local education authorities in areas that face shortages.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is it true that there are about 1,300 teacher vacancies in London? Is not it also a fact that one reason why it is difficult to attract teachers to London and to retain them there is the price of property and rents? Does not the Minister accept some responsibility? Has he told his ministerial colleagues responsible for housing that if they had not destroyed the local authorities' house-building programme in London, perhaps the teacher shortage would not be quite so bad in the capital city as it is?
    Mr. Howarth: London indeed faces exceptional problems in recruiting and retaining teachers. That is why we have directed special efforts towards helping the local education authorities in London and we shall continue to do that. On the hon. Gentleman's point about housing, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to support the purchase of former Inner London education authority property by the London teachers' housing association.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Minister aware that there are particular problems in the recruitment and retention of teachers in London and the south-east? Will he undertake to inquire whether the Government intend to introduce regional pay or school-centred pay bargaining as a way around the problems that we in the south are experiencing?
    Mr. Howarth: Following the advice of the interim advisory committee, in the last three years the Government have introduced an extended range of flexibilities to enable employers, whether local education authorities or governors, to introduce greater differentials to take account of local difficulties in recruitment and retention which labour conditions and the cost of living in London and the south-east impose. About 175,000 teachers, a high concentration of them in London and the south-east, are now in receipt of incentive allowances. As a result of this year's pay settlement, there will be increased discretion for employers to award extra income and extra supplements.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister aware that the Government will find it difficult to deal with the growing crisis of teacher shortage when—for the second consecutive year—they have imposed a cut in teachers' real standard of living? Is he further aware that the collapse in teacher morale, the fear of job losses through the introduction of LMS—local management of schools —and the events at Davenant school in Essex, where parents are being charged £50 to pay the teachers, will do little to help teacher morale but will simply create a situation in which more teachers will leave the profession and more parents will become demoralised, all as a result of the Government's stewardship of the education system?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman should blush when making such references to pay. Under the last Labour Government, teachers' pay rose by 6 per cent.—[Interruption.] That is a fact. Under the Conservatives, the real value of teachers' pay has risen by 30 per cent. Every time the hon. Gentleman and his Friends seek to portray the teacher supply situation in the lurid terms that they love to use, they exacerbate the problem. It would be good to hear from Opposition Members some recognition of the fact that in schools in, for example, some of the inner London boroughs, superb work is being done by teachers. Those local education authorities are working with might and main to recruit and retain the teachers they need and to give children better opportunities.
    As for what has happened at Davenant school, my information, which is not complete, suggests that there was nothing in the LMS formula which would have required that school to shed teachers. Indeed, I imagine that as a result of the fund-raising efforts that the school community has undertaken it will find itself usefully better off.

    Opting Out
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the number of opting-out ballots held under the Education Reform Act 1988.
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many secondary schools have held opting-out ballots to date.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Parental ballots have been held at 92 schools and parents at 71 of those schools have voted in favour of an application for grant-maintained status. All but two of the schools were secondary schools.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that Hendon school, the first grant-maintained school in London, is
    128
    now oversubscribed? Does she agree that that shows that such schools are popular with parents and teachers alike and illustrates the folly of the Opposition policy of abolishing grant-maintained schools, CTCs, grammar schools and the independent sector?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The politics of envy will never do anything for the pupils in our schools. It is absolutely clear from the number of parents applying for their children to go to grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges that the number of applications has increased. The morale of teachers in the grant-maintained school sector is very high indeed. I believe that that has much to do with the fact that they are looking after their own affairs without intervention and are confident that they are giving the best possible education, without unnecessary intervention, to the children in their care.
    Mr. Atkinson: While thanking my hon. Friend for the good news received yesterday that Bournemouth school for boys has been granted permission to receive the full benefits of self-govering status, may I ask whether she agrees that the demand for opting out comes much more from the governors of schools, who appreciate the benefits, rather than from parents, who remain largely uninformed of them? Will she consider initiating a new campaign to inform parents of the benefits of grant-maintained status?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is glad to learn that Bournemouth school has been accepted as a grant-maintained school, subject to a couple of technical agreements between us and it, but he must understand that the parents are the people who are balloted. They express through the ballot box, perfectly fairly and legitimately, their support for the grant-maintained policy. It is interesting that they are supporting it increasingly through the ballot box, and with success.
    Mr. Rooker: What about the parents of pupils at Sylvan high school in Mr. Speaker's constituency who were balloted and voted against its becoming a city technology college, which was then imposed on them? The school has been wrecked, teacher morale has gone down the plughole and children are expected to study on a building site. How can the Minister say that the parents' views are paramount?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The city technology college programme is exceedingly successful. We hear the politics of envy time and again from Opposition Members. Any kind of improvement, any sort of choice, any type of assistance from industry is always scorned. Conservative Members are interested in the pupils, in the best for the children and for the teachers. CTCs are one of the many policies that we have followed to achieve just that.
    Mr. Straw: Does not the Minister's bluster disguise the fact that many leading Conservatives now oppose opting out and have lost confidence in it? Is she aware that Mr. Roy Schutz, Conservative chairman of the education committee in the Conservative borough of Barnet—the Prime Minister's own—has described an opted-out school in his constituency as an "unfettered dictatorship", and that the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who used to have the Minister's job, has described opting out as "a side alley"? Is not the truth that, despite all the propoganda and bribes and the cynical use

    129
    of school closure plans, the fact that fewer that 1 per cent. of all secondary schools and no primary schools at all have opted out shows how much the policy is an expensive and divisive flop?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I often wish that the hon. Gentleman cared more about the children in the maintained sector and less about his own policies. The policy of offering grant-maintained school options is most important because it gives choice to the very people who care about their children.
    I believe that the hon. Gentleman must have been misquoting Mr. Schutz, who is no longer the chairman of Barnet education authority. It would be as well if the hon. Gentleman got his facts right before coming to the Dispatch Box and reading rubbish from the newspapers, thereby misleading the general public and his colleagues about the policies that the Government are pursuing with great excellence.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that teachers, parents and pupils—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Ten years of bad manners on the Labour Benches.
    Does my hon. Friend accept—[Interruption.]—that parents, teachers and pupils of Lancaster boys grammar school are delighted to have freed themselves from the stultifying control of Lancashire county council—[Interruption.]—which dislikes grammar schools and over the years has deliberately starved the school of funds?
    Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancaster girls grammar school voted 10 days ago to opt out—[Interruption.]—and looks forward to substantial improvements if the application is approved?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right—
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that many hon. Members heard what our hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said. It seems that the microphones were not working during her excellent supplementary question.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the Minister heard, as she is giving the hon. Lady an answer.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of the House, I should say that my hon. Friend was rightly saying how pleased and delighted she was that there are schools in her constituency which are becoming grant maintained and she believes that the parents, teachers and pupils will benefit from the excellence of those schools continuing to run as self-governing schools.

    Student Loans
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the administration of the student loans scheme.
    Mr. Jackson: I visited the Student Loans Company yesterday. It is making excellent progress. The company is well on course and the decision to locate in Scotland has been fully vindicated. I am confident that the company will offer an efficient service to students and value for money to the taxpayer.
    Mr. McFall: Why does the application form require two referees? Is it to vet student suitability or is it, as the chief executive of the Student Loans Company said at Strathclyde university recently, to help the company to keep contact throughout the period of the loan? If it is the latter, how will this work in practice?
    Mr. Jackson: It is quite normal to seek referees in these cases, and it is not a qualification for having a loan. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that the Student Loans Company should not make every effort to recoup for the taxpayer money lent to students to help to maintain them while they are studying.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the recently announced increase in the access funds to help students who may have particular difficulties. Can he say more about the administration of the funds and the present position?
    Mr. Jackson: We hope that the funding councils will shortly be announcing the sum to be allocated to the institutions as access funds. The distribution of such funds by the institutions will be a matter for them to carry out at their own discretion. We believe that this will be a useful supplement to the resources that they have to assist their students.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Do not we face a serious accommodation crisis in polytechnics and universities as a consequence of this scheme, and in particular as a result of the Government's failure to announce the student loans regulations, details of the withdrawal of benefit or how the access funds are to operate, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) asked? As students and the institutions will pay the price for the Government's incompetence in introducing this ill-judged scheme, does the Minister owe it to them and to us to tell us what he intends to do about it?
    Mr. Jackson: The regulations will be published shortly. I have already answered the question about access funds. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to encourage students to study shortage subjects during initial teacher training.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: The Department has supported expenditure of more than £56 million since July 1986 on a range of measures to combat teacher shortages. These include a bursary scheme to improve recruitment to initial teacher training, a substantial programme of publicity and advertising, and new routes into the profession aimed particularly at mature entrants.
    Mr. Field: My hon. Friend and I are both believers in the free market. How can it be right, under the law of supply and demand, that when the nation demands more mathematicians, physicists and engineers we offer students studying those disciplines the same level of student grant, supported by the same level of student loan, as students studying sociology and politics, neither of which are endangered species?
    Mr. Howarth: I shall confine my answer to recruitment to teacher training. We have responded to the reality that my hon. Friend's analysis highlights. While in an ideal world every teacher who is contributing in the best way that he can in a school would be paid on a comparable scale, the demand for people with skills in mathematics, technology and science in our modern and highly successful economy is growing all the time. Unless we can offer bursaries to encourage people to train in those subjects, we shall not have enough of them, just as we shall not have enough of them unless we can offer incentive allowances to them once they are qualified. The Government's policies take full account of that.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: In subjects such as physics, chemistry and mathematics, there is a shortfall in graduates going into teacher training for this year, next year and the year after. Does the Minister accept that the Government have failed in their attempts to get teachers for those important subjects?
    Mr. Howarth: Once again the hon. Gentleman is determined to portray the teaching profession as being in a state of total collapse. The profession greatly resents that portrayal.
    Let us consider the statistical realities. In 1989 recruitment to the secondary school shortage subjects of mathematics, physics, chemistry, craft, design and technology, and modern foreign languages was down by 0·5 per cent., but that does not represent a collapse. The hon. Gentleman will be aware from his membership of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts that we have an energetic programme, particularly the bursary scheme that I have already mentioned, to sustain recruitment. We saw the response last year to the introduction of the new chemistry bursary. Recruits to initial teacher training in chemistry have risen sharply. This year, following our introduction of a bursary for teacher-students of modern languages, the signs are once again that recruitment is on the upturn.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Cummings: Will the Prime Minister find time this afternoon to consider the plight and anxiety of the many thousands of parents and carers of autistic and mentally handicapped children who are denied the mobility allowance? Does the Prime Minister understand the difficulties experienced by parents and carers when those children accompany them on public transport, given a somewhat unhappy and perhaps hostile public? Will the Prime Minister instruct her Secretary of State to put forward new regulations to enable the mobility allowance to be paid in such cases?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that parents travelling with such children do not meet hostility, but sympathy from the
    132
    public. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have increased the amounts spent on mobility allowance by a colossal extent, but I cannot accept that at present we should extend it to those people. Under our disablement provisions we have increased the provision made for people who look after highly disabled children at home enormously, to the extent of about £65 a week.
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the event of Midland Montagu ever being given the opportunity to consider the cost of her Government's future economic policies it would never be able to say that those policies would cost an additional £50 billion of public expenditure per year.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be of the Prime Minister's responsibility, and I do not think that that was.
    Mr. Brown: It is a matter for my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he knows he must ask a question covering the Prime Minister's responsibility. She may answer that part which was of her responsibility.
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that we are not likely to have policies which consist of spend now, pay later, which would only lead to much higher taxation, much higher borrowing and record inflation. Those were the Labour party's policies last time.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it true that the Prime Minister has resumed her habit of taking advice on economic affairs from Sir Alan Walters?
    The Prime Minister: Sir Alan Walters is a friend of the family—[Interruption.]—and I shall continue to see him as a friend of the family. It is astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman is so small-minded as to ask such a simple question.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall that when her previous Chancellor resigned he said:
    "The successful conduct of economic policy is possible only if there is, and is seen to be, full agreement between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Recent events have confirmed that this essential requirement cannot be satisfied as long as Sir Alan Walters remains your personal economic adviser"?
    With that in mind, should not the Prime Minister be more careful in her choice of family friends?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman objects to my seeing family friends, he is getting worse than the KGB.
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hannam: Has my right hon. Friend seen the survey by Michael Porter, the Harvard economist, who has spent the past four years surveying the top 10 major economies? Is she heartened by his comment that there were few

    133
    economies which had been in such bad shape at the end of the 1970s and had recovered so quickly and dramatically as Britain's had during the 1980s?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I saw that excellent report. It pointed out that competitiveness and endeavour are the only way to bring prosperity and that we have brought prosperity to and have transformed Britain. We have record production, record investment, record incomes, record social services and a record number of jobs—an excellent record.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall that a week ago her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he favoured a Europe in which we travelled in different directions, at different times and at whatever speed we liked, whereas yesterday her Foreign Secretary said that he wanted a Europe in which there was closer and closer integration? Which of those two contrary views represents Government policy?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman struggles hard with his questions. With the coming of the common market, the complete single market for which we have worked hard over many years, there will be much closer integration in trading matters. With regard to other matters, we wish to see the sort of Community in which national Parliaments, particularly Parliaments such as this, play an important role in agreeing the policy of the Community.
    Mr. Aitken: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Aitken: When the Cabinet comes later this week to its important decision on whether to subsidise the channel tunnel rail link, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the difference between the subsidised Eurorail high-speed line and the unsubsidised British Rail faster service on the improved existing line is likely to be merely a shorter travelling time by 20 minutes or so? Can she confirm that that relatively small saving of time can be achieved only by a funding by the taxpayer of several hundred million pounds? Does she accept the view of many of us that, public expenditure priorities being what they are, that sort of project is not worth it?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that a colossal subsidy would be required. We take the view that international services should not have subsidies. We do not subsidise international air services or international ferry services, and we do not believe that we should subsidise an international rail service.
    Mr. Loyden: If the Prime Minister is so satisfied about the economic situation, why are the banks failing to support major companies which are collapsing day by day?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looked at the regular reports, he would find that extensive borrowing facilities are still given by the banks to major companies.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the experience of her Government that as she has been able to bring tax rates down, so the wealth has been generated to increase the tax take, which could be spent on services and those in need? Does she agree that if tax rates were to increase again, money could not be spent on those in need? Will she find time in her busy day to spend an hour or six explaining that basic economic truth to the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is no—my hon. Friend has done that. I agree with my hon. Friend that the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers now not only pay more in absolute terms than they did, but pay a greater proportion of the income tax yield. It used to be 35 per cent., but the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers now pay 40 per cent. of the yield, which has helped considerably to increase the prosperity of this country and enabled us to spend far more on the social services.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Prime Minister share the growing public anxiety at the number of former Cabinet Ministers who obtain well-paid jobs in industries they were responsible for privatising, and if not, why not?
    The Prime Minister: Successive Government have taken the view that it is valuable to the people of this country that those who have great experience in public affairs put their talents at the service of industry and those who have experience of industry put their talents at the service of the Government. When Lord Wilson was asked a similar question, and was asked to apply minimum waiting periods, he replied:
    "these matters are better left to the discretion and good sense of the individuals concerned."—[Official Report, 20 June 1968; Vol. 766, c. 171.]
    That has happened on both sides of the House and I share the noble Lord's views.
    Mr. Malins: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Malins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that traffic levels on roads in south London have reached intolerable levels and are likely to worsen in years to come? Does she further agree with many of my constituents in Croydon that efforts should be made to keep people off the roads and encourage them to use a much more efficient, faster and cheaper public transport system? Finally, will my right hon. Friend give consideration to a policy of road pricing, if appropriate, and also much tougher action against those who park so badly on many of our roads?
    The Prime Minister: The level of traffic now coming into London reflects the enormous increase in prosperity. We are putting considerable resources—far more than ever before—into London Transport. We put about £540 million of investment this year into London Transport. Also, the Central line is being upgraded at a cost of £700 million. Those are large sums which should help to relieve the congestion on public transport.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: Does the Prime Minister support the right of parents to remove children from school on the basis of the racial composition of the school?
    The Prime Minister: If parents remove children from school, they usually do so because they are not satisfied with the education that the child is receiving. Every parent has the right to secure the best education possible for the child in the locality. The hon. Gentleman makes a great mistake to mix that up with racial matters.
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend had time this morning to study the reported remarks of Mr. Pöhl, president of the German Bundesbank, who suggested yesterday that there could be a two-speed progression to European monetary union? Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the United Kingdom will be in the first group with France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Benelux countries? If so, does not that mean that we should enter the exchange rate mechanism sooner rather than later?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the exchange rate mechanism, the conditions were laid down at Madrid. They have not changed. With regard to a two-speed Europe, I hope that there will not be a two-speed Europe. The House has made its views clear on Delors stage 3. It would have nothing to do with ceding that amount of sovereignty. After all, if one cedes sovereignty over all monetary and economic matters, one has ceded the fundamental core of the things that we are here to decide and, of course, that must be honoured. We have not yet got into discussing the EMU in the intergovernmental
    136
    conference. I hope that it will listen to the views of the House and of this Government, and may perhaps be influenced by them.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is completely indefensible that the chairmen of the five major building societies in this country should receive a 50 per cent. increase in salary when thousands of mortgage interest payers are out of their minds and straining their wits trying to meet interest rates which are the highest in our history, combined with an evil poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that those chairmen and those at the top of industry and business should lead by example, and they should take those matters into account when they are negotiating wages and salaries with their own people.
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Watts: In view of the exciting developments in eastern Europe, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the European Community keeps its doors to the east wide open, with the welcome mat clearly displayed, rather than becoming a much more exclusive club?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Most of us hope that eventually the countries of eastern Europe will join the European Community. At the first stage they will have association agreements, but it would be wrong for the European Community to tie up its arrangements, directives and bureaucracies so much that it was made impossible for others to join. That would be a great mistake.

USSR (Prime Minister's Visit)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on my visit to the Soviet Union from 8 to 10 June at the invitation of President Gorbachev, in the course of which I visited Moscow, the Ukraine and Armenia.
I held very constructive and friendly talks with President Gorbachev, which enabled us to take forward some of the matters discussed at the United States-Soviet summit the previous week. I also had talks with Prime Minister Ryzhkov, Defence Minister Yazov, together with the Soviet chiefs of staff, and the newly elected mayor of Moscow, Mr. Popov. In addition, I met a group of Jewish refuseniks.
I congratulated President Gorbachev on the very successful summit in Washington, and assured him of Britain's continuing support for policies of economic reform and greater democracy within the Soviet Union. We too easily forget how remarkable are the changes that have already taken place, and how much they have taken forward the cause of freedom.
The greater part of our discussion dealt with the future security of Europe following the unification of Germany. We are entering a new period in relations between east and west. That was underlined by the statements issued last week by the NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting in Turnberry and by Warsaw pact Ministers in Moscow, which reflect the move away from confrontation towards a more co-operative relationship. President Gorbachev and I agreed that the presence of American forces in Europe is a stabilising factor, and that they should remain.
I explained our view that a united Germany should be a member of NATO—indeed, that would be the natural result of unification. We believe that it would contribute to Europe's stability. However, we recognised the sensitivities for the Soviet Union and had put forward various proposals to allay those sensitivities, including the strengthening of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe as a forum for regular political consultation between east and west—though not as a substitute for NATO. We saw that forum as a means to involve the Soviet Union fully in discussion of Europe's future.
President Gorbachev said that the Soviet Union had not reached any final view on those matters. He too made a number of proposals, including a joint declaration between NATO and the Warsaw pact, underlining the defensive nature of both alliances, and signalling a rapprochement between them. We agreed that those matters should be pursued further between Foreign Ministers. I am confident that a solution that is satisfactory to everyone, and which enhances the security of Europe as a whole, can be found.
Our discussion also covered the situation in the Baltic states. President Gorbachev made it clear that he accepted the principle of self-determination but that it must be exercised through constitutional channels. He emphasised that the use of force or diktat would be contrary to everything else that he was trying to achieve in the Soviet Union. I said that we believed that the people of the Baltic states were entitled to the independence that they clearly
138
wanted. As there was no difference about the principle of self-determination, I hoped that discussions could soon be started to resolve the many practical problems.
On economic matters, President Gorbachev said that the Soviet Union was now putting in place the infrastructure of a market economy. He recognised that that would be a massive task.
We also dealt with a number of regional and bilateral issues, including the question of emigration of Soviet jews. A list of outstanding refusenik cases was handed over to the Soviet authorities.
With Mr. Ryzhkov, I discussed the severe difficulties which face the Soviet economy and how the United Kingdom might help, in particular through management training and other advice, for instance on small business formation. We signed a number of agreements enlarging our economic and cultural co-operation. I was also able to announce the Government's decision to establish 10 new lectureships in Soviet studies at British universities.
With Marshall Yazov and his military colleagues, I made clear Britain's determination to keep a secure defence including nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union is of course carrying out substantial modernisation of its own nuclear weapons, of which it has a very large quantity. Indeed, even after Trident comes into service, our nuclear deterrent will be a smaller proportion of Soviet nuclear weapons than in 1970, when Polaris came into service.
I subsequently visited Kiev for the "British days in the Soviet Union" exhibition. Our firms are doing an excellent job in promoting their skills and technology in the Ukraine. The exhibit which depicts the life of an ordinary British family is most impressive, and is attracting enormous numbers of people. While in Kiev, I also addressed the members of the Ukraine's Supreme Soviet and answered questions. Further, I laid a wreath at the memorial of Babi Yar, where 30,000 Jewish women and children were massacred during the German occupation of the Ukraine.
In Armenia, I opened the new primary school for 400 children in Leninakan. That has been financed both by a contribution from the Government and by private donations, following the disastrous earthquake in 1988, and has been built by a team of British workmen. The gratitude displayed by the people of Leninakan and Armenia to Britain for this help was very moving.
The changes taking place in the Soviet Union offer an historic opportunity for the people of that country to move towards full democracy and a market economy. I believe that those are the most exciting developments to have taken place since the end of the second world war. At the same time, with German unification, the withdrawal of Soviet forces from eastern Europe and the prospect of an agreement to reduce conventional forces, we are entering a new and more positive period in Europe. Britain is playing a full and constructive part in both those processes, while always maintaining our sure defence through NATO.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I first thank the Prime Minister for her statement on her visit to the Soviet Union, which came at a particularly propitious time, in the same week as the Warsaw pact ceased to exist as a military alliance and NATO, in the terms of the Turnberry communiqué, extended the
"hand of friendship and co-operation"
to

139
"the Soviet Union and to all other European countries."
The Prime Minister has been right to praise President Gorbachev for his courage in pursuing domestic reform and changes in international policy. Did she tell President Gorbachev that her support for his efforts includes active steps to conclude further agreements to limit both nuclear and conventional weapons and forces in Europe?
Could the Prime Minister tell us what practical subscription to that process she offered to make? Did President Gorbachev take the opportunity of the Prime Minister's visit to give her any indication of the proposal that he has made in the Supreme Soviet today that Germany should be a member of both NATO and the changed Warsaw pact? If he did, what attitude did she express to that approach?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, at her meeting with the Soviet military high command she said that the British Government do not now regard the Soviet Union as an enemy and will support a joint declaration by NATO and the Warsaw pact, to the effect that they are both defensive organisations? Does the Prime Minister accept that, in order to build upon such a development, it would be sensible to establish the conference on security and co-operation in Europe as a continuing functional institution through which NATO member countries, the remaining Warsaw pact countries and those countries which belong to neither grouping can safeguard their own security, systematically foster the political, diplomatic and other exchanges which are the ingredients of common security for both west and east and promote the continuing advance of human rights?
In her discussions on the future of Germany, did the Prime Minister convey to President Gorbachev that there is a widespread view in the west that the future of Europe includes a Germany that is united, that is a member of NATO and that has a smaller Bundeswehr and no non-German forces in what has been the German Democratic Republic?
Did the Prime Minister also convey the fact that, as an alliance of free and democratic nations, NATO would not station nuclear weapons in Germany without the express consent of the German people? Now that the elections throughout the east of our continent are confirming and consolidating the changes of the last six months, will the Prime Minister join other western leaders and President Gorbachev in working with determination for a new structure of European security which meets the future needs of our continent and its peoples?
The Prime Minister: After we have completed the first round of conventional force talks, which must be completed in time for a new CSCE, it is expected that there may be a further round of talks. It is possible that aircraft may not be dealt with in the first round, but other talks may follow it on other station forces in Europe. As for Mr. Gorbachev's proposal that Germany could be a member of both NATO and the Warsaw pact, I think that I have made our position clear; it follows from the unification of Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany is a very staunch member of NATO. East Germany is joining and becoming unified with West Germany under article 23. It follows that the whole of Germany will continue to be a staunch member of NATO. That, I believe, is what Germany wants. It is certainly what NATO wants. It is
140
right for NATO and it is right for the security of Europe. I doubt very much whether one country can be a member of two different pacts.
As for my discussions with the military, NATO has always been a defensive alliance. It is quite clear that the Warsaw pact is now altering its terms to become a defensive alliance. I made it clear that we should always need a sure defence. Each country will need a sure defence, because we never know where another threat may come from. There have been times when we have had to engage in out-of-area activities in order to protect our freedom at home and our trade routes. It will always be necessary, in my view—as I told them—to have a sure defence, including nuclear weapons, because there has been no deterrent anything like as strong as nuclear weapons to deter war.
The CSCE is a forum that includes 35 signatories from the United States and Canada right across central Europe to the Soviet Union. I made a speech about that a few weeks ago in Cambridge, when I proposed that we should enlarge the use of that forum and that foreign Ministers should meet regularly twice a year so that we could continually have discussions with people with whom we do not have regular discussions. I thought that that would be a way of including the United States, the Soviet Union and eastern European countries in regular discussions with us. NATO is to take on a more political role, so our transatlantic relationship will continue only through NATO. However, it will go right across the European divide. That divide is diminishing and we hope that it will diminish further, but that is a task for the CSCE.
With regard to the unification of Germany, a smaller Bundeswehr is under consideration as part of the reassurance that the Soviet Union will need if Germany is to remain a full member of NATO, as I believe she must. With regard to NATO, Germany is a member of NATO, so of course one could not station nuclear weapons in Germany without the consent of NATO. Nuclear weapons are stationed in Germany. They are a fundamental part of the present agreed NATO strategy of flexible response—
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is immoral and outrageous.
The Prime Minister: —a strategy that was endorsed at the Turnberry meeting of NATO. We believe in a war-free Europe and nuclear weapons have kept a war-free Europe. There is nothing immoral in that.
With regard to new defence structures for the whole of Europe, I made it clear at the press conference that I do not think that it is time for that. We must continue to work through NATO which has been our shield and our security, the Warsaw pact and the other forums that I have mentioned through CSCE and get the next conventional forces agreement signed so that we can have a CSCE conference, possibly by the end of this year.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In order that I may call as many hon. Members as possible, may I ask for single questions please? Then I shall be able to accommodate most of the hon. Members who are standing.
Mr. Michael Marshall: On a day when the House welcomes a delegation of parliamentarians from the German Democratic Republic, who in three weeks time enter into economic and monetary union throughout

141
Germany, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to wish them well and reiterate what she said earlier about the Government's commitment to membership of NATO which those German parliamentarians maintain they wish to enjoy?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. The economic and monetary union between the two Germanies comes into effect at the beginning of July. It will be a great step forward and will lead to unification. East Germany is perhaps the most fortunate of the eastern European countries in that it can plug straight into the structure of a market economy—its banking system, its legal system and its company law system. I hope that they will do extremely well and we wish them well when full unification occurs. We believe that they shall continue to be a full member of NATO.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Prime Minister agree that a reconstructed NATO would result in a United Kingdom again becoming the guarantor of European freedom? Does she further agree that a Royal Air Force base on the United Kingdom would be a vital factor in discharging that responsibility?
The Prime Minister: In NATO, we are all responsible for one another's security. Of course, as I made clear through my visit, we shall retain our own independent nuclear deterrent. Of course, it is absolutely vital that we maintain a full ability to have anti-submarine warfare and full air cover of the home base.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: We on this side of the House welcome my right hon. Friend's statement of her success in the Soviet Union. Can she tell us whether General Yazov understood as much as the political leadership of Russia understands that the Warsaw pact is dead and that he and his generals must start reducing their armaments promptly?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, Russia has a colossal military might and she keeps very well up to date both her conventional weapons and her nuclear weapons. She has produced far more intercontinental ballistic missiles in the past year than the United States has. We understand that, but our reading of the Warsaw pact has always been that it consisted very considerably of Soviet Union military might. It is staying together at the moment as a very different pact, with a different military philosophy, which is one of defence. As my hon. Friend knows, the Soviet forces are expected to come out of Hungary and Czhechoslovakia fairly soon.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I congratulate the Prime Minister on a successful visit to the Soviet Union. I would not wish in any way to detract from the warmth of her reception, but how she must wish and hope for the day when she gets the same reception in Liverpool and Leicester as she got in Leninakan.
Does the right hon. Lady not think it odd that, at Turnberry on 7 June, she was saying that we must have the most modern nuclear weapons that we can lay our hands on, placed as close to the Soviet Union as we can get them, whether the Germans want them or not, and the next day in Moscow she said that the cold war was over? Is she
142
aware that she is giving the strong impression that the cold war may be coming to an end in her head, but it certainly is not coming to an end in her heart?
The Prime Minister: That is a very muddled question, but I shall do my level best to answer it. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we will always have to have a strong defence because we never know what may happen in the future—on the other side of Europe or in the middle east or because of attacks on our trade routes, without which we could not survive as a free country. Therefore, we must keep a strong conventional defence and a strong nuclear defence. There has never been a deterrent as strong as a nuclear deterrent to deter anyone who would wish to attack this country or its overseas territories. That was made very clear.
As for the reception given in this country, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish that his party had won one election since the last war, let alone three.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with Mr. Gorbachev the problems of the defence of the Soviet Union, in view of the strengthened NATO which will come about as a result of the East Germans joining NATO? Surely that is the most outstanding problem, and one that has probably led to the slowdown in the conventional arms talks in Vienna. Did my right hon. Friend discuss that matter with Mr. Gorbachev?
The Prime Minister: We had hoped that the CFE talks would be completed. I believe that they will be completed in time for a CSCE conference this year. As I said in my statement, it is clear that the Soviet Union is sensitive to the change in the position of Germany, in that East Germany will now become a member of NATO as she unifies with West Germany. For that reason, we tried to find some ways to allay the Soviet Union's fears.
A reduction in the size of the Bundeswehr was one, but the United States and Britain are working on a number of other proposals. Obviously, people in a country that lost 27 million people during the last war are especially sensitive to this change. We know of our own apprehensions, so we should be able to understand theirs and make special provision to meet them—but not at the cost of a unified Germany not being in NATO.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: When the Prime Minister met Soviet Defence Minister Yazov and his chiefs of staff—a potentially crucial meeting—was the future of Soviet troops in East Germany touched upon? How receptive was what is, in effect, the Soviet defence council to the Prime Minister's assurances that an enlarged NATO will play a stabilising role, that no unilateral advantage is being sought and that now partnership can succeed confrontation?
The Prime Minister: We did not specifically discuss with Marshal Yazov the future of the troops in East Germany. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter has been discussed in several forums and between Foreign Ministers. Most people accept that there must be a transitional period during which Soviet forces remain in East Germany. It has been suggested that the cost of taking them from East Germany to quarters elsewhere should be met partly by the Federal Republic of Germany,

143
but that is a matter for Germany. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is part of the process of alleviating the sensitivities of the Soviet Union.
I think that it is well understood in both alliances that the presence of American forces in Germany is a stabilising factor for peace. It is also understood in the Soviet Union that it is good for the Soviet Union to have American forces in Europe. I think that most of us believe that, had American forces stayed in Europe between world war I and 1939, there would never have been a second world war. Therefore, we must never make the mistake of doing without them again.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend was right to stress what this country can give in training the Soviet people and in the academic area to help them in their difficult transition away from communism. Did she go further with President Gorbachev and with Prime Minister Ryzhkov in explaining to them that the social market economy, as practised under her Government, is the only way to guarantee personal freedom and personal responsibility, and that any idea of a halfway house, with state direction, high taxation and social engineering, would be destined to failure, as we have seen under the British Labour party whenever it has had power?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His point is now fully understood—certainly at the top in the Soviet Union and by many who want reforms to go even faster. I never expected to hear the virtues of Milton Friedman extolled as eloquently as I heard in the Soviet Union this time, both by President Gorbachev and by Mr. Popov. They know the extent of the changes that they must make. Indeed, President Gorbachev pointed out that it would require massive legislation—about 30 pieces of legislation—to set up the fundamental structures of banking, company law, private property and contract law, none of which they have. It is a massive task and they know precisely what they want to do. The question is how to do it and it is with that "how" that we can help them.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: When the Prime Minister visited the graves of 30,000 Jewish victims at Babi Yar, did it lead her to reflect on the recent decision of the House of Lords on the War Crimes Bill and to decide what our response should be in this House?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it brought back all the fears and agonies as one thought of the things that those people had suffered —not in some bygone century, but in this century and in the lifetime of some of us. Of course one thought of it. One cannot go to such a place without thinking of it and without feeling it. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed how I cast my vote in the free vote on the occasion to which he referred. I have not changed my mind.
Mr. W. Benyon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's success in Russia. Does she believe that this is the moment to consider the total demilitarisation of Germany, East and West, and the repatriation of the British Army of the Rhine?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the total demilitarisation of Germany, East and West, would contribute to security. I should not be sure how long that could last. The only thing is a sure defence, with Germany in NATO. Germany has been a staunch member of NATO
144
and, in particular, neither Chancellor Kohl nor Mr. Genscher has ever faltered. Our only guarantee of a sure defence is to have adequate weapons and nuclear weapons to deter anyone. Wars are caused by the weakness of nations, not by their strength.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that her offer of help with management training will have been welcomed, but that it is wholly inadequate for the economic crisis that would be engendered by the move to the market economy? Could she not offer something far more substantial in terms of economic assistance to the Soviet Union? If she does so, will she ensure that the funds are not taken from our allocation to the third-world countries, which is already inadequate?
The Prime Minister: Many western European countries, and the United States, are helping extensively with management training and with bringing people to our countries to see how we do it. It may not be a great deal, but it is a start—
Mr. Graham Allen: Peanuts.
The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would stop interjecting—[AN HON. MEMBER: "He has a peanut brain."] That may be right. The Soviet Union can have any advice that it wishes to have in how to construct company law and in how to set up banks. Such advice will also be given by Germany, by France and by the United States. The Soviet Union can also have any advice that it seeks on how to distribute the powers between the federal Government and the several republics. Hitherto, the Soviet Union has not had devolved powers in the way that the United States, Canada or Australia have had them. There is a wealth of both good will and practical help available, and we can help, too, with small businesses. We have also set up lectureships dealing with the Soviet Union because we did not feel that enough studies of the Soviet Union were being conducted in our universities.
In the end, however, the Soviets will have to do it themselves. It is one thing to train managers in how to manage here, within the whole structure of the free market economy; it is quite another for them to go back to the Soviet Union, where bureaucracy still reigns. That is why it is so important that the Supreme Soviet should get through the 30 main legislative measures that will enable a free market economy to begin to operate.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the Russians the need for increased parliamentary and political answerability as the CSCE progresses? Does she feel, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats seems to feel, that the EEC is the best body to achieve that, or is it perhaps the Council of Europe, where many of those countries already have visitor status and in respect of which they have applied for full membership?
The Prime Minister: I did not discuss those specific matters with President Gorbachev. The freedom of speech in the Soviet Union and the challenges now made in respect of every policy would not have been possible five, or even three years ago. The atmosphere is very lively indeed. When I was in the Ukraine, I went to the Supreme Soviet of the Ukraine—a new Supreme Soviet, newly

145
gathered together—and the questions that its representatives asked me were no-holds-barred questions, which I answered with my customary diplomacy.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Given the declared wish of Chancelllor Kohl and the West German coalition Government to complete political unification before Christmas and to hold all-German elections in that time scale, did the Prime Minister get the impression that President Gorbachev was prepared or able to deal with all the outstanding issues in the two-plus-four process, as well as all the external issues, to enable such a deadline to be met?
The Prime Minister: It is possible, but it will not be easy. I think that a great deal will depend on the measures that we can find to allay the Soviet Unions fears about the unified Germany being in NATO. Those measures are still in their infancy. I think that the idea only came up at the United States-Soviet summit. It was taken up at Turnberry and is being discussed by Foreign Ministers now. Obviously we shall have to try to find a mixture of measures to allay those fears. When that has been done, there will be the will to go ahead and solve the external aspects of unification. We are hopeful about getting the problem solved this year.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which she handles British interests in foreign affairs and defence abroad; it is outstanding. I also congratulate her on the amazing reception that she received in Armenia. I do not think that any overseas visitor could have received a warmer welcome.
Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what specific discussions she had with President Mikhail Gorbachev and his colleagues about the Soviet economy, because it is upon the success of that economy that the continuation of perestroika and glasnost depends?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I think that, by giving me such a reception, the Armenians were thanking Britain—giving us enormous thanks—for the school that we are giving them. It is a lovely primary school. They came over to see a similar school in this country and we have taken advice to ensure that the new school is earthquake-proof. It will probably be one of the best primary schools in the Soviet Union, and the Armenians are delighted with the future that it offers their children.
I discussed the Soviet economy with President Gorbachev and Mr. Ryzhkov. The Soviet economy has enormous problems, not only with production but with transport and distribution. For example, about 30 or 40 per cent. of its agricultural production never reaches the market because of the lack of storage and of a good system of distribution.
We are helping with that through the food processing part of our exhibition here. If we can do something about that on know-how lines to turn the agricultural produce into products that can be stored properly, that will be a great advance. President Gorbachev is aware that it is difficult to put the whole framework of freedom into place, including the introduction of private property. It is
146
interesting that we were told in Armenia that only 7 per cent. of co-operative land is privately owned, but it produces 34 per cent. of the food.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Did President Gorbachev say of his talks with President Bush that they could agree much deeper nuclear cuts if it were not for Britain and its nuclear weapons, particularly Trident, being a stumbling block? Did the Prime Minister tell President Gorbachev when Britain would directly join the disarmament process of offering nuclear cuts of our own?
The Prime Minister: The Labour party is always wanting to give up Britain's nuclear deterrent. Trident will have only four boats, one of which will always be on station. Indeed, for most of the time we will probably have two on station. That is vital for a nuclear deterrent. When Trident is fully commissioned, it will comprise the same proportion of the then reduced Soviet nuclear weapons following the strategic arms reduction talks as Polaris comprised when it first came into service. Even after the 50 per cent. cuts by the Soviet Union, Trident will not comprise a bigger proportion than Polaris, so much has the Soviet Union nuclear capability been increased since 1970. It is vital that we do not give up our nuclear deterrent.
Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome is the announcement about extra lectureships in Russian and Soviet studies in our universities. That is long overdue, and we need to expand that area of learning. Was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister able to discuss further the future of Berlin and in particular when the four powers will withdraw their military resources from Berlin and hand over air traffic control to the German authorities?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the Government's decision on more lectureships in universities. We do not have enough here, and with the new situation developing, we need more for those people who want to study those subjects.
We did not go into detail over the two-plus-four talks over Berlin. I feel that those will not be resolved until we have the other possibility, to which I have referred, of allaying Soviet fears about unification. I made it very clear that we want the two-plus-four talks on Berlin to be fully agreed so that we can get a peace settlement. Any arrangements that we then make with the unified Germany would not be under the remnants of the occupation forces, but by virtue of a new agreement between each of us and the new Germany. We wish to get a full peace settlement, but it is quite a target to get it all completed by the end of this year.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Does the Prime Minister accept that the whole House expresses gratitude to her for her statement that she believes that the Baltic states are entitled to the independence which they are seeking? Does she envisage that the CSCE process or the European political co-operation process can assist in monitoring the movement towards independence or guaranteeing that the outcome is as we in this House would all wish it to be?
The Prime Minister: It is vital that the talks on the practicalities should begin. The practicalities will be enormous. First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the

147
territory which at present comprises Lithuania is not the territory that was the subject of the protocol between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. There will be problems about access to the sea for the Soviet Union and with regard to defence forces, weaponry and nuclear power stations there.
It is vital that they get down to detailed discussions; undoubtedly, all the economies are tied in together in a detailed way. We cannot say what will come out of those discussions. If they are related to the Helsinki accords, the hon. Gentleman will recall that we did not recognise the legal annexation of those three Baltic states, but we recognised the de facto annexation.
The Helsinki accords state that borders shall never be violated and that they can be changed only by agreement. To reach such an agreement, negotiations will have to take place between the Baltic states and the federal Government of the Soviet Union. I am sure that, if they need any advice or details of patterns of devolution or patterns of how the former, almost colonial, territories become independent, we shall be in a good position to give that advice.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is it not highly unlikely, and contrary to all human experience and the lessons of history, that Mr. Gorbachev will be able to make the transition from dictator to elected leader of a democratic country? In those circumstances, would it not be unwise for us to rely on him being able to carry out his present intentions?
The Prime Minister: None of the events that have occurred would even have been started without him—it has been a fantastic achievement to get this far—and I believe and hope that he will be in a position to carry them through. It is a very unusual transition to freedom. Most demands for freedom come from the bottom, as they have done in some east European countries—for example, in Poland and Czechoslovakia—but sometimes the rulers at the top—for example, President Gorbachev, and in Hungary—have said, "Communism will not do. We must change it." In such cases, the movement has started from the top to try to persuade the people to change to a different way of life to achieve dignity and prosperity.
I agree that this is the largest change that will ever have come about, to go from a complete dictatorship to a free society, persuading many people who are not yet ready to take responsibility that they should take it and will be able to take it and that it will bring them not only dignity but greater prosperity. I think I would be a bit more optimistic than my hon. Friend.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the real challenge for Mr. Gorbachev to get food into Soviet shops and consumer durable goods on to Soviet shelves? What initiative is the right hon. Lady taking, from the point of view of our Departments of State, in particular the Department of Trade and Industry, to ensure that joint ventures in every way and in every sector to realise that objective are established to expedite the transition in the Soviet economy?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The people want food and more goods in the shops and not to have to queue for so long every day to get
148
the bare necessities of life. But that is easier to say than to do. They come here and look at our supermarkets and are absolutely amazed that it can be done.
I hope that we shall be able to help with advice on food processing, but they just do not have the structures for distribution. I refer not only to the roads and railways but to the whole infrastructure, including what is involved in getting food to wholesalers and then to retailers. They have none of that structure, and it will not be easy for them to get it.
We already have some joint ventures in the Soviet Union, as have some other European countries, and we signed two more while I was in Kiev. It is not easy for free enterprise to operate against a background of bureaucracy, when it has agreements under which it will supply part of the components to make a particular form of product and the Soviet Union will provide the others. Frequently, those which are due from the Soviet Union run very late—they are not used to doing things on time —so it is not easy to continue a joint venture and make a profit or even to plough back investments. A great deal remains to be done, and while we always give a certain formula for doing it, it is a question of translating that into practice, and that is rather more difficult.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on keeping human rights on the front burner at a time when she must have been preoccupied with matters of world peace and world economic security. Was she encouraged by the responses that she got from President Gorbachev to her questions about the future of the Russian refuseniks who have so wrongfully been refused the right to leave?
The Prime Minister: When we talked to President Gorbachev about human rights and the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate, he would say, "Look, they can go. Look at the numbers going. As far as I am concerned, there is no blockage." Nevertheless, there are in fact a number of cases of people who cannot get out because, under the present law, they might have to obtain the signed agreement of some of their relatives, and that is not always forthcoming.
Refuseniks with whom I had a meal and a meeting told me that some of them had been trying to get out for nearly 15 years and that their exit visas had been blocked. We have put their cases to the Soviet Union and it is clear that another law has still to go through the Supreme Soviet, which is what President Bush is waiting for in return for his trade agreement. We must look carefully at that law to see that it will gain the exit visas of those who have wanted to come out for so long.
Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the right hon. Lady for her concern with the refuseniks and especially for her visit to Babi Yar, and for her staunch support for the effort to have our war crimes legislation changed, which she has reiterated today. Did she discuss the worries about the anti-Semitic activities of Pamyat with President Gorbachev, and if so, what did he reply?
The Prime Minister: I did not discuss them on this occasion, but I have talked about them on previous occasions. At that time we were pleading for more synagogues to be able to have their normal times of worship and the usual equipment and apparatus that they need for them. I have also talked to Mr. Gorbachev about

149
the increasing freedom of speech that has been given to the Soviet Union, which has, alas, brought out many hatreds and much venom. When meeting some of the refuseniks before, I learned that many of them are having a much more difficult time now than before. That has led to many Jewish people applying to leave the Soviet Union who would never have wanted to leave because it has been their home for generations; some of them are fearful for the future and for their children's future.
This is one of the great tragedies: freedom can be used sometimes for good and sometimes for evil. We have raised this matter on previous occasions, and of course I spoke to the present refuseniks about it.
Sir Hal Miller: Following my right hon. Friend's visit to the Ukraine and Armenia, does she feel able to share with the House any assessment that she has made of the strength of demand for more self-determination in those and other republics; and how does she address Britain's interest? Is it served by the retention and maintenance of a strong unitary Soviet Union or by the flourishing of a greater independence?
The Prime Minister: It is obvious, as one goes about and sees many people after two or three years of increasing freedom of speech and an increasing capacity to vote for different people and even for different parties, that many aspiring politicians have come to the fore and are now real politicians who want to exercise real power and real responsibility. It is obvious that, in the republics, they are seeking far greater devolution of powers than they have now.
The trouble is that the centralisation of powers in Moscow has been total. Although they have had Governments in the republics, they have not really been able to set their own budgets or exercise much power. Undoubtedly, as I saw in the Ukraine and elsewhere, they want a clear sign of what powers remain with the federation and what powers go to the separate republics. There are many models from which they can choose; they can look at the United States, Canadian or Australian models—[Laughter.]—or at our own. They have in fact to learn to make a constitutional law for the first time. That comes easier to us; we have made such laws for many countries, and we too could help the republics if they wanted that. There is a strong move towards more powers for the separate republics.
Mr. Dennis Cannavan: In view of President Gorbachev's considerable movement of position towards a united Germany, why is the Prime Minister stubbornly insisting that a united Germany must be a full member of NATO and its integrated military structure? Instead of continuing an outdated but nevertheless potentially dangerous confrontation between nuclear powers, would it not be better to work out a coherent and more positive strategy for all European security, involving the Soviet Union and eastern European countries, and to work towards a nuclear-free Germany, a nuclear-free Europe and eventually a nuclear-free world?
The Prime Minister: To borrow a phrase that has been used several times, first on this side of the Atlantic and then on the other, if one had alliances with no nuclear weapons, one would be making Europe free for
150
conventional war. Everyone should know that conventional weapons, however strong, are not enough to stop war. We knew that from world war 1 and world war 2. Since the end of the last war, we have had the longest period of peace in Europe for centuries. That has been achieved because nuclear weapons have stopped any war, and they have therefore been the greatest guardians of the peace. I believe that we must keep them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard for the subsequent business. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes—that will allow a full hour of questions to the Prime Minister—and then we must go on.
Mr. James Kilfedder: During the Prime Minister's successful visit to the Soviet Union, did she and President Gorbachev discuss the possibility of a visit by Her Majesty the Queen?
The Prime Minister: We did not discuss it on this occasion. We have it in mind for a future occasion.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister gave an interesting response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on his question about Trident, on which she touched during her speech. In the light of the decision of President Bush not to modernise the Lance missile, and given the fact that the technology for Trident comes from the United States, has she envisaged a situation in which President Bush and Mr. Gorbachev might decide upon the fate of the Trident missile? Is that not a good enough reason, among other reasons, for us to participate in overall negotiations for the reduction of nuclear weapons?
The Prime Minister: No. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the association between the United States and this country over atomic weapons is of very long standing. In negotiations, it has always staunchly stuck up for our view point and for the special relationship that it has with us. We shall need United States technology for the modernisation of Trident, as we needed it for the delivery mechanism of Trident. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nuclear warhead is our production.
Mr. John Maples: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the rumour that, during several hours of talks, President Gorbachev did not once use the word "socialism"? If so, next time she sees him, will she ask President Gorbachev to make available someone from his office to come to London to see whether similar enlightenment can be injected into the Labour party?
The Prime Minister: We were talking pretty nearly all the time about the economy—the free market economy, the necessary changes, its desirability—and I cannot remember one reference to socialism. That is because President Gorbachev is looking to the future.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Can the Prime Minister throw light on press reports about the much-needed £7 billion aid package to the Soviet Union from the western countries? If so, what part do she, her Government and British business expect to play in this? Would not her efforts be better directed at such an aim rather than at modernisation of nuclear weapons, which every opinion poll in West Germany shows the German people do not want on their soil?
The Prime Minister: It is always difficult to throw light on any press reports. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a report to which I partially referred—that there has been talk of West Germany helping considerably with finances to the Soviet Union, particularly for the considerable number of troops that are in East Germany, which would have to stay for a transitional period and then move back to different quarters in the Soviet Union, and possibly adding some more to that. We do it through our know-how agreements with eastern European countries as well. There is also a line of credit.
The hon. Gentleman denigrates nuclear weapons, but it is only because this country was staunch on the stationing of nuclear weapons and on Pershing and cruise and then President Reagan was staunch on the strategic defence initiative that, finally, the Soviet Union was made to realise that it could never win on the latest technology of military machines. It was that staunchness that brought the Soviets to that realisation. It would be far better to try to improve the Soviet economic performance by a market economy than carry on with the terrible dead hand of socialism.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: During the course of her most successful visit, did my right hon. Friend have the chance to discuss with President Gorbachev the western frontier of the Soviet Union—that part that takes in the piece of Poland that the Soviet Union won through the disgraceful Soviet-Nazi German pact of 1939? Did she perhaps suggest to him that, since it is now 50 years since the war ended, it is time for the Soviet Union to give up any vestige or gain that came from the disagreeable agreement between those countries? Could I press my right hon. Friend a shade further—
Mr. Speaker: No. One question, please; more than that is not fair.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend discussed with President Gorbachev allowing that part of Poland a measure of self-determination?
The Prime Minister: No. We did not go further than discussing the Baltic states. Inevitably one makes reference to the western part of the Ukraine, which also came from Poland as part of the 1939 agreement. That part that came from Poland consisted of Ukrainians who previously came from the Ukraine, and they were probably pleased to get back to the Ukraine.
My hon. Friend knows that the history of central Europe has been a turbulent one and much land has been first the possession of one country and then another. The point of the Helsinki accord signed in 1975 was to stabilise existing frontiers and not to change them at all except by agreement. That is why we have said that, obviously, negotiations must start with the Baltic states. I do not know of any suggested change of the western Ukranian border. I have not heard of any because itself was partly in Poland, then in the Ukraine, then in Poland, then in the Ukraine. I am afraid that there have been many difficult periods in that territory.
Mr. Dave Nellist: When the Prime Minister was in the Soviet Union selling second-hand capitalism, did she explain to the ordinary working-class people of that country about the cardboard city in the heart of London, about the hundreds of
152
thousands of young people in this country who turn to the blind alley of drugs, about the universal hatred of the poll tax, or about the millions of ordinary, decent working-class families in this country for whom capitalism cannot provide a decent standard of living? Is she aware that the one thing she has in common with President Gorbachev is that, if they stood this week for direct election, neither of them would have a chance of winning?
The Prime Minister: Second-hand capitalism is infinitely more valuable than first-hand socialism, which gives a rotten deal to the ordinary citizen. It denies them freedom and prosperity. People came to the British exhibition in the Ukraine, which was a carefully researched exhibition of a person working in a factory and his wife, the housing in which they lived and the goods and car that they had. Those who visited the exhibition were absolutely amazed; they said that the truth had been kept from them and that if that was capitalism, they wanted it.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: During her very successful visit, was the Prime Minister able to give any assurance to Mr. Gorbachev that Britain would not sign any treaty incorporating East Germany into the European Economic Community if the automatic consequence of that would be to erect the common external tariff and import levies between East Germany and east Europe? Does she agree that any such move would hold back freedom of trade instead of improving it because at present east Europe uses the inner-German trade agreement to facilitate trade? Was she able to give any assurance on that important issue for people?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity. As he knows, the unification of Germany will come about through article 23, under which the people of East Germany can apply automatically to join West Germany. I agree that that will cause us problems with the goods from East Germany, which are essentially still made under the Communist system, highly subsidised and without any of the structure of a market economy. We have to be wary of those. In addition, we must make special arrangements and establish a transition period for the common agricultural policy. We hope that those derogations will be as short as possible, but goods from communist countries made under a completely different set of rules cannot circulate freely in the Community.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Prime Minister rightly places heavy emphasis on the importance of NATO, but does she accept that France is a member of the treaty, not of the organisation, which creates some difficulty for NATO in carrying out its operations?
Will the Prime Minister seriously reconsider the problems of institutionalising the CSCE? Europe already has institutions, such as the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and the EEC, but the difference between them and an institutionalised CSCE is that, in those other institutions, parliaments are represented, whereas in an institutionalised CSCE only Governments will be represented, and that would mean a serious diminution in the democratic nature of the discussions that would take place.
The Prime Minister: France left the military structure of NATO under de Gaulle, and NATO's headquarters moved from Paris to Brussels. I have always thought that that was a retrograde move and hoped that one day France

153
would rejoin. However, we exercise increasingly frequently with French troops and co-operation with NATO is improving greatly, but it is not a recipe that I would advise anyone else to follow.
The CSCE is the only structure in all those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned which embraces the western Atlantic countries—the United States and Canada—right across to the Soviet Union. The others do not. Therefore, we think it much better for its Foreign Ministers to meet more regularly so that America the Soviet Union and the European countries—Nordic countries, west European and central European countries—can meet together. I do not think that it would be possible to have a great amalgam of parliamentary occasions—35 countries would be far too many. I have not forgotten the role of the Council of Europe. It is evident that east European countries—Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia—could be ready to join the Council of Europe long before they were ready to join the EC.

USSR (Prime Minister's Visit)
  BILL PRESENTED
    FORMER MINISTERS (INTERESTS)
    Mr. David Winnick presented a Bill to prohibit former Ministers of the Crown, within a period of five years after leaving office, from accepting any employment with or payment from a company which was privatised while they were in office: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

  Mr. Speaker: With permission, I will put together the two motions relating to European Community documents.
  Ordered,

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    VETERINARY MEDICINES
    That European Community Documents Nos. 4228/89 and COM(90)135, relating to the licensing of veterinary medicines, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
    VETERINARY CHECKS
    That European Community Document No. 8062/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 13th December 1989 and 26th March and 27th April 1990, concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade in live animals with a view to the completion of the internal market, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Development Control (Protection of Greenfield Sites)
4.33 pm
Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect from development greenfield sites in suburban areas, for the substitution of opportunity sites where there exists a presumption, in district plans, to build.
The Bill would protect green field sites in our urban areas from avoidable development. Many hon. Members represent constituencies in which there is an ever-present threat to precious open space of development by private developers. Recently, the greed of those developers and the building industry has superseded the interests of the communities that they seek to exploit. I do not for one moment suggest that private house building should be unnecessarily constrained or, in the context of the Bill, reduced dramatically. However, a balance between the private and public sectors must be struck in the interests of cohesive development and for the optimum social provision in existing communities.
Of course, that prospect is anathema to the substantial vested interests involved, which the Government have so far failed to address effectively. The result has been the consumption of green fields on a grand scale and their substitution with bricks and concrete in areas where open land is a precious asset for people who live in the vicinity. That is the main issue that my Bill seeks to address. It addresses others, but I regard that issue as the most useful starting point.
Historically, there was a series of planning safeguards designed ostensibly to protect the public from the eccentric development about which I speak. The county structure and local plans, shortly to be replaced by unitary development plans, should have been adequate to the task of developing our towns and cities in the interests of people. The former failed, and I fear that unitary development plans will fail too, unless a proper framework of law is provided outside the UDP proposals which is designed to tackle at the root one of the principal causes of urban sprawl.
My Bill addresses that problem by focusing attention specifically on opportunity or windfall sites, as they are called. These are usually sites in inner urban areas, all of which could not have been considered for housing a few short years ago. Let me say at once that I accept that the need to include windfall sites in any overall development plan is recognised by local planning authorities. I also note that the previous Secretary of State for the Environment also tentatively recognised that fact. However, in his draft response, for example, to the Greater Manchester planning conference, he qualified his position by saying:
"authorities should maintain a general presumption against the release of peripheral open land unless this can be shown to be consistent with urban regeneration, and secondly, that they should ensure that the calculation of the contribution of windfall sites to housing land should be realistic."
That signals a hopeful note, but for me it does not go nearly far enough.
In my constituency, statutory local plans came into force in 1982. Now, eight years on, aside from other factors about which I am profoundly dissatisfied, several green field sites have been unnecessarily lost to housing development. That has happened precisely because there exists only a presumption to calculate windfall sites in the

155
land supply equation. In those eight years, many sites have become available for housing development. It could not have been foreseen that those sites would become available. In my area, three cotton mills, a colliery site, a British Coal workshop and even a cricket field, all of which fulfilled their original purpose in 1982, have or will soon become housing developments.
Therefore, it is not a matter of calculation. Those changes were unpredictable and defy calculation. It is a matter of putting in place procedures which will effectively take into account windfall sites. I argue that that can be done only at the time when the windfall occurs. That is the sole purpose of my Bill.
To put the issue beyond all doubt, I propose that, as soon as a windfall occurs, an equal deduction should be made from previously allocated peripheral green field sites. That would be done on the basis of substitution, not calculation. It would be house for house, acre for acre. Only in that way will the interests of the local community be met.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. Ken Eastham.

Development Control (Protection of Greenfield Sites)
  DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (PROTECTION OF GREENFIELD SITES)
  Mr. Terry Lewis accordingly presented a Bill to protect from development greenfield sites in suburban areas, for the substitution of opportunity sites where there exists a presumption, in district plans, to build: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 160.]
Orders of the Day

  Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Secretary of State for Scotland, I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have read the reasoned amendment which the Opposition tabled and which you, Mr. Speaker, have selected for debate. I notice from its contents that it appears that the greatest objection that the Opposition have to this miscellaneous provisions Bill is that it consists of miscellaneous provisions. Perhaps that is not a surprising observation by the Opposition, and naturally we look forward to the constructive contribution that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will make.
  This is an important measure covering a wide range of proposals that affect the law and practice in Scotland. It has three major parts and some minor, but useful, provisions. It has already been the subject of extensive debate in another place and some important and helpful amendments have been made. However, the central purposes remain. They are, briefly: to introduce new arrangements for supervising charities in Scotland; to improve choice in legal services; and to make important adjustments to the law on liquor licensing.
  Part I of the Bill will establish an improved system for the supervision of charities in Scotland. In July 1988, I issued a consultative memorandum, "Supervision of Charities in Scotland", the response to which confirmed my view that the current arrangements for supervising charities are inadequate for modern needs. It is not widely appreciated that Scotland does not have—and never has had—a Charity Commission. In Scotland, bodies that wish to be recognised as charitable in order to qualify for tax relief must apply to the Inland Revenue for confirmation that their objects are charitable.
  The difficulty with the current arrangments is not that the Inland Revenue is in any way unsuited to the role of granting charitable recognition. It was evident from the comments made by the numerous charitable bodies that the Inland Revenue's claim branch in Edinburgh has established a considerable reputation for its knowledge and helpfulness in dealing with organisations seeking recognition.
  The difficulty with the current arrangements is that the Inland Revenue's dealings with charities are governed by a rule of absolute confidence. The Revenue cannot so much as acknowledge to a member of the public, or to any official body, that it has recognised a body as being charitable. Nor is there any body to which it can report instances that it may discover of wrongdoing by a charity where such wrongdoing is not related to a tax matter.

  157
  For charities to sustain the important function that they play in Scottish society, they must retain the confidence of the public who support them. The best way of maintaining that confidence and good will is to ensure that every charity is openly accountable for the manner in which it conducts its affairs and makes use of the money that it has under its trust. Charities are rightly held in high esteem, but the charitable world, like any other, can attract rogues—and, as elsewhere, one bad apple can spoil the barrel. In instances where misuse of charitable funds takes place, or where serious mismanagement occurs, it is right that there should be provision for the affairs of the charity to be investigated and for those responsible to be brought to account. Those views are not exclusively mine—they are strongly held in the voluntary sector itself.
  With those objects in view, clause I of the Bill makes provision that will enable the Inland Revenue to disclose to members of the public the names and addresses of bodies that it has recognised as being charitable and to pass to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate information about any non-charitable activity among such bodies. That is a most important provision. For the first time in Scotland, members of the public will have a right to be informed which bodies have received recognition as charities for tax purposes. The clause also requires any charity to provide, for a reasonable fee, to anyone who requests it, a copy of its explanatory document—that is, its trust deed or other document setting out its aims and objectives.
  Clause 2 will prevent bodies that have not been recognised by the Inland Revenue—or, if they are established in England and Wales, by the Charity Commission—from representing themselves as charities to the Scottish public. It provides that bodies which have not been recognised and which represent themselves as charities shall be guilty of an offence.
  Mr. George Foulkes: As to the publication of names and addresses and other information about charities, the Secretary of State will be aware that there is some concern that a full description of the purposes and functions to which the money that the charity receives is applied, if it is a grant-giving charity, may not be disclosed. If it is a charity that is a recipient of grants, again its purposes may not be properly known. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether all such information will be publicly available in future, and whether it will be possible to publish a directory of grant-giving and grant-receiving charities in Scotland?
  Mr. Rifkind: As to the hon. Gentleman's initial point, one is likely to find out most about a charity's prime purpose not so much from its constitution, which is likely to be widely drafted—that has been the experience of most charitable organisations—but from the title of the charity and how it distributes its income. Because the charity's accounts will be available, one will know how the sums received by a charity are being allocated. In addition, we have said that we shall be happy to see co-operation with, for example, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, if it wishes to draw up a directory of the type that the hon. Gentleman mentions, to provide the additional information to which he attaches importance.
  158
  Clauses 3 and 4 place a duty on charities in Scotland to keep proper accounting records and to make available to members of the public, on payment of a reasonable fee, copies of their annual accounts. Those accounts must include a report of the bodies' activities over the year. By those provisions, individual members of the public will, for the first time, be able to discover in respect of any charity in Scotland what its charitable purposes are and what it has done to promote those purposes. Ready, direct, public access to information provides the key to the Bill's supervisory provisions.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will credit unions fall within the provisions of that part of the Bill?
  Mr. Rifkind: I think not, although I shall check that I should not have thought that a credit union would be recognised as a charity by the Inland Revenue for tax-raising purposes. Unless it is, it would not normally meet that criterion. However, I shall certainly have that point checked.
  Clauses 5 to 7 are concerned with the investigation of mismanagement and the penalising of offenders. They enable my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to carry out investigations within Scotland where it appears that the organisers of particular charities have been guilty of mismanagement or other wrongdoing. They also give the Lord Advocate powers to petition the court for orders remedying and preventing the continuance of abuse, and for orders imposing penalties on those responsible.
  Clauses 8 and 9 concern a different aspect of reform. The doctrine, known as cy pres, or approximation, enables a public trust whose purposes have failed to petition the Court of Session for approval of a scheme authorising the application of trust funds to a purpose as near as possible to the original purpose. Unlike the position in England and Wales, the cy pres procedure is in Scotland available only where it is no longer possible to carry out the trust's purposes in the manner prescribed. Clause 8 widens the opportunity for reorganisation by enabling application to be made to the court where the trust's purposes have become obsolete or lacking in usefulness.
  Clause 9 goes yet further by providing procedures that will enable small public trusts having an annual income of not more than £5,000 to reorganise without the necessity of seeking court approval at all. Clause 10 enables certain very small trusts no longer capable of achieving the purposes for which they were established to spend capital in order to achieve their charitable purposes. Taken together, those provisions will go a long way towards unlocking charitable funds and enabling them to be applied to better effect in modern society.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the unexpected benefits of what is a wholly welcome provision is that health boards might be able to divert money given to them in trust in order to bail themselves out of financial difficulties? The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think of Lothian health board, for example, which expects to make an adjustment to its various trusts to help itself out of its present difficulties. Will the Bill contain a safeguard to ensure that the purposes of trusts will not be altered in such a way as to substitute private trust funds for public funding—which I am sure he agrees is the basis on which health boards ought to be funded?
  Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and if he looks at clause 9 he will see that that procedure for reorganising the expenditure of the trust without the court's approval applies only to trusts with an annual income of not more than £5,000. We are talking about small trusts and trusts with a more substantial financial establishment, which continue to require the approval of the courts if they wish to depart from the original purposes of the trust. Therefore, I do not think that in practice the considerations to which the hon. Gentleman referred are likely to be affected in any significant way by the provision.
  I trust that I have said sufficient to outline the broad purposes of part I of the Bill. It has been designed to meet the particular needs and circumstances in Scotland and to take account of concerns expressed not least by the charities themselves.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will be aware that the word "charity" has a much broader definition under the law of Scotland than it enjoys under the law of England and Wales. It seems to me that a consequence of clause 2, as proposed, is that if, for example, the trustees of a local hall committee in a small community were to seek to raise money, describing what they were doing as being for charity, because that organisation was not a recognised body, those trustees would be guilty of a criminal offence. Does not the Secretary of State feel that that is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which thus far does not appear to have caused much difficulty?
  Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be well advised to consult the charities, which believe that the provisions are highly desirable. We are concerned about any organisation, large or small, which presents itself to the public as an organisation with charitable purposes, which may be seeking the tax advantages that go with charitable status and which seeks to persuade the public to divest themselves of certain resources to help the objects of the charity. The provisions are applied to protect the public from unscrupulous organisations. I believe that all responsible organisations will be only too happy to welcome the provisions, as indeed those representing charities have already done.
  Mr. Foulkes: I want to mention another issue that relates to part I of the Bill, before the Secretary of State moves on. He will be aware that in Scotland, especially in Edinburgh, there are several trusts, such as the George Heriot Trust and the George Watson Education Board, among others, which run private schools. What provisions of this part of the Bill will be applicable to those organisations?
  Mr. Rifkind: In so far as those are charitable trusts that currently receive tax benefits recognised by the Inland Revenue, the Bill applies in its entirety to them, in the same way as it would to any other charity.
  Part II of the Bill deals with legal services. This part of the Bill is based on the conclusions reached after considering responses to the two consultation papers: "The Practice of the Solicitor Profession in Scotland", and "The Legal Profession in Scotland".
  As I emphasised in that statement, the fundamental objective of the reforms is, within the Scottish legal tradition, to increase choice for the client of legal services, while at the same time preserving and, where possible,
  160
  improving, consumer protection mechanisms. The main areas for increased choice are conveyancing and executry work and representation in litigation. Hon. Members will be aware that a number of amendments were made in another place that have strengthened the provisions in part II, which deal with protection of the clients of conveyancing and executry practitioners. I am determined that any new providers of legal services will compete with solicitors on a fair basis, and that clients will enjoy no less protection than that offered by solicitors.
  As the House would expect, I have attached importance to the distinctive Scottish legal system, and I believe that the provisions fully reflect that. For example, the mechanisms to allow solicitors to qualify for rights in the Supreme Courts build both on existing rights in the sheriff courts and on the essential requirements for practice as an advocate.
  The establishment of a unitary regulatory body, the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, to oversee the registration and regulation of conveyancing and executry practitioners, has been widely welcomed. The board will, after an initial period, become self-financing and will fund its activities from the fees that it charges to those registered with it. The board will be an independent body charged with certain statutory functions. Its functions will apply to a very wide range of practitioners, from sole practitioners to large institutions, and it will require to establish its own distinct identity without showing bias towards any one group.
  Contrary to what some have attempted to suggest, this part of the Bill does not allow just anyone to undertake conveyancing work. Prospective practitioners will have to comply with stringent registration requirements, to be set out in regulations. Once registered, a conveyancing practitioner will be bound to comply with a code of conduct and practice, also to be prescribed in regulations. Finally, disciplinary sanctions are available against those who fail to comply, the deterrent effect of which will be at least as great as that of the sanctions attaching to solicitors. The board's powers will enable it to revoke registration if necessary.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he has not brought forward a code of conduct, which could be included within the primary legislation and which would be much more acceptable to the legal profession?
  Mr. Rifkind: Certainly there are some matters that require statutory force, but I should be reluctant to include them in primary legislation because, by its very nature that would require further primary legislation if any subsequent amendment or improvement were required. Therefore, while it would be appropriate to spell out what is proposed and intended, the profession would welcome the flexibility implied by secondary legislation in respect of any future improvements in the light of subsequent experience.
  It has been suggested—
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Before we leave the subject of conveyancing, has the Secretary of State any plans to study surveyors and the inadequacies of the service that they provide?
  Mr. Rifkind: I should be interested to hear what the hon. Lady has to suggest. I have expressed views in the

  161
  past about certain aspects of surveying as it affects house purchase in Scotland. I look forward to the hon. Lady's comments on that subject, which we shall study in some detail.
  It has been suggested that there is no demand for the changes to the provision of conveyancing services in Scotland. Attention has been drawn to the high levels of customer satisfaction that opinion surveys have revealed for conveyancing work undertaken by solicitors. I readily accept that the solicitors' profession in Scotland provides an extremely high standard of service, and has much of which it can be proud. Whether or not other conveyancing practitioners can offer a service as attractive as that provided by solicitors is something that the public should be able to ascertain for themselves.
  It is slightly misleading to speak of breaking a monopoly on conveyancing services. Although solicitors, in every practical sense, have had a monopoly, that is the result of the reservation to solicitors of the right to charge for undertaking a relatively small part of the conveyancing transaction. That restriction makes it an offence for persons other than solicitors to draw or prepare the conveyancing deed if they are doing it for a fee.
  Under current law it is theoretically possible, therefore, for a person to conclude missives and do everything else involved in a conveyancing transaction, save preparing the actual deed. Nevertheless, the narrow legal restriction has had the wider practical effect of reserving almost all conveyancing business to solicitors. I readily grant that there is a public interest in the quality and accuracy of our registers of deeds and titles to land. That is one reason why it would be wrong to allow simply anyone to undertake conveyancing, but it is not sensible or historically accurate to assert that that restriction is or was designed to perform other functions such as guaranteeing independent advice for house buyers. While that may be one consequence in the existing framework within which conveyancing services are offered, the Government do not believe in forcing clients to use a single set of service providers when others could offer a competent service within a framework which provides adequate customer protection.
  Building societies or others will be required to employ suitably qualified persons to provide interviews with each prospective client and to oversee every conveyancing transaction. A "suitably qualified person", in this instance, means either a solicitor or, in due course, a qualified conveyancer. Solicitors who join the employ of, say a building society do not thereby lose any of their competence in conveyancing. I am firmly of the view that all those qualified and capable of offering conveyancing services should be able to do so, subject of course to rigorous consumer safeguards. Part II of the Bill satisfies that objective, and provides clients with greater choice, while maintaining and sometimes enhancing existing safeguards.
  I have been concerned throughout the Bill to ensure that a level playing field is established between solicitors and other providers of legal services—[Interruption.] The phrase has regular contemporary currency and I knew that it would be clear to the House exactly what I intended to convey.
  I am particularly concerned that there is no threat to the network of rural solicitors' offices. A number of measures,
  162
  both in the Bill and in regulations to be prescribed in future, will serve to prevent unfair competition and thus diminishing the availability of legal services in rural areas. Those measures include the requirement, to be included in regulations made under clause 15, that all conveyancing practitioners offer all prospective clients an interview with a suitably qualified person, either close to the property being conveyed or close to the client's home or place of work. It will prevent anyone from offering conveyancing services from his head office without establishing face-to-face contact between the conveyancer and the client.
  Such regulations will also require conveyancing practitioners to price each service separately. To support the measures, clause 81 of the Courts and Legal Services Bill makes it an offence for a provider of lending services to make any loan conditional on the purchase of another service or to make any service available only if the client takes out a loan.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As the Bill allows anybody to go into partnership with a licensed or qualified conveyancer, why does my right hon. and learned Friend think that only building societies, banks and institutions of that nature will take advantage of the Bill? If it is on a level playing field, why could not hairdressers say, "While you are having your hair cut, why not arrange to buy your house?"?
  Mr. Rifkind: That may be a theoretical possibility, if those people are able to meet the statutory requirements. Whether they would be likely to have much success in attracting clients on that basis is at the least doubtful.
  The measures should serve to prevent any market dominance by conveyancing practitioners that is detrimental to the availability of legal services in rural areas. If any further fine tuning appears necessary in that context, we shall be receptive to suggestions. Moreover, my Department has been undertaking research into the geographic availability of legal services throughout Scotland, so that it will be possible in future to ascertain whether or not increased competition has led to any diminution in the availability of legal services, particularly in rural areas. That is something, therefore, which the Government are keeping under review because, while I do not believe that the proposals relating to conveyancing in the Bill will adversely affect rural solicitors, I consider it to be an important enough issue to merit vigilance.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: How long will that review take? By the time it is completed, all the lawyers' practices in rural areas might be closed.
  Mr. Rifkind: We are publishing this week a document on the current availability of solicitors' offices in various parts of Scotland, including the rural areas. We intend to monitor on an on-going basis any changes in that provision over the next few months and years.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Obviously, that is a matter of great concern to individuals such as myself. How will the Secretary of State ensure that, in the interim, facilities are available in rural areas? Conveyancing may represent the bread-and-butter money of rural practices and rural solicitors may have built up expertise in farming or fishing law, which is of great importance to individuals in my constituency. What will happen if there is a diminution of

  163
  services during that period? Will my fishermen and farmers be expected to travel to multi-disciplinary practices in Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow, or will the Minister ensure that facilities remain available to them in the interim period?
  Mr. Rifkind: It is reasonable to conclude that, as long as there is a demand for solicitors' services in the towns in the hon. Lady's constituency, solicitors will be only too happy to provide those services. The hon. Lady should have the confidence that I certainly have in members of the legal profession in her constituency continuing to attract members of the public to use the services that they provide.
  I remember when it was proposed to take undefended divorces from the Faculty of Advocates and allow those matters to be dealt with in the sheriff court. Many members of the faculty, including myself, were worried whether that would lead to the destruction of the Faculty of Advocates. In practice, over the period that has elapsed since then, there are virtually double the number of advocates working in Scotland doing other forms of work.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm what he said earlier, that reasoned amendments to ensure the survival of rural practices and rural solicitors would be received kindly by the Government, who would co-operate if possible? Was that the substance of what he was saying?
  Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we are anxious to ensure that the end of one restrictive practice does not lead to the creation of another. That means that there must be an opportunity for fair competition between solicitors' practices and building societies or banks that may employ solicitors or licensed conveyancers to do conveyancing work. I confirm that we shall consider in a positive light constructive and sensible proposals to ensure that that is achieved.
  Mr. William McKelvey: I have listened most carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has just confessed that he is a member of the Faculty of Advocates, and I should like to offer him some free advice. Perhaps he should have mentioned that when he opened the debate, if not as a declared interest, certainly as a moral declared interest.
  Mr. Rifkind: Normally, subject to your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one declares an interest if one has the possibility of financial gain from the provisions of a Bill. If the provisions of the Bill mean that the Faculty of Advocates is to lose its monopoly position in the Court of Session and the High Court, there is hardly likely to be a financial interest to declare in terms of the normal criteria affecting those matters. However, my membership of the Faculty of Advocates is referred to in the Register of Members' Interests. Had the hon. Gentleman consulted that document, he would have been well aware of my background.
  Clause 22 will enable solicitors to acquire rights of audience before the highest courts in Scotland. It is fair to say that for us in Scotland, the admission of solicitors to Supreme Court practice is a natural progression. Solicitors' rights of audience before the sheriff court are already extensive. Solicitors are already able to plead in jury trials that may result in sentences of up to three years' imprisonment; and the sheriff's civil jurisdiction overlaps extensively with that of the Court of Session. It is
  164
  commensurate with the overall aim of this part of the Bill that clients should have access to as wide a choice of supreme court pleader as possible.
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate made quite clear in another place, that is not to say that any compromise is contemplated on standards. The Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary depend on those who appear before them to provide the highest standards of pleading and legal argument. Clause 22 of the Bill makes provision for solicitors to acquire rights of audience in the supreme courts only where they satisfy the council of the Law Society that they measure up to such standards. Those standards will themselves be approved by the Lord President of the Court of Session and by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Foulkes: As a former councillor, the Secretary of State will recall that as a very junior bailie I served on the bench in Edinburgh, so some strange people serve on the bench. What are the consequences of solicitors doing the jobs of advocates in the Supreme Court, for appointments to the bench? Should there not be appropriate consequential changes?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the presence of baillies on the bench can have curious consequences. I recollect on Edinburgh baillie saying to a person convicted before him that he would fine him £50, and had there been any evidence against him, he would have sent him to prison, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not make that particular observation. As for the entitlement of solicitors to judicial appointment, if the hon. Gentleman consults the Bill he will see that there is provision to that effect and I shall refer to it in a moment.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the purpose of the provisions is increased choice, will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking that a person admitted to legal aid will retain the choice of a solicitor and an advocate or solicitor-advocate and that, by virtue of these provisions, he will not be prevented from having the representation that he prefers?
  Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to give that assurance to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is in the public interest that that should be made quite clear and unambiguous in this context.
  It can only be right that a solicitor who can demonstrate that he has the requisite ability and experience and who is willing to accept the obligations that attach to supreme court pleading should be able to provide such a service. Moreover, steps have been taken to ensure that solicitors with supreme court rights of audience shoulder similar obligations to provide representation in all cases as advocates. It is clearly important that the rules governing the two groups of supreme court pleaders should be based on comparable principles. Clause 22 provides for that. That approach also applies to rules governing the conduct of non-lawyers who acquire rights of audience, or rights to conduct litigation in any court under clause 23.
  Clause 25, coupled with the provisions in schedule 7, which repeal the statutory barriers to solicitors forming partnerships with non-solicitors, removes the statutory bar to multi-disciplinary practices. I regard those measures as enabling ones, which provide an opportunity to the

  165
  solicitor profession to develop its own approach to practice with other groups, unfettered by statutory barriers. The measures do not impose an outcome. The Law Society of Scotland remains entirely free to make such rules on the matter as it sees fit.
  It will not, however, be possible for the society to make a rule prohibiting multi-disciplinary practices unless that rule has been approved by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading. The purpose of the Secretary of State's involvement is to ensure that any prohibition is no more restrictive than is necessary in the interests of justice. My involvement is therefore confined to any rule that prohibits multidisciplinary practices in relation to court work. Any other restriction will fall to be considered in due course under the proposed legislation on restrictive trade practices, outlined in the White Paper issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  There will therefore be no compulsion for solicitors to enter into multi-disciplinary practices, but the statutory barriers to their doing so will be removed. Whether such practices come into being will depend on whether there is a demand for them. That is as it should be where a service is responding to client needs by expanding the choice available.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Secretary of State taken steps to ensure that multi-disciplinary practices will be monitored? Is not there an inherent danger that the establishment of such practices will result in the same fate for the legal profession as for the accountancy profession —a smaller number of larger practices, with people taking on lucrative work instead of following the ethic of service to the community?
  Mr. Rifkind: All that we are removing is the statutory bar on multidisciplinary practices. The Law Society will be able to continue to make that a requirement of practice in the profession. The statutory bar on multi-disciplinary practices was introduced only in 1933. It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to know that when the matter was discussed in 1933 a certain Mr. J. Maxton MP criticised the introduction of a statutory framework precisely because it gave a voluntary association
  "statutory powers to control and direct the lives of men, the methods of a great profession, powers which should reside nowhere else than in the central Government itself."
  It is that statutory bar, which one J. Maxton MP imposed, which is being removed, for the reasons that I have given.
  Advocates' partnerships are, for the time being, very unlikely to be in the interests either of clients or of the court system as a whole. Clause 25 therefore also requires the approval of the Secretary of State for any rule that prohibits partnerships between advocates. That approval has the effect of putting the rule beyond the scope of any challenge under forthcoming legislation on restrictive trade practices. If, however, in the future the Faculty of Advocates changed its attitude to partnerhips, it could submit an amended rule for approval. I do not see any need for such a change in the immediate future.
  The complaints procedures for legal services are also strengthened considerably by the Bill. A new public office of Scottish legal services ombudsman is created, with wider responsibilities than that of the lay observer, which
  166
  is to be abolished. The ombudsman will deal with grievances about the handling of complaints by the Faculty of Advocates, by the new board and by any body that acquires practising rights under clause 23, as well as by the Law Society of Scotland.
  In making those reforms to the complaints procedures relating to legal services, I have attempted to build on those already in place. Given the enhancement of the lay observer's powers, all of which the ombudsman will inherit, and the changes to be made to the statutory provisions on complaints procedures of the professional bodies, I believe that those with a grievance against a solicitor or other legal practitioner will be well placed to obtain a just and reasonable outcome for their complaint.
  The remainder of part II contains a number of comparatively minor, though nevertheless valuable, measures, all of which are aimed at extending choice and opportunity both for the client and for the practitioner.
  Clause 24 remedies the anomalous situation, which has arisen under community law, whereby Scottish, English and Welsh lawyers are not able to obtain the same recognition as qualified legal practitioners in each other's countries as are lawyers from other member states. A reciprocal measure is contained in the Courts and Legal Services Bill for Scottish lawyers seeking recognition south of the border.
  Taken as a whole the measures in part II represent a significant step forward for legal services in Scotland. Part II does not, in any event, force anyone to do anything. It simply widens the opportunities available and removes some outdated and unnecessary restrictions.
  Part III proposes reforms to the system of liquor licensing in Scotland. A new code of liquor licensing was introduced in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which took account of many of the recommendations made by Dr. Clayson. The Government believe that the 1976 Act has stood the test of time, principally because the provisions reflected public attitudes. The proposals in part III of the present Bill build on the existing regime, taking account of trends in those attitudes since 1976 and of practical experience of the operation of the 1976 Act.
  In drawing up the provisions in part III, we have had regard to a survey conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and a consultation exercise undertaken in 1986 by my Department. Over 2,000 responses were received and all were carefully considered.
  There are three themes running through this part of the Bill: enhancement of the more civilised regime that has been in place since 1976; eliminating unnecessary bureaucratic procedures; and tightening up the law in areas where experience suggests that that is needed.
  As regards the more civilised regime, clauses 41 and 42 introduce a system of children's certificates which will enable licensing boards to permit children to enter suitable licensed premises in the company of their parents or other adults. The Bill makes it clear that children may enter those premises so as to have a meal in the company of adults. As the provisions relate specifically to meals, the hours when they may be admitted will be limited to the period from 11 am to 8 pm. Clause 42 enables a board to suspend a children's certificate, following procedures that include provision for a hearing, where it considers that the premises concerned no longer constitute an environment suitable for children to be present.

  167
  The Bill also proposes that the present requirement for licensed premises to be closed in the afternoon between 2.30 and 5 pm, unless an extension has been granted, should no longer apply.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Clause 37 raises a matter of considerable delicacy in places such as Bathgate. The Law Society considers that
  "There should be equality of opening times between licensed premises, licensed canteens, registered clubs and public houses and that the inequalities in trading hours for off-sales premises, etc. should be removed."
  Will the Secretary of State comment on the Law Society's views?
  Mr. Rifkind: As a general principle, I do not take exception to that, but there may be circumstances when that would not be entirely appropriate. We propose to extend the opening hours of off-sales premises on Sundays for precisely the reasons to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Where, however, a distinction is drawn, we believe that it can be justified in the light of the consultation exercise.
  The widespread grant of afternoon extensions under the present provisions shows that continuous trading is now widely accepted, and responses to the consultation paper confirmed that. On the other hand, it remains the clear majority view that there should be no addition to the Sunday opening hours of public houses, which run from 12.30 to 2.30 in the afternoon and from 6.30 to 11.00 in the evening. The Bill proposes no change on that point.
  Mr. McKelvey: In the light of all the representations that have been made, does the Secretary of State consider that it would be sensible to allow those who manage public houses to apply for an extension on Sundays so that the licensing boards could consider their applications and then grant an extension, or otherwise? Why are extensions not allowed for public houses when extensions are allowed for other establishments?
  Mr. Rifkind: We are tightening up the exemptions in ways that I shall illustrate. We are responding to the results of the consultation exercise, which suggest that, with regard to Sunday, although not to other days of the week, the significant majority view is that people do not wish Sunday afternoon extensions to take place.
  We believe that the traditional view—that Sunday afternoon should be a time of peace and quiet when there should be no noise or disturbance from public houses, many of which are located in residential areas—ought to be respected. The Bill reflects the results of the consultation exercise. Naturally, we look forward to the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House on that matter, as on all other issues.
  Mr. Dalyell: What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reaction to the Law Society's worries about the restriction on the boards' discretion? The Law Society refers particularly to clause 38 and states:
  "The Law Society considers that Licensing Boards should be flexible bodies capable of responding to immediate and local needs. The Law Society views with concern attempts in this Clause to restrict the Board's discretion in respect of Sunday opening of licensed premses."
  This is a delicate issue in West Lothian.
  Mr. Rifkind: These are delicate issues in various parts of the country. We have tried to establish a balance that reflects what appears to be the views of the public arising
  168
  out of the consultation exercise. The Bill proposes that off-sale trading on Sundays should be permitted between 12.30 and 10 pm. Trading on Sundays has been permitted elsewhere in Britain for some years, and there is a clear demand for relaxation of the law on that point in Scotland. It is considered to be anomalous that people should be able to buy groceries and other provisions in supermarkets on Sundays, but should be restricted from buying alcohol for consumption off the premises.
  On the theme of tightening up the law, the 1976 provisions relating to the grant of regular extensions of permitted hours have given rise to much criticism. 'The proliferation of late-night extensions in some areas has been a source of distress and disturbance to local people and has imposed heavy demands on medical services and the police. A large number of complaints have been received from members of the public and hon. Members. Clause 39 accordingly requires a licensing board not to grant an application for a late-night extension unless it is satisfied that there is a need in the locality for such an extension and that it would be of such benefit to the community as a whole as to outweigh any detriment to the locality.
  Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State and I know, as Edinburgh Members, that the city centre in Edinburgh has a particular problem because of the sheer number of late-night premises being allowed to open. How will a board determine whether an extension would be of benefit to the community as a whole? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a difference between the various pubs in any one street? Several may cause no problems, but one may be a source of problems. Would it not be better to allow licensing boards the power to take someone off the road, as it were, until he put his house in order and to make it easier for individuals to object? In that way, we could differentiate between those places that cause no harm and those that are a constant source of irritation to the people who have to live around them.
  Mr. Rifkind: I note that point. Over the past few years, instead of being the exception, as was envisaged in the earlier legislation, late-night extensions have been the rule. Almost without exception, they have been granted, causing annoyance and disturbance to many residents who, even in the early hours of the morning, find themselves disturbed by noise. A well-run public house can still be a noisy establishment, even if no crimes are committed or no irresponsible behaviour is apparent—there can be singing and other such activity. It is necessary to find a balance.
  That is why the criteria that a licensing board is invited to consider include the question whether the need in an area for an extension is such as to outweigh any detriment to the locality. It must be for the board to look at the circumstances in each case, to consider the objections that might be put by local residents and to come to a sensible judgment as to whether the criteria are satisfied. It is our view and that of the vast majority who commented on the matter that late-night extensions, particularly in residential areas, should be the exception rather than the rule, for the reasons that I have given. The ultimate discretion lies with the licensing board.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have some difficulty in following my right hon. and learned Friend's argument. Clause 38(4)(a) states:
  "A licensing board shall refuse to grant or renew a public house or a refreshment licence in respect of the permitted hours on a Sunday if it finds that the opening and use on a Sunday of the premises to which the application relates would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality, but the refusal of an application on that ground alone shall not prevent the licensing board from granting the application in respect of days other than Sundays."
  That seems to conflict with what my right hon. and learned Friend said.
  Mr. Rifkind: Not really. Until now, any application to open on a Sunday has required a separate application to the licensing board. One of the reforms proposed in the Bill is that, if a new public house is to be opened, the initial application can cover both weekdays and Sundays. It is not unreasonable to think that, although there may be a single application covering both Sundays and weekdays, the board should be permitted to make a distinction in respect of Sundays if the circumstances appear to justify it. the clause is drafted in its present form to give boards the maximum discretion.
  Mr. Graham: Does the Secretary of State accept that under-age drinking is causing a rampaging disaster in villages and towns throughout Scotland? Will he take cognisance of that fact and keep off-sale premises closed on a Sunday? Most of the young people are getting their drink from off-sale premises one way or the other. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give folk in the villages and towns of Scotland peace on a Sunday?
  Mr. Rifkind: The provision in the Bill reflects the strong views that were expressed in the consultation exercise. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman's view may be shared by the minority of those respondents and, no doubt, he will put forward his views in due course.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Secretary of State any ideas on how the public could find it easier to draw to the attention of the licensing boards their complaints about licensed premises in their area? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to hear my views in due course as well?
  Mr. Rifkind: I should certainly like to hear the hon. Lady's views in due course. Obviously, there is an opportunity for persons to bring to the attention of the licensing boards any reasons why they believe that the terms of the licence are not complied with. No doubt, if the hon. Lady has particular points to raise, she will seek an opportunity to do so.
  Clause 46 provides the police with a power to enter registered pubs at any reasonable time without a warrant. Such a power was recommended by the Clayson committee, and the Guest committee before that, and our consultative exercise revealed overwhelming support for it. There was considerable debate on the matter in another place, and we recognise the concerns of some registered clubs about the exercise in practice of those powers by the police. I have every confidence that chief constables would have due regard for those concerns and would use the powers only where they were genuinely necessary and with due regard to the sensitivities of members and the management of registered clubs.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The clause gives that power to police constables, not just chief constables.
  170
  Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the clause to be necessary? Most clubs are self-regulating and organise themselves in a fair, efficient and disciplined manner. If any trouble or law-breaking occurs, the police already have the powers to deal with the situation. In the last analysis, the sheriff may refuse to renew a club's licence. It is utterly unwarranted to give those powers to the police and it will be seen as a gross invasion of privacy. The opposition to the clause comes not just from social, miners' welfare, sport and labour clubs, but—as I know from my conversations with Conservative Members—from Conservative clubs. Many hon. Members are determined to fight the clause. I ask the Secretary of State to say that he will withdraw it.
  Mr. Rifkind: Before getting carried away, the hon. Gentleman should consider the responses to the consultation exercise, which show that some 67 representations were in favour of the proposal, with only nine against. Among the 67 in favour, there were 21 licensing boards, 18 community councils and others, 15 organisations with health and alcohol interests, five licensed trade interests, four police organisations, two Churches, the Law Society and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
  Mr. Foulkes: What about the nine against?
  Mr. Rifkind: The nine comprised three licensing boards, four community councils, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Faculty of Advocates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I acknowledge that that is a powerful combination.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: My right hon. and learned Friend must be aware that in that list, no clubs said that there is a need for the provision. Is he further aware that such a provision has never been carried out? Does he agree that whatever happens in Scotland, once clause 46 becomes law in Scotland, the next stage is for clubs to be open to the police in the rest of Great Britain? I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that that would be wholly unacceptable to many Conservative Members.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way before he answers his hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and I hope that my intervention will not prevent him from answering his hon. Friend.
  The Secretary of State will be aware of the great deal of discussion about the matter in the other place. In the Licensing (Scotland) Bill 1976, the Labour Government tried to include a provision that gave the police right of entry into clubs without a warrant or without invitation. We were defeated on the Floor of the House, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman voting against us. Can he explain his change of mind?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct and he has made the point to which I have just drawn attention. When many organisations that are intimately involved in health and in the prevention of alcohol abuse, such as the Churches, the Law Society and the vast majority of community councils, as well as the licensing boards themselves, join together, that is a powerful combination of points of view.
  Licensed clubs are the only licensed premises where the police do not have such a right. There may be arguments

  171
  against that and we shall be happy to listen to views on it. However, it is right that the Bill should reflect a view that is not merely the majority view, but the overwhelming view of a wide diversity of interests that took the trouble to comment on the proposals.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I was a member of the minority on the Clayson committee who were opposed to the extension of that right. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, when it was first laid before the House, contained such a provision. If there is to be an extension of police powers, there must be a justification for that extension. The fact that many bodies may be in favour of the extension does not of itself justify it. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman under an obligation to demonstrate to the House why there should be an extension of a right that already exists in the form of the right of the police to seek a warrant before a magistrate if they are able to satisfy a magistrate that there is good reason for them to have entry to a particular club?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to make that point. The evidence from the police is that they believe that in a minority of clubs, there is iresponsible behaviour that requires to be investigated by the police. They believe that if they were required to seek a warrant before having permission to enter the premises, they would not be able to prosecute the interests of justice. They believe that just as they have the right to enter a public house without a warrant when they believe that such activities are being conducted, so they should have a comparable right in respect of the clubs.
  I fully accept that those are controversial matters and that hon. Members will wish to probe deeply into the justification for the proposal. It represents the overwhelming view of those who took the trouble to comment on those matters.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I have given way a great deal.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I would rather not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  Mr. Dalyell: I would rather that you did.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry. However, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman several times already and other hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt catch—
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Secretary of State is clearly not giving way. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the Secretary of State should give way. He has made—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better. He must resume his seat. It is a matter for the Secretary of State and he is clearly not giving way.
  Mr. Dalyell: I plead with the Secretary of State to give way.
  Mr. Rifkind: I would rather not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  Mr. Dalyell: You know why.
  Mr. Rifkind: I do not have the faintest idea why.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will seek to catch my eye to explain why later in the debate.
  Mr Dalyell: I should have thought that, on a point of fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have given way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are waiting to take part in the debate. We are getting on. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who is very experienced in these matters, might wait to see whether he can catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair and make his contribution then.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his seat.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me into having to use the disciplinary powers that he knows I possess. Perhaps he will wait patiently and seek a later opportunity.
  Mr. Rifkind: I refer now to part IV.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: No, I will not give way. I refer now to the remaining—
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not push me. I hope that we shall be allowed to get on with the debate. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is for the right hon. or hon. Member who has the Floor to determine whether he or she gives way. The Secretary of State is clearly not giving way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not push me into having to do what I do not want to do.
  Mr. Rifkind: I refer now to the—
  Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State is not giving way because he knows that he has misled the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If this goes on, I shall have no option but to ask the hon. Gentleman, under the

  173
  powers conferred on me by Standing Order No. 42, to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of this day's sitting.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not want that to happen.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that my repeated warnings to the hon. Gentleman have given me little option.
  Mr. Dalyell: Please, I do not want to withdraw.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman also withdraws the allegation that the Secretary of State deliberately misled the House—
  Mr. Dalyell: I am prepared to do anything you ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I do not want to be thrown out.
  Mr. Rifkind: Part IV contains a number of provisions with regard to the social work services and to the probation social inquiry reports. It provides for 100 per cent. Government funding of such services in the interests of improving the probation service. There are also provisions relating to fines, including a provision to enable unitary fines experiments to take place with a view to relating fines more closely to an offender's ability to pay. The opportunity has also been taken to correct a deficiency in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking.
  Clause 53 reduces the periods of separation required to establish the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The reduction is from two years to one year where the other party consents to divorce and from five years to two years without the consent of the other party. That reflects the Scottish Law Commission's conclusions that the present periods of separation are unnecessarily long and have the effect of causing many divorcing couples to use behaviour or adultery grounds, with all their attendant unpleasantness and hostility, as a means of obtaining an earlier divorce. The Government believe that the modest amendment proposed by the commission, which received substantial public support on consultation, will meet much of the criticism of the existing law without going beyond what is generally acceptable to members of the public.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: It seems that the object of clause 53 is to make divorce easier. There is a great deal of concern, certainly south of the border, that we are making divorce easier the whole time. There is also a great deal of concern that the results of that increase the sum of human misery. There is more research evidence to that effect. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has said that we need to make divorce harder. Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any plans, for example, to protect the interests of children more carefully than at present in divorce proceedings?
  Mr. Rifkind: I can reassure my right hon. Friend. We have followed the advice of the Scottish Marriage Guidance Council. In its submission in support of the proposal, it said:
  "We can appreciate that others may be concerned about the reduction of time in relation to encouraging couples to take marriage less seriously, but we can honestly claim that we, in our work have not experienced this attitude."
  174
  It believes that the proposal will help, as does the Scottish Association of Family Conciliation Services, which said in its submission:
  "It is encouraging to see Scotland leading the way in this legislation."
  The thrust of the bulk of the advice received is that the current arrangements lead to a somewhat arbitrary and artificial state of affairs, and that is why the reform has been proposed.
  The final matter to which I wish to refer is the provision—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has referred to the Scottish Marriage Guidance Council and the family conciliation service. What view does the Scottish Office take of the need to ensure adequate funding for the training of counsellors? That is a very important matter, as many solicitors now refer potential divorcees directly to such services. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the funding is available to enhance those services?
  Mr. Rifkind: That question does not arise directly from the Bill, although I shall certainly look into it.
  Finally, let me refer to the provision in the Bill for the High Court, or the sheriff court in Scotland, to receive evidence from abroad by means of live television links. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate stated in Committee in another place that he would intend to bring the provision into operation on the same basis as that for England and Wales—that is for serious and complex fraud, murder and culpable homicide.
  As a result of an amendment passed in another place, those procedures will not be available in any trial involving alleged war crimes committed in German-held territory during the second world war, which, as Scots law stands at present, the Scottish criminal courts do not have jurisdiction to try. In respect of this Bill, the Government have decided to accept that position.
  Following the defeat of the War Crimes Bill on Second Reading in another place, we have under review the whole question whether our courts should have jurisdiction over such war crimes. It is in that context that we shall also consider whether the House should be asked to remove the restrictions set out in clause 56(3). I would commend that approach to hon. Members who are concerned about that clause. I suggest to them that questions about the availability of the procedures set out in clause 56 are subordinate to the larger and prior question whether there should be jurisdiction, and should not be discussed further in proceedings on this Bill.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: As the Secretary of State knows, a crucial question arises here: what happens if the non-Scottish members of the Cabinet decide to seek rapidly to reverse the decision made in the House of Lords?
  Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the decision of the House of Lords to reject the War Crimes Bill on Second Reading means that the Bill cannot proceed during this Session. The implications of that decision are still being considered, as is the question whether steps should be taken in the next Session of Parliament to deal with the matter. It is in that context that I believe that it would be sensible for the provision to be considered.
  As I said at the start of my speech, the Bill is an important measure containing wide-ranging proposals. I

  175
  look forward to hearing hon. Members' views. It may help if I say that I am arranging for copies of the notes on clauses to be made available to hon. Members for the Committee stage of the Bill.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] which lacks a coherent theme embracing in one measure widely different and controversial issues; and which does not offer adequate protection to the interests of the consumer, is based on a flawed concept of competition, and fails to face up to the problems of delay and expense in the legal system and the unmet need for legal services.
  I have never been entirely convinced of the Government's sureness of touch, and there are many examples to support my view. Yesterday, the Government sent the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), on a trip to Genoa to act as the Scottish team mascot. There were pictures in the press of a rather unconvincing—and, to be fair, unhappy—figure clutching a Scottish scarf. In a flamboyant moment, the Scottish Information Office produced a press release under the heading:
  "Mr. Forsyth wishes Scotland team 'buona fortuna"'.
  All that I can say—I hope, without overstretching the linguistic abilities of the Scottish Information Office—is that a more appropriate phrase might have been "il bacio della morte", the kiss of death.
  In any event, the Bill is another example of the Government's unsureness of touch. I hasten to assure the Secretary of State that I do not object to the Bill merely because it is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. I have a number of more fundamental arguments to deploy in my speech.
  The Secretary of State will have gathered from the amendment standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends that, on balance, we do not much like the Bill. That is not to deny that it contains some good provisions, but the concept and management of the Bill are disappointing, none the less. I ought also to make it clear that I have no objection at all to law reform (miscellaneous provisions) Bills. On checking the records, I discover that I have managed to serve on a very high proportion of the Committees which have considered them in the past 20 years, and most of them I have found extremely interesting and useful. They are gatherings of odds and ends—proposals whose time has come—but by and large they tend not to be controversial.
  Here, however, I believe that there is a difference of degree, as this Bill contains a number of provisions which are by any standards contentious and controversial, and which have given rise to fundamental opposition in serious quarters. The most obvious case in point is the part of the Bill which deals with changes in the legal structure—a subject which I believe would have justified a major Bill in itself. We have also crowded in changes in the licensing law and a fundamental change in the divorce law. No one could describe those as nice adjustments on the margin.
  The Bill even deals with the provision of evidence in criminal trials. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) will remember many discussions of that in our proceedings on previous law reform Bills, when the introduction of new clauses created
  176
  a major furore. This is a very different sort of Bill and the provisions that have been miscellaneously gathered together in it raise more serious questions than is usual. When we come to deal with new clauses, we shall want to raise a number of matters under the lengthy and extensive long title. The Secretary of State will remember that Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved amendments in connection with the law on diligence and warrant sales, and no doubt we shall wish to return to those questions.
  I wish to raise another most important matter about which I feel extremely strongly. This Bill is one of only two Bills to come from the Scottish Office this Session. Presumably the Government are the masters of the timetable, and the timing of proceedings on the Bill means that the Bill will go into Committee on 19 June. As we understand it, the House will rise before the end of July.
  Sir Hector Monro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) raises a cheer at the prospect, and I take his point.
  As I understand it, we shall have five weeks for the Committee stage of the Bill and there is no way in which that can be extended, either by agreement or by force. We are literally boxed into that five-week period. I must stress to the Patronage Secretary's representative and the Secretary of State that I do not think that five weeks will be sufficient for the scrutiny of the Bill.
  I took the trouble to refer to the proceedings on the previous Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced in 1985. It was a much less substantial Bill, much of which was given over to leases, crofting tenure, the valuation of sheep stock and similar fascinating matters. Of course, it dealt with some important matters and I do not for a moment undervalue it. We had important debates on the detention of children in secure accommodation and on evidence in rape trials, for example. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) took a particular interest in the latter.
  Nevertheless, it was undoubtedly a less controversial and less extensive law reform Bill than the present Bill, yet it went into Committee on 5 January 1985 and did not come out until 26 March. It occupied 26 sittings, many of them lasting well into the night, and more than 1,000 columns of Hansard. Everyone who served on that Committee accepted that its exchanges were constructive and that there was no filibustering. The Committee clearly felt that it needed the time that it took.
  I suggest that, as the five weeks of the Committee stage of this Bill tick away, and as we struggle to try to cover the extraordinarily extensive measures before the House, we are likely to find tempers getting frayed. I suspect that we shall also be conscious of the fact that we are not doing the kind of job for which we were elected in scrutinising and considering the full implications of the Bill. I make a genuine protest at the way in which the Bill has been managed; I deeply regret what has happened.
  The Committee on the 1985 Bill consisted of 18 members. The Government's representation consisted of 11 hon. Members, all of whom had been elected to Scottish seats. It is a sign of the times that, at the subsequent general election, seven of those gentleman perished and only four survived. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that the members of the Committee will almost certainly include a number of Members who represent seats south of the

  177
  border. I make no complaint about that, because I realise that it is now inevitable, but I suspect that hon. Members will regard with curious indifference the intricacies of our debates on Scottish licensing law and similar matters. Again, that underlines this very unfortunate situation. People have a right to be angry about that, and I suspect that many of the bodies which will brief us will be unhappy as well.
  The merits of the proposals do not matter at the moment. However, we would all agree that the changes in the legal structure are far-reaching and have raised widespread fears. I suspect that they will not be as adequately scrutinised as I should have liked—or, to be fair, as many Conservative Members would have liked. If they are properly scrutinised, inevitably that will happen at the expense of other important issues. I hope that that point is accepted. It is too late to salvage the situation now, but that is an adverse comment on the way in which the Government have managed Scottish business in this and recent Sessions.
  I wish to make another preliminary point before I consider the merits of the Bill. I hope that Opposition Members will be able to take a constructive and reasonably flexible view in our debates on the Bill. The Bill contains a number of issues which have normally received a free vote in the House and we intend to follow that precedent in Committee. For example, I do not intend my views on licensing law to be laid down as a standard that other hon. Members must follow. They may regard me, as they will discover in a few moments, as hopelessly reactionary on those matters. I will be unashamed and may even have to stand the indignity of finding myself on the same side as the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross and against others who are normally my allies.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend means the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), not the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn).
  Mr. Dewar: Indeed, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—I do not see why I should be called upon to distinguish between peas in a pod in these matters. [Laughter] I appear to be turning a serious point to laughter.
  With regard to licensing law, divorce law reform and other issues, we shall vote according to our individual views. That is the right way to approach a Bill of this kind, and we hope that our example will be followed on the Conservative Benches.
  I wish now to consider the specific provisions in the Bill and to make a general charge buttressed by example. In our amendment, we state that we believe that the Government have failed to do what is necessary to protect consumers' interests adequately. I recognise that the Secretary of State will make a case for saying that the attack on the conveyancing monopoly and the arrival of the legal services ombudsman are important advances from the consumer point of view. I would agree with the latter, but I believe that it is a more arguable proposition in the former case.
  I have spoken to representatives from the citizens' advice bureaux and the Scottish Consumer Council. They support some of the Bill's propositions, but feel that in
  178
  many areas opportunities have been missed. They have indicated, for instance, that in English legislation there are a number of consumer protection measures which have not been extended to Scotland. For example, there is the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct, with its rather interesting provision in English legislation that eight of the 14 members will not be salaried judges, barristers, solicitors or teachers of law, but ordinary people and presumably valued as such. That provision is lacking in the Bill, and we might consider it in Committee.
  In the English version of the authorised conveyancing practitioners board, there is to be a proper balance between the interests of authorised practitioners and those who make use of their services. The Scottish equivalent contains nothing like the same adequate safeguard. There are some points about the powers of the ombudsman position that is to be created, particularly in connection with inadequate professional services, to which we shall wish to return in Committee.
  My general point is that there is little in the Bill about access to legal services and the unmet legal need. There is no assault on delay and expense and no attempt to simplify the precise and intricate rules that govern our courts, and in particular the art of building a closer accord, the mysteries of the adjustment and the procedure role. That might be achieved by rules or internal committees, but the cost and delay of litigation is still one of the major problems of our legal system and the Bill does not appear to acknowledge the existence of that problem. In that regard, we simply have clause 32, which allows a solicitor outside Edinburgh to borrow a Court of Session process, which may be a small step for out-of-Edinburgh solicitors, but not for the common weal of Scotland. The legal world will not move as a result of that. There is a feeling of disappointment which I hope the Secretary of State will recognise.
  I wish now to consider the specific contents of the Bill, and in doing so I must be careful to declare an interest. I am a partner in a firm of solicitors in Glasgow. Even in these days of advertising, I shall not mention its name, but it can be found in the Register of Members' Interests. Although I have not seen a client in anger for many years, and certainly not with a view to charging him a fee, that is a connection which I value and it is of some relevance because much of the Bill deals with the interests of the solicitors' profession.
  With regard to the structure of the legal profession and the so-called attack on the monopoly, I do not believe that the argument has been made. There is a feeling that the Secretary of State has been dragged along in the wake of the Lord Chancellor and that there has not been a great deal of room for a distinct and separate Scottish approach. I accept that competition is important, although there is clearly a distinction in a regulated profession hedged around with necessary and important safeguards and competition in the retail trade or in the general market place.
  The arrival of advertising, to which I have referred, and much more importantly, the abolition of scale fees which was long overdue, have undoubtedly had a considerable impact on conveyancing charges. I suspect that they have been more effective than anything that is likely to be created by this Bill.
  There will be new animals on the legal scene, including qualified conveyancers who, I presume, are roughly

  179
  equivalent to the licenced conveyancer who appeared in England in 1985. There will also be a conveyancing practitioner, equating with the authorised conveyancer south of the border. The latter is an institution rather than an individual. In Committee we may wish to draw a distinction between those two rather different phenomena.
  So far as I can see, it is inevitable—if it were not so, I should have fought to make it so—that the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board will equate largely in its powers and approach with the Law Society of Scotland's role in regard to solicitors. In Committee we shall have to look at indemnity, the guarantee fund, the clients' accounts provisions and the qualifications. Many of those matters are fundamentally important.
  We cannot ring-fence conveyancing. Someone involved in conveyancing will have to advise his client on many aspects of the law, including the law of contract, matrimonial homes law, family law and tax and financial matters. We cannot ring-fence such matters and we are genuinely interested to learn what is to be included in the code of conduct. I would argue that the code of conduct could, with advantage, have been included in this Bill so that it could be placed on the record.
  I am sceptical about the impact of the Secretary of State's new brand of qualified conveyancer because, if we consider the history of licensed conveyancing in England, it is clear that its impact has been very small. The Library has advised me that there are 710 licensed conveyancers in England at the latest date for which figures are available. I suppose 710 sounds quite impressive, although England is a big place. However, only 250 of those are in private practice. The rest work for institutions or legal firms of one kind or another. The Library brief states—if I am not out of order in quoting it:
  "It was originally envisaged that licensed conveyancers would set up in private practice but experience has shown that in the three years or so since they came into existence, licensed conveyancers are using the qualification to seek employment with firms and organisations that have established conveyancing departments."
  That is not what was intended or what I presume is in the mind of the Secretary of State. However, I believe that many of the difficulties, fears and problems have arisen perhaps for little return, even in terms of the Secretary of State's theories, if we consider the English equivalents. Although I cannot consider the issue at length now, we shall consider in Committee the broader concerns, particularly the potential arrival of banks and building societies on to the scene.
  In an exchange, the context of which I cannot recall, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that he had talked to a bank and a building society and that they had assured him that they had no interest in getting into the sphere of conveyancing. That may have been the case, but it does not seem a conclusive argument to judge what is likely to happen.
  It is because I recognise that there are attractions in the one-door approach that I worry about it. I recognise the enormous impact that could be made if, for example, a building society said, "I will fix your mortgage, I will buy and sell your house through our estate agency arm and I will also do your conveyancing, all for one all-in fee." That will be particularly attractive to people who do not like the idea of having to fix a mortgage, then find a solicitor and then move on to an estate agency, or in whichever order the tasks are undertaken.
  180
  Such a one-door approach is bound to cause worries in the longer term about independent advice—those worries are well known and we shall return to them in Committee as the Secretary of State did not deal with this issue fully and effectively—and about the impact in rural areas.
  Great concern has been expressed on that score and I will only say at this stage, in the interests of brevity, that the Government case has not been laid out. We must make sure that we are on a level playing field, to use one of the clichés of the afternoon, and not the legal equivalent of kicking up the slope in Easter road for those who have remained in the more conventional conveyancing field.
  In the other place, Lord Hughes, who had a distinguished career as a Scottish Office Minister on my side of the political divide and, more importantly, was chairman of the Royal Commission on legal services, honourably recalled in the debate in the other place on 27 March that the Royal Commission had recommended the breaking up of the solicitors' conveyancing monopoly, but that that was
  "in the state of play as it then was."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 March 1990; Vol. 517, c. 792.]
  He went on to enumerate a large number of changes, including the abolition of scale fees, which had taken place in the interim. He made a point of saying that the royal commission had never recommended the creation of a new breed of conveyancer, and he came to the conclusion that he was persuaded, as chairman of the royal commission, to oppose clause 14, as it was in the House of Lords, being the proposition that had come from the Government. His views as chairman of the royal commission are of considerable interest.
  On the whole, I am favourably disposed to the provision on rights of audience. In Committee, we shall want a great deal of information about how the system will work and what is intended. Much will depend on the rules. I hear talk, for example, that a solicitor who wishes to practise in the Court of Session or the High Courts will have to do a tutelage and that examination hurdles will have to be overcome. The rules appear to be firmly in the hands of the Lord President. It will be a matter of anxious interest how those powers are exercised. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is able to anticipate them, but we shall be pressing him in Committee on that.
  The issue is of importance, in particular to the Faculty of Advocates, because if some solicitors will retain their position in their own firms of solicitors but will have a right of audience in the High Court—which is where it may be most relevant—there may be occasions, for example, when they will decide that they do not need to employ advocates. There may be occasions when advocates fall out, for example, because of timetable problems in their practices, when the obvious solution will be for the solicitor advocate to take over the case in which he is prepared and the consultations about which he has attended.
  From the point of view of the faculty, if that happens on a wide scale, there will be a multi-disciplinary practice, in a sense, because one solicitor partner will be converted into an advocate. That, I envisage, could be a matter of anxious consideration in deciding where the balance lies. We cannot talk intelligently about the subject until we know more about the conditions and circumstances in which it will arise.
  Similarly, on the question of multi-disciplinary practices—it is a natural progression—clause 25 is

  181
  puzzling. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's remarks and I am not much clearer. I understand that the rules prohibiting advocates from taking part in a partnership either with another advocate or with some other person must be approved by the Lord President and the Secretary of State. I am told that there is an understanding that those rules will be so approved. In other words, there will be a prohibition on the emergence on that type of partnership. I will not say that, in a sense, it is a fait accompli, but the clause on its face is rather deceptive because there is no chance of MDPs emerging in that area.
  A worry of mine is that when we come to solicitors, we again have a prohibition which requires the approval of the Secretary of State. His approval may be forthcoming —the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to help us on that issue in Committee—but as he pointed out, that is a solicitor offering professional services to the public in relation to any court proceedings, and that gives rise to an odd situation. The implication is that a firm which has no court activities—a purely chamber or commercial practice—will have a right, subject to Office of Fair Trading oversight, to move into multi-disciplinary partnerships. There could be a possibility of a split in the profession, with some firms exercising that right and others being stopped from doing so.
  The Secretary of State will appreciate that a rural practice, which might be more attracted to the idea of having other forms of partner, such as an accountant, within its number, could be prevented from doing so because of having a court practitioner among its number, while the narrow and prosperous commercial practice in Edinburgh or Glasgow may be able to branch out in that way. That would be an unsatisfactory situation and I give notice that we shall want to examine it in Committee. We shall also want to examine carefully the effect of multi-disciplinary practices and the prospect, for example, of large accountancy firms buying up large commercial practices in Scotland.
  While I must not speak for too long, or I shall trespass on tolerance, I must point out that I am puzzled why, in clause 29, the provision about speculative work, presumably by court practitioners, and an enhancement of fees as a reward for taking on speculative work, has appeared. It takes us into the interesting area of contingency fees.
  I suspect that it has appeared—since I am told that it was not asked for—because it duplicates clause 48 of the Courts and Legal Services Bill south of the border and was in the Lord Chancellor's White Paper. I do not like that suggestion, and, if that is the reason, it is not good enough. If the Secretary of State cannot do better than that, it will get a hostile reception.
  I merely mention—it is no bad thing to advertise areas of difficulty—that the proposal that a client who has reached agreement in a written agreement about fees should then be precluded from going to taxation in the courts—I understand that to be the effect of clause 29—would be a retrograde step. We might have agreements reached between clients and solicitors which are not even-handed in terms of the expertise with which they are approached. The right to go to taxation is important and should be maintained.
  182
  I welcome the ombudsman provision, although we shall examine the powers and to what extent he or she will be able to operate above and beyond what is achieved by the lay observer.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend think that the Committee will be able to look into the question of judges occasionally making judgments in serious cases which demonstrate that they are completely out of touch with the thinking of the vast majority of the populace?
  Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the Committee will give some time to that, especially if my hon. Friend is prepared to serve on it. One obvious answer is to give a right of appeal against sentence to the Crown. I have severe doubts about that, however, although clearly it is worth considering. My own instincts are against it for all sorts of reasons that we may return to.
  I hurry on to the licensing provisions. I have made it clear that there will be a free vote on them, so there is no great virtue in talking about them at length. Personally, I believe that Clayson was a success and a major reform which did much to liberalise and civilise consumption of alcohol in Scotland. I should like to see that process continue, but not necessarily by supporting all the proposals in this measure.
  Weekday opening from 11 am to 11 pm is sensible and I have no objection to it. The stop-start provision on weekday opening is rather illogical, but I have no enthusiasm for off-licenses on Sundays. I recognise the argument that, if other commodities can be sold, then why not alcohol? On the other hand, I recognise that off-licences, although often small shops, have a large impact on urban areas, since the product sold is consumed in the immediate vicinity of the premises, and we could do without that on a Sunday.
  I certainly support the limitation on late licences although I agree that there is an interesting argument about the needs of a locality and the benefits to a community—we shall return to that, too. I also welcome the fact that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on under-age drinking—it was an attempt to limit it—has reappeared, at least in part, in this measure. Obviously, the supermarket provision—the three points of sale—has gone under the second point in the Bill, and we shall want to consider that carefully. I am sure that the Committee will unanimously want to take seriously the problems of under-aged drinking and to put further controls on the statute book.
  I am afraid that there is widespread opposition among Labour Members to clause 46 and police entry to registered clubs. The case against that was effectively put in another place by Lord Cawley. There was one of the few votes—it was close—on this Bill when this clause was discussed, and the case for it is not sufficiently made merely by saying that it was recommended by the Clayson and Guest committees. There is a clear distinction between a public house, which members of the public are invited to enter at their will, and a members' club. I am not satisfied that the invasion of privacy that this proposal represents is justified.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) expressed concern in his characteristic way, in a number of attempted interventions, because the Secretary

  183
  of State was parading the Law Society's support for this idea during the consultation exercise. But Members have received a letter dated 8 June 1990 which says of clause 46:
  "The Law Society views with concern the apparent increase in police power to enter registered clubs without warrant."
  I do not doubt that the Secretary of State has correctly reported what was said at an earlier stage, but the Law Society has had second thoughts, and I am glad to have made my hon. Friend's point on his behalf.
  We believe that warrant on cause shown is a necessary protection for private clubs, and we shall argue thus in committee.
  Dr. John Reid: I shall be brief, and I do not intend to seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later, but I remind my hon. Friend that, back in 1961 and subsequently, when considering licensing in England and this issue of warrants, the then Home Secretary said that one of the most valued privileges of clubs is freedom from police entry without warrant and that that privilege should be retained as it has been in England. Does my hon. Friend agree that the privilege should be retained in Scotland and that that reinforces the case for it?
  Mr. Dewar: Yes, it sounds an interesting passage, which might be recycled with advantage at a later stage. My hon. Friend makes a serious point about a serious point. We should not be cavalier about giving away rights in the proposed way.
  Like most hon. Members, I have a long-standing interest in divorce and hence in clause 53. I remember, back in the 1960s, moving a 10-minute Bill to replace the matrimonial offence with the ground of irretrievable breakdown. It was right to reduce the importance of the matrimonial offence, with all its inherent tendencies to embittering claim and counter-claim. I also accept that the law must reflect social reality—an important principle, easily forgotten. I recognise that the move to two years without consent and one year with consent was recommended after a good deal of thought by the Law Commission—rather quaintly bolstered by a public opinion survey by which Ministers in another place laid great store.
  I must record my doubts about this matter and about the speed of change. I am rather surprised by this provision —as was Lord Hailsham, who felt that there was virtue in keeping the basic groundwork of divorce the same north and south of the border. Recently, the Lord Chancellor has made speeches about easier divorce which do not sit easily with this provision. I accept, however, that there is a case for change and I shall support some change. For example, I think that the five-year period during which consent can be withheld is too long. There is a genuine danger—although it can be exaggerated—of undue pressure being applied when it comes to negotiations over possessions and terms, or perhaps even access and custody, when one party refuses to grant a divorce and knows that he has five years in hand.
  Meanwhile, the other party may have found a new partner, and children may be on the way or have arrived. Unpleasantness can then arise and an unfair advantage can be given, so I think that the five-year period should be reduced. There are no absolutes in this, but my judgment is that it should come down to three years, probably not to the two years proposed by the Law Commission. It is important that marriage should not be seen as a trap. If
  184
  both parties are satisfied that the marriage is at an end, and if the courts are satisfied that the proper arrangements have been made for the children, there is a case for thinking in terms of one or two years—it is a difficult judgment. However, I would not go as low as the Government propose on the non-consent provision.
  Dr. Godman: Given that I am not likely to receive an invitation to join the Committee which will scrutinise the—[Interruption.] In view of what the Whip is telling me, perhaps I should withdraw that remark.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 needs to be changed in another crucial way? While an order can be obtained under that Act to remove an accused perpetrator of child abuse or sexual abuse from the matrimonial home, the procedure is far too slow and cumbersome. Surely in all such cases it is the accused perpetrator who should be removed from the matrimonial home, not the children?
  Mr. Dewar: I should like to read what my hon. Friend has said. The Act is an area of some difficulty. There is no doubt that it was an important change in the law and that it was welcome and socially desirable, but there are problems in its operation. One ambiguity in the Act is tackled in this Bill by the matrimonial interdicts and the circumstances in which they have to be reported to the police. No doubt, with my hon. Friend's help, we shall return to that in Committee. One of my regrets is that the opportunities for exploring these matters will be limited by the time factor, but I accept that my hon. Friend has made a perfectly legitimate point for consideration.
  I hope that we shall debate video evidence and the Government's approach to it in Committee. I have always seen this as having to do with child abuse, or with the protection of complainers in certain sexual assault cases —especially rape—or with the Roskill report on serious fraud. The clause gives an unlimited right, subject to the judge's satisfaction that it is in the interests of justice. The Secretary of State has said that this will be implemented only for murder, manslaughter and serious fraud—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Culpable homicide.
  Mr. Dewar: Indeed—I am sorry.
  I will have to look at this, but, apart from fraud, these were not the offences that I thought would require video linking. It makes deeper my genuine puzzlement as to why we are taking this approach and why we are being faced with that list. There are problems with video links. Cross-examination will be particularly difficult and there will be problems with the assessment of credibility because television can be a distorting medium.
  Dr. Godman: Have not the Government missed a fine opportunity to bring us into line with extant English legislation—the Criminal Justice Act 1988? Why have they refused to take this opportunity?
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend is making, in a direct and sensible way, a point that I was trying to make in a roundabout way, and that is that the list set out by the Secretary of State is not the one that I anticipated. It excludes some of the offences that I should have thought would be those for which the arguments for video linking would be strongest, such as offences involving children and sexual offences. However, these offences appear to be specifically excluded. That is why I said that I was puzzled

  185
  by the exchanges during the Secretary of State's speech. We shall come to this in Committee. On the basis of what I understand to be the position, my intention is to look for substantial changes. If, despite the difficulties, we are to have index linking, it should come for offences where it is appropriate rather than for these offences.
  I am surprised by the provisions dealing with war crimes. I shall not press the Secretary further, but the exception written into the Bill by the other place is indefensible and if it gets on the statute book it will have to be removed. I say that as one who has no enthusiasm for the War Crimes Bill, as I proved with my vote on it. It may be right to pause before final decisions are taken, but to leave the Bill as it is seems, to put it in the kindest way, quaint, and not something that I should want to do.
  The Bill covers many subjects—charities, definitions of homelessness, community service orders, probation hostels, the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984—all of which would justify extensive debate. We shall have to see what we can do in Committee. I am depressed about our prospects for doing so in the time allowed. This is not a good Bill. I do not go as far as the dean of the faculty of law at Edinburgh university, Professor Wolfson, who said that this should have been called the Scots Law (Abolition) Bill. Nor do I believe, as he suggested, that this is the death of the Scottish legal system. I do not even share his fear that the atmosphere in the Scottish courts will be set by slick accountants from Clapham. That is a little excitable.
  There are genuine and substantial fears about what the Bill proposes. The way in which it has been handled reflects little credit on the Government. The balance of the argument is against the measure. I have no hesitation in urging my colleagues, and perhaps others, to vote for our amendment.
  6.23 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I speak tonight, I hope without prejudice, but with some experience of the matters covered by the Bill. I regret to say that I find most of it extremely unsatisfactory. I should declare an interest, or perhaps many interests, because the Bill covers so many sectors that it is difficult to know which interest to declare. I am a Queen's counsel, I am a practising lawyer, I drink on Sundays and, from time to time, I subscribe to charity. At the moment, I am not homeless, nor am I intending to divorce my wife. Lest these matters arose in the course of the Bill, which may require a new clause to alter the Scottish calendar, I would declare them in advance.
  This is a bad Bill. It is a sandwich of stale bread and poisoned meat. Part I is a thick bit of bread about charities. Part II is a very thick piece of beef which is seriously contaminated. Part IV is a miscellany of breadcrumbs and Part III is no doubt a potion on the licensing laws to help us to swallow the indigestible bits.
  I have always had my reservations about theoretical organisations such as the Law Commission reinventing the law as they believe that it should be, but a miscellaneous provisions Bill is useful so as to adjust the law to the reasonable changes and subtle circumstances of our life in all its manifestations in Scotland, from time to time as
  186
  circumstances dictate. However, the convulsion that the proposals in the Bill will cause and its effects on the legal profession should not be undertaken in a miscellaneous provisions Bill, and certainly should not be embarked upon in the middle of June. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar): it is an imposition and an unfairness, principally on Members of Parliament, but infinitely worse on the public and on all parts of the profession.
  Part I, dealing with charities, is verbose and complex. Scotland has been lucky, in that charities can merely apply for their various purposes to the Inland Revenue and, if that is proved, that is that. We do not have charity commissioners, although we may have been happy to shelter under their umbrella to a certain extent. However, to take 18 pages and 13 clauses to do almost nothing would be a remarkable legislative achievement if it were to get through.
  I am in doubt as to the necessity or purpose of part I, but our system works. If a charity holds itself out to be something that it is not, the Lord Advocate has an automatic remit to exercise the powers that are now taken in the Bill. If there is a prima facie criminal offence, he can investigate and prosecute. Why do we have to take statutory provisions, at such length, to do the same? If the Lord Advocate cannot do that, the Inland Revenue, which probably knows no rules, will do it for itself.
  Many of the powers that the Bill will introduce are superfluous. The Government had a great opportunity to make a register of charities with their purposes, so that those who give can know to whom they wish to give and others may know from whom they might seek help. There is not a week in my life in which people do not write to me or ring me up to ask me, "Can you tell me of a charity that might help me with my problem?" The Scots Magazine used to publish such a list, but alas, it does so no longer. If we are to have these vast and bureaucratic regulations, such a list is the least that the public can expect to have included.
  Great burdens of administration are newly put upon charities but every penny spent on administration is lost to them. We already know how easily those who run a charity can exhaust its income by so doing. All the administrative requirements to be put on charities as a result of the Bill are likely to absorb a great deal of the money given in good will for purposes which are not administrative.
  Clause 5 gives cause for great caution. The Lord Advocate is granted powers of investigation, demand and scrutiny that go beyond the powers of natural justice and any powers that could or should be used or granted to others. I welcome clauses 8 and 9, which seek, however clumsily, to simplify the winding up or the change to a small trust or charity. I doubt whether any of their trustees will comprehend the legislation, assuming that they know where to find it or can read it. They can, I suppose, consult a solicitor, if there are any left, and exhaust the funds of their trust or charity to avoid the necessity to change its purpose.
  I am sure that even my severest critic would not suggest that I was an establishment man. No one has been a more consistent critic of the various weaknesses of all branches of the profession—or, I trust, a better sustainer of its strengths. Therefore, I speak with conviction. I am not speaking about part II because I am a lawyer. I am not a lawyer to serve myself. I have spent my life serving the client, and the purpose of the legal profession is to serve

  187
  the client. I am appalled by the proposals in part II because I believe that they will seriously damage those who seek the help of the legal profession.
  Part II encompasses clauses 14 to 17, and takes up five pages of the Bill. It proposes to set up a new quango with grants from public funds to enable banks, building societies and other financial institutions, many of which will have their headquarters and certainly the bulk of their capital and finance forth of Scotland, to act as conveyancers.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden was right to say that part II deals with an important matter. I believe that it is extraordinary that we are setting up a quango to qualify people as conveyancers who are not even qualified as lawyers, far less as conveyancers. We are setting up a quango to qualify the unqualified, for the purposes of the great institutions. We are therefore disfranchising 1,100 firms of solicitors to give the great institutions an opportunity. I asked the Secretary of State why the Bill does not mention hairdressers, do-it-yourself shops or others who might care to take on conveyancing. The answer is that they do not have a financial interest in doing so. The fact that the banks and the building societies are the institutions that will undertake the conveyancing means, ipso facto, that the playing field will be one on which no team could beat Costa Rica.
  Let us be clear about this. We are to have qualified surveyors who will undertake conveyancing or the legal work involved with the buying and selling of a house in vacuo. Those people will not be asked whether they can tell Mrs. Snodgrass about the implications of putting that house in joint names. That is not a conveyancing matter, but a matrimonial one. Those people will be unable to tell Mr. Snodgrass what happens if he puts the house in his wife's name and she leaves him. They will be unable to say what will happen if, by the slightest chance, the property is split or is subject to independent planning permission. They will be unable to say what happens to a residual feu right. They will not know the answers. They will know none of the general law which affects the purchase and sale of a house. It is not good enough to say that one is a qualified conveyancer.
  Do the Government intend to set up qualified divorcers? Will a fellow put a postcard through the sheriff court, or whatever one does nowadays, without knowing the law of succession? Will we have qualified criminal people who know about the criminal law only and nothing about the law of evidence and procedure? It is a most extraordinary concept that people should be trained as qualified conveyancers—I regret that the term QC is thereby debased, as it shares the same initials—to do a tiny scrap of work that is vital to solicitors, but just another bit of the roast for the great institutions.
  The most important effect of the Bill is that it will give the institutions the power to buy and sell one's house, survey it, insure it and insure one's life and those of one's children. Such is the power that the institutions will combine. No statute, no interest and no power will prevent that irresistible path. We already know that many building societies say, "If you don't use our surveyor, you don't get your mortgage." Similarly, they say that, if a person does not allow them to sell his house, he will not get a mortgage to buy the next one. No provision thought up by the Lord Chancellor in another place, now in a Bill, will prevent that. No doubt the regulations will say that one must be faced with a lawyer if one wants one. The regulations will
  188
  say that people must have that right. How many people have the right to have a lawyer in a police station when it is in their interests to have one, and how many just happen to sign a form saying that they do not want one? No provision under the Financial Services Act 1986 can prevent what will be a considerable advantage to the institutions. The Government say that it is all about choice, but it is a crocodile choice, snake choice—we will lick you first and eat you later.
  Clause 22 concerns rights of audience. My comments on it are made, I hope, without prejudice, as an advocate who has been in practice for many years and has had the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the House assisting him as his junior or, in some cases, very junior. Even the Secretary of State has been my junior, but I will not comment on how useful he was on those occasions.
  Dr. Godman: And the Lord Advocate.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Yes, the Lord Advocate has been my junior as well.
  One of the most important parts of the law, as of the medical profession, is to have an independent body of experts who have nothing to do with the client except during the case in which they are concerned. A solicitor has frequently told me to call a policeman a liar—to do what the client wants, so that he will be pleased with the solicitor. That is bad agency, but it happens. The advocate will never see the client again. I used to, because I used to get them off.
  Mr. Foulkes: But they were all guilty.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: There is a presumption of innocence in the case of my clients, but perhaps not in those of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, (Mr. Foulkes).
  It is essential and it is shown in the difference between the pleading in the sheriff court and the High Court, that the person who presents the case is not involved in a contractual relationship with the client whom he hopes to keep for all other purposes. It is also essential that, in small towns and small places—even in places as big as Inverness— a solicitor can protect himself by obtaining the opinion and services of counsel.
  A solicitor is often busy. People come in and out. One may want to buy a house, one may want to divorce his wife, one may want to make a will and one may have fallen over the pavement. A solicitor may have a hundred things on his mind. To be able to obtain somebody who has only one problem on his mind is an important service. If solicitors and advocates are linked so that advocates are part of practices in Glasgow or Edinburgh, how does one obtain the services of Mr. X? How does one obtain my services? The only way to obtain my services is to instruct the firm of solicitors of which I am a partner, and once a local firm does that, it has lost all that person's business for good. Or a local firm may say that my services are not necessary because it has a frightfully good chap, Mr. McSnod, a marvellous court practitioner. In doing so, it gives a bad service and the public will lose out.
  The serious point about interference in the solicitors' profession and the rights of representation is that the client will not have a solicitor service in the countryside, and in the towns the smaller firms will be compromised and the multi-disciplinary practices will pervade. Anyone who knows the differences between their charges will be fearful

  189
  of the effect. The destruction of the solicitors' profession will remove a considerable prop and structure of rural life and one of the great characteristics of the structure of the legal profession in Scotland.
  If we are to change our conveyancing profession, which we say is so much better than that in England, we should do something about the one bad thing in it, which is blind bidding. It is ridiculous that a young couple may bid for 20 houses without knowing whether one has been lost by a penny or whether £20,000 too much has been spent. Each time, they have to obtain a survey and a solicitor. I propose to table a new clause so that all bids for the purchase of a property must be disclosed to all bidders.
  I come briefly to divorce. It is a difficult problem but, as the hon. Member for Garscadden said, it is outrageous that the financial benefits of holding out on somebody else for five years should be available. The hon. Gentleman said that he would like the period reduced a little, but I do not see that reducing it to three years would remove the blackmail. Where the parties are separated, a person should be allowed to go to the court and satisfy it that the parties will never live together again. In some cases the court may say that it thinks that the marriage has a chance and the partners must try again for a year. But I do not see why there should be a statutory period of five, three, 10 or two years. Admittedly, the laws of legitimacy have been changed, but if a separated woman is approaching the end of her puerperal capabilities, during that time she cannot give rise to other than an illegitimate child. Therefore, it is wrong to have a statutory time in which one partner can, for whatever reason, hold out on the other.
  I have no doubt talked for far too long, but I wish to raise one other matter in the schedules—the appointment of judges to the Inner House or the Appeal Court. Scotland has a collegiate court. Its members eat and drink together every day. They all know one another intimately. They meet one another every day. It is absurd that the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk should be able to pack their court as they would like it packed. I will not mention names—nisi nil bonum de mortuis—but many of those who are asleep before whom I have pled from time to time would have made it on merit in the days when they could stay awake.
  This is not an improvement. It is also contrary to the terms of appointment of those judges. For instance, it suggests that they have been allowed to be judges when they were not good enough to be judges. We have a Lord President who had never judged anything in his life until he became a judge. He has never been a sheriff principal. That measure is unpopular with all the judges, except, presumably, the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. But let us also be careful about this. All the judges —the Lords Ordinary—sit in the division, civil and criminal, and it is extraordinary for the House to say that people who, according to the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk, are disqualified from promotion should sit in the division. That is what it means. That is an unacceptable change in the collegiality of the College of Justice in Scotland.
  I am sorry to say that there are so many things about the Bill which I find unacceptable that I would spend the rest of the night if I were to mention a quarter of them. But
  190
  I hope that that I have given the Government warning that, in almost every part of the Bill, I shall be opposed to their purpose.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I am honoured to follow the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who made such a valuable contribution to our debate and made me aware of why I would never make a good member of a jury. The hon. and learned Gentleman has persuaded me against the provisions in the Bill which change various aspects of the legal profession. But I am equally sure that, in 10 minutes' time, I could listen to another advocate who would persuade me of the opposite view. That is one of the major dilemmas for laymen and laywomen when dealing with this legislation.
  I know the hon. and learned Gentleman well enough to say that, if anyone appreciates that he has spent his life representing his clients, it is me. I know him well enough to tell the famous anecdote from when Duncan Mackenzie was the governor at Barlinnie. He was walking through the grounds one morning in the company of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Several prisoners on exercise said, "Good morning, Mr. Fairbairn." Big Duncan turned to the hon. and learned Gentleman and said, "You haven't been doing so well lately, have you?"
  I was interested in the comparison that the hon. and learned Gentleman made with hairdressers undertaking conveyancing. As a house purchaser, I would certainly never dream of asking a barber to do the conveyancing on my house. But to be fair to the hairdressing profession, nor would I dream of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to cut my hair—although the last haircut that I had might suggest that he had cut it.
  I begin with a word of caution to the Minister who will reply to the debate. Where he sits now, I once sat. I recognise some well-known faces assisting him in the Box. When I was a Minister, I dealt with precisely the same kind of legislation with which the Minister is dealing tonight and will steer through Committee. I was responsible for the Licensing (Scotland) Bill in 1976 and the Divorce (Scotland) Bill in 1976. I was assisted by some of those who are assisting the Minister. The word of caution is this. At the subesquent election, the Government were defeated, so I suggest to the Minister that he start looking for another job. I am not saying that those who are assisting him had that effect on me as a Minister, but there is some connection between the two things that I mention.
  I speak as a layman. As such, I am not sure that the changes in conveyancing are as draconian as the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross or even my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) sought to persuade us. I appreciate that one of the most important things, particularly for a young couple, that people do in their life is to purchase their first house. With house prices as they are now, it is commonplace for a young couple starting out in life to pay £30,000, £35,000 or £40,000 for their first house. As I look around the Chamber, I can see no hon. Members who were in that position when they first started out on married life.
  It is absolutely crucial that the financial and legal details of the important transaction of buying a house are absolutely right as far as we can ensure. As we know, consequences on resale and all that goes with it, problems

  191
  arising from the breakdown of marriage—I shall come to that matter later—and all sorts of other things may flow from the initial transaction. I shall be persuaded to support the Bill during progress through its various stages if I can be convinced that what we are doing as elected Members of Parliament is in the best interests of people, particularly young couples, who make that vital decision.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the same risk does not arise when elderly people or people who have had more experience of buying and selling houses purchase a home. Some people move from house to house at regular intervals, so the same risk does not occur. My abiding concern is for a young couple starting out in life buying that expensive item called a house. It is essential that the financial and legal conditions under which that transaction is conducted are as right as we can make them.
  With great respect to estate agents, if making the legal conditions of conveyancing right means that it must remain in the hands of the legal profession, I support that. I am here to be convinced. I have an open mind at present. Equally, if I can be convinced that estate agents could handle conveyancing with the proper training and registration, I should consider that possibility too. I hope that that is the way in which all hon. Members will consider this important legislation.
  I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden say that many of the issues raised by the Bill will be decided, at least on the Opposition side, by a free vote. This is not a party political issue. The best way to get these matters right is to decide them as we did in the Licensing (Scotland) Bill and the Divorce (Scotland) Bill. Except on two specific issues in the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which I shall deal with later, matters were decided on a free vote in order to obtain a consensus of opinion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred to the timetable for consideration of the Bill in Committee. There will be no filibustering in Committee, of that I am convinced. For that reason, it would be a great pity—I say this with great respect to the Minister, whom I know to be a fair man—if discussion were curtailed in Committee, as a result not of filibustering but of the date of the summer recess and the formal date for the opening of the next session of Parliament. The summer recess and the date for the opening of Parliament are not good reasons for curtailing discussion in Committee on an important Bill such as this.
  I have an open mind on the legal and conveyancing provisions in the Bill. I shall now move on from parts I and II to parts III and IV. Part III deals with licensing and part IV deals with divorce law reform. I intervened during the speech of the Secretary of State and he kindly gave way on police powers to enter clubs either without an invitation or without a warrant. I said to the Secretary of State, as I say again to the House, that the 1976 Bill contained such a provision. Although it was carried in Committee, it was heavily defeated on the Floor of the House and the Secretary of State and the Minister both voted against the proposal to allow the police the right of entry into licensed clubs without a warrant.
  The arguments were clear and sound. The argument was led by the late Michael Clark Hutchison, who represented Edinburgh, South. He argued that a club was an extension of a person's residence because there are residential clubs which are licensed. There are such clubs in Edinburgh. Just as the police do not have the right to
  192
  enter a person's residence without either an invitation or a warrant, neither should they have the right to enter an extension of that person's residence in the form of a club. I agree with those who say that any extension of police powers must be considered much more seriously than is provided for in this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) may read into the record the statement issued by the Law Society some 60 minutes ago. It is concerned about the proposal in the Bill to allow the police right of entry into licensed clubs. It will permit a constable to enter a club without a warrant or an invitation, full stop. He does not need to suspect that a crime is being committed, that there is unruly behaviour, or that anything untoward is happening. That is not the case with a public house. A police officer cannot enter a public house unless he suspects that some offence is being committed. If this provision is enacted, private clubs will not be on a par with public houses. The most serious consideration must be given to that proposal. I hope that the Minister will take a good long hard look at it in Committee.
  Mr. Buchan: A similar provision was included in the Broadcasting Bill, in the notorious clause 145, to allow police entry to studios on suspicion—but that was withdrawn by the Government on a United Kingdom basis. At the same time, they are attempting to introduce a similar draconian provision in a Scottish Bill to allow police entry without a warrant.
  Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. He makes an important comparison that should be taken into account.
  I am aware that the police in Scotland have long wanted such a power. There is no greater supporter of the police than me, but the mere fact that the police want such powers is not a good reason for giving them. We must consider the interests of the individual who will be affected by the granting of them. I should have thought that, at present, the police, certainly in Scotland, are under sufficient pressure without imposing an additional burden to the duties they are already asked to undertake on behalf of the public.
  As to the change in licensing hours, I accept that the regular extension has been abused. I remember the discussions we had with the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, when no one anticipated the consequences for a moment. For the first time, I publicly pay tribute to the late Jimmy Ross from Dundee, president of the association at that time, who did tremendous work in guiding us with that legislation. We were open to discussion with anyone and everyone who wanted to talk to us during its formulation. The association did not anticipate that the regular extension would be used in the way that it has been used under the 1976 Act.
  There are residential areas in my own constituency, as there are in those of other right hon. and hon. Members, where regular extensions have caused untold trouble. I have no complaint about additional powers being given to the licensing boards in that respect.
  Where I part company with the Bill and, I suspect, with the Minister, is in relation to the dangerous decision to allow off-sales premises to open from 10.30 am to 10 pm on Sunday. I fail to understand the reason for that provision. The Secretary of State said that it was the result of a survey. When, in 1976, I was the Minister with

  193
  responsibility for reforming licensing laws in Scotland, there was a knock at the door of my home in Leven. On the doorstep was a student from St. Andrews university earning an honest crumb by undertaking a survey on behalf of the Scottish Office on licensing law reforms.
  Her first question was to me, "Do you know that the Government are reforming the licensing laws?"—to which I replied that I had read about it somewhere. She then went through about 20 pages of questions about my drinking habits. I will not go into either the questions or answers because you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not be interested in hearing them. She ended with this gem. She said, "I should tell you that we are not supposed to mention the Government really, because they are unpopular at the minute." She could have told me that again. She explained, "We do not want their unpopularity to rub off on the reforms of the licensing laws." That was the basis upon which that survey was undertaken.
  Surveys are notorious for eliciting popular answers to the questions they pose—not accurate or meaningful answers, but popular answers. There is a difference. If the Minister went into Asda in Kirkaldy on a Sunday and asked Mrs. Brown there, "As you have been able to buy your magazine, sugar, jam and pizza, do you think it's fair that you can't buy a bottle of wine?", Mrs. Brown would be bound to reply, "No, it's no fair." We can be certain that Asda would make sure that Mrs. Brown would say it was unfair. I am never convinced by surveys, but I am convinced of the dangers created by the opening of off-sales premises on Sunday.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) said, Scotland has the most serious under-age drinking problem of any western European country, so it is the height of irresponsibility for the Government to introduce such changes at this time. It has been proven beyond doubt that the source of the alcohol purchased by under-age drinkers is invariably off-licences. That is because of the ease with which youngsters can buy alcohol from them, and, even worse, because of the irresponsible adults who are prepared to buy liquor from off-licence stores and give it to the youngsters outside the shop.
  An added feature that I bitterly regret not taking care of in the 1976 legislation is the open selection of alcohol. No one should be able to enter a store and take a bottle of whisky from the shelf and go to a check-out where the cashier sees a queue half a mile long waiting to pay. She is not concerned whether or not the person with that bottle of whisky is 16 or 60. She is more concerned with taking the money for that item. One cannot blame her, because she is under pressure to get that queue down. The open selection of alcohol in the off-licence sections of supermarkets adds to the problem of under-age drinking.
  The Minister has no defence. Off-licences are open from 8 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night—not from 11 am to 11 pm as in other places. They are open that long six days a week, and there is no need to add Sunday opening from 12.30 pm until 10 o'clock at night.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we would very much welcome him
  194
  on the Committee, where he could use his experience in tabling amendments? Is he aware also that clause 45 attempts to deal with that specific problem? It states:
  "any off-sale premises … or any employee or agent … who causes or permits a person under 18 to sell on these premises alcoholic liquor without that sale having been specifically approved by the licence holder or by a person of or over 18 … shall be guilty of an offence."
  If the hon. Gentleman has further suggestions, we will welcome them in Committee.
  Mr. Ewing: That does not deal with the problem of the pre-selection of wines and spirits in supermarkets. We should ensure that wine, spirits and alcohol of any description is treated in the same way as cigarettes and served by an assistant. We cannot go into a supermarket and take cigarettes off the shelf. We have to go right round the supermarket, do all the shopping and then go to a counter and get an assistant to serve us with cigarettes. We should do the same for alcohol. That is one of the things that I hope to suggest at a later stage of the Bill.
  Before I leave the subject, the Secretary of State said that the legislation will bring Scotland in line with England. Goodness me, what a thing to say to the House of Commons. The position in England is exactly the opposite, because people can buy liquor on Sunday but they cannot buy groceries, whereas in Scotland people can buy groceries but not liquor. That seemed to be a stupid remark from the Secretary of State in defence of a proposal to open off-sales on a Sunday.
  I know what has happened, because it also happened when we put the licensing legislation together. The large multiples have been to the Government and asked them to make such a change. They have said, "We tried to persuade the Labour Government to do it and they wouldn't do it," and the Government have given in. It is as simple as that, and it is not a result of surveys or anything else.
  I want the Minister to think carefully about the effects of the legislation. The Daily Record in Scotland has highlighted month after month the issue of under-age drinking and the serious problems that that causes.
  I end my speech on the subject of divorce law reform. Once again I pay tribute to a former Member of Parliament who sat on the Scottish National party bench. The Divorce (Scotland) Bill was not a Government Bill, but a private Member's Bill introduced by George Reid —[HON. MEMBERS: "No, it was Ian MacCormack."] I thank hon. Members for that reply in unison. That is the only time that I have heard two Members of the Scottish National party agree. If I have achieved nothing else, I have achieved agreement on the SNP benches. It was not George Reid—it was Ian MacCormack. The Labour Government took the Bill over, because we wanted to ensure that the new divorce law reform was a meaningful measure.
  I do not take the view that my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden took, and I certainly do not take the same view as the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross. I am not happy about the proposal to reduce the time in which one of the parties in a defended action does not agree on a divorce, from five years to two. I am even less happy about reducing to one year the two-year limit which proves the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage.
  In such a serious situation, especially where children are involved, there has to be time for second thoughts and for reconciliation. I remember when the Divorce (Scotland)

  195
  Act proceeded through its stages. One of the favourite songs in Scotland at the time was the "Church, the Courthouse and then Goodbye" by Sidney Devine. If we reduce the time limits as proof of irretrievable breakdown of marriage from two years to one year and the limit when one of the parties does not agree to a divorce from five years to two years, we are moving rapidly towards the church, the courthouse and then goodbye. That is no basis on which to build a stable society.
  Dr. Godman: Do my hon. Friend's most serious reservations about that issue hold true for childless couples?
  Mr. Ewing: I take the view that there has to be time for second thoughts and reconciliation. Yes, I still take the view that I have explained.
  In Committee, I hope to move an amendment to the Army Act 1955. Recently, I have been involved in a case in which Falkirk sheriff court made a maintenance order against a staff sergeant in the Army, but his commanding officer, under the terms of the Army Act 1955, has set it aside. Hon. Members may not be aware of this, as I was not until it was brought to my attention. As a result, one of my constituents and her two children get no maintenance because the staff sergeant's commanding officer considers that he should not be paying it. Falkirk sheriff court took the decision that he should, and set the level of maintenance. It sent the order to the commanding officer. He insisted that it was delivered to him personally by a court officer, who was sent down from Falkirk to the barracks in Manchester to deliver it.
  I have taken the matter up with the Secretary of State for Defence—who is a member of a family Government, we are told—only to be told in a reply today that the Government are upholding the commanding officer's decision to set aside the court maintenance order. That is an absolute disgrace, and I hope that we can deal with the matter in Committee.
  As the House will gather, I have some serious reservations about the Bill and I hope that we can effect changes as it goes through its various stages.
  7.15 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: After the debate so far, one thing is certain—we shall have an interesting Committee stage. I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that this is not, in the main, a party political Bill, and there are probably no political runs in it. That is why in some ways it is a pity that the House is not consulted before legislation. Would it not be much better to discuss some of the issues in the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee rather than to consult interested parties who give predictable answers, we should then get a general view from hon. Members representing constituents who probably have a much less biased view than those people who were consulted officially.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Forgetting about the Scottish Grand Committee, there is a perfectly good procedure, which was used on the Family Law Reform Act 1969, in which evidence is given about the desirability or otherwise of every clause of the Bill. That procedure was used only once, for that Act, and it ought to be used for this Bill.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his knowledge of that procedure. However, we
  196
  are debating a broad-reaching Bill which covers a whole host of topics. It is difficult to give a coherent Second Reading speech with a theme. One has to jump about almost as though one were in Committee.
  I share the view of all hon. Members that we are setting out a remarkably tight schedule for the Committee stage. It would be a pity if we had to have debates through the night when they should be taken at a reasonable pace and hour so that the general public can follow them as well as Members of the Committee.
  I am also concerned, although it is too late to do anything about it now, that the title of the Bill is as wide and as long as it is. One could discuss almost any subject to do with the law under that title, and that will not help to achieve a concise ending in Committee.
  I agree in general with many of the provisions of part I and give general support to it. However, I have many doubts about the legal services provision. So far as I recall, I have had no constituency correspondence in recent years in favour of change, whether on the issue of solicitors and advocates or on conveyancing. The general public are much less concerned about the legal profession in Scotland than the Bill gives us to understand. They are not expecting such dramatic changes to the profession. I wonder, therefore, whether the heartache is worth the eventual gain.
  Conveyancing is vital to the legal profession. I listened with great interest and concern to the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who speaks with exceptional experience of the law in Scotland. There is competition now in conveyancing. Solicitors say that clients ring up and ask, "What fee will you charge to convey this house?" The scale fees are virtually disregarded. Competition comes in the form of the solicitor's response—what he will charge to carry out a conveyance. That competition is important. My lion. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross and even my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred to the conflict of interest which is highlighted in many of the admirable papers that we have received from the Law Society.
  Solicitors give advice on conveyancing, over and above the legal requirement. They give first-time buyers advice on setting up house—whether it should be done in partnership. They give clear and independent advice on insurance. Naturally, insurance commission is important to the insurance company. One has to ask whether institutions will use conveyancing as a loss leader. The package deal which may be offered does not necessarily include the important legal advice that a father, if he were legally qualified, might give his son. The family solicitor's advice to his client is all-important.
  The provisions may require there to be a face-to-face relationship with the client. That face, however, will have removed itself to Edinburgh or Glasgow, 50 or 100 miles away, when the chips are down and the removal van arrives. Who, then, will deal with the problem about electrical fittings and the fact that the fireplace has been removed? And what about the porch at the back? All the problems concerning a property can, however, be resolved at relatively short notice by the solicitor, who is within a mile or so of his client. One may go to a building society or chartered surveyor and sign a form because it looks like a simple and complete package deal, but these matters

  197
  ought to be dealt with slowly and carefully, with the advice and help of a solicitor. We should take great care when legislating to deal with this problem.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) highlighted the fact that if solicitors do not have an important part to play in Scottish conveyancing they will lose between 60 and 80 per cent. of their income. If they do not have that income, they will be unable to subsidise other aspects of their practice. They give advice on community matters, which is absolutely crucial. We shall be removing a stable and important aspect of professional advice that has often been given free to the community. That help will not be there if the bread-and-butter income from conveyancing disappears.
  The Government must examine that aspect, particularly in the rural context. It will be difficult legally to define what is meant by the rural aspect. What is rural and what is urban? Would one describe Inverness as a rural town? I believe that it is, but others might say that it was too large to be considered a rural town. The same might be said of Dumfries. Would one have to consider only solicitors in small towns, with populations of between 5,000 and 8,000? My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider carefully all the aspects surrounding conveyancing. It may be a major stumbling block in Committee. I am unhappy about the proposals, and I shall expect substantial changes to be made upstairs.
  We are told to wait for the regulations that will govern the new conveyancing body. The regulations are not contained in the Bill. Will they be put before the Committee? I am not inclined to give a blank cheque in the hope that the regulations and the guidance will be all right. We ought to have before us in Committee a draft of the regulations so that they may be considered with the clause.
  I do not believe that the building societies will be particularly enthusiastic about conveyancing. That may be so in the cities, but it will be less so in rural areas. We should not be prepared to take the risk. Building societies are responsible institutions, but Scottish solicitors are infinitely more important when it comes to conveyancing. We must bear that point in mind when we deal in Committee with conveyancing.
  I note that a legal services ombudsman will replace the lay observer. That person must be provided with a great deal more power than the lay observer enjoys. The lay observer was outstandingly good, but invariably she ended up saying, "You are absolutely right and I am absolutely right, but I have no power to go any further." The ombudsman must be able to give advice and then ensure that the particular aspect of the legal profession's failure which has been submitted to him or her, as ombudsman, is rectified. The ombudsman must be an effective trouble-shooter.
  I share the disquiet of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East and other hon. Members about the licensing laws. I served on the Committee that considered the 1976 Bill. Dr. Clayson is one of my constituents. He is an exceptional personality who has not received the recognition that he deserves for the changes that he brought about in the Scottish licensing laws. We must proceed cautiously in Committee. Many of us have received petitions and correspondence from the Kirk Sessions.
  198
  There is great concern about the off-licence issue as it relates to supermarkets. How right the hon. Member for Falkirk, East was to say that it is the easiest thing in the world to dodge the age rule in a supermarket. When a lot of people are waiting to be checked out, no one is going to haggle about whether someone is 16, 17, 18 or 19 years old. I welcome the idea that a voluntary identification card should be carried by people who are on the borderline. That would prove their age, but we ought not to encourage young people to drink. The provision allowing alcohol to be available at off-licences on Sundays will make control that much harder. We must watch that closely. I welcome the measure on late night drinking as virtually all of us have dealt with constituency cases in which a great deal of noise near hotels and pubs has caused dissatisfaction to neighbours. I am glad that the Bill take that into account.
  However, I approach clause 46 with strong reservations, indeed opposition. It involves the powers of entry into private clubs. Reference has been made to what the Home Secretary said in 1961. That seems to hold as soundly now as it did then. Private clubs have held the cherished position of being an extension of one's home, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East said. However strongly I support the police, as a past chairman of the police committee in my area, I believe that those powers are unnecessary and go too far. If the police are suspicious, they can get a warrant. As has been said, the legislation would put the clubs in a more restricted position than the pubs. Surely that cannot be right. We shall have to examine the clause extremely carefully. All the signs are that there is united opposition to clause 46, it is unlikely to have a very successful passage through the Committee.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Under that part of the clause, the police would have the right to enter my hon. Friend's home to see whether he had sold me a drink rather than offered me one, even if neither was likely.
  Sir Hector Monro: My dear hon. and learned Friend pushes me to the limit at times. He knows that there is a standing invitation and a bottle of Laphroig waiting for him whenever he wishes to come to my home—and what a delight it is when he and his dear wife visit.
  Somewhat inappropriately, I now move on to divorce. Here again, we have to make haste very carefully. I am concerned that the proposed legislation gives a general impression that divorce will be easier. If the limit is down to a year, some people will say, "Why the hell should we get married? Let us wait a year and see how it goes and we may save the bother of getting a divorce." The sanctity of marriage is so important. I should like there to be a tremendous lead from the Church on divorce, but we do not seem to be getting one. I am most concerned that children will be put in a more serious position than they are now when their parents break up.
  I agree that sometimes marriages are irretrievable, but that should be judged by the courts and not decided on a time scale set out in legislation. Everything should always be considered on balance by people with mature judgment. Instead of saying that the Bill states three years, two years or one year, they should consider how best to achieve, first, a reconciliation, secondly, responsibility to the children who will be left in the worst position of all and, thirdly, whether anything can be done to stop the marriage breaking up. The Bill makes it apparently easier to get a divorce, and that is the last thing that we should be doing.

  199
  Divorce should be the last point of no return and not the first means to break up a marriage and forget all about it. Obviously there will be detailed debate on that in Committee.
  There is much to do, and so that my hon. Friend the Minister knows where I stand before we reach Committee, it is no use expecting my support for implementing the war crimes legislation in any form, as I share the view of the House of Lords that it is inappropriate in 1990. I accept that it will have to be reconsidered in the next Session, but we must not have any paving legislation in the Bill, which might enhance the chances of war crimes legislation succeeding in the future.
  There are good things in the Bill, although I had to look rather hard to find them, but by and large my hon. Friend the Minister must have gathered from both sides of the House that the proceedings in Committee will cause a great deal of interest in Scotland.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), because of the nature of the Bill, I have a number of interests to declare. First, I am a trustee of a trust that will require to give information if part I of the Bill is enacted. Secondly, I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates, whose interests may be thought in some respect to be affected by part II of the Bill. Thirdly, in regard to the provisions on licensing, I was a member of the Clayson committee whose report formed the basis of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to which reference has already been made. Since then I have acted for and advised individuals and companies that might be thought to profit if the provisions of part III are carried into effect.
  When the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross was discussing issues which, although not directly related to conveyancing, might inevitably have some significance for people who are buying and selling houses, he put his finger on one of the central weakenesses of the proposed legislation. I do not wish to add to what he said, save one more example.
  One of the issues that concerns people more than any other is how their property should be disposed of after their death. If the terms of a disposition of inheritable property are drawn in a particular way between a husband and a wife, the effect of the disposition may be to create a contract between them that prevents either of them from disposing of his or her share of the house. That is a complicated matter. The terms of the clauses of disposition require to be drawn extremely carefully. I find it difficult to conceive of how someone who has achieved the ungiddy heights of a licensed conveyancer will know precisely in what language to couch the disposition so as to preserve, if the parties so wish, the right to dispose of their own property as they please upon death.
  As speeches so far have demonstrated, most hon. Members find the Bill profoundly disappointing. I share that disappointment with its form, because issues of such substantial principle should not be dealt with in a Bill that has as its centrepiece the notion that it deals with miscellaneous provisions. I am disappointed in the content of the Bill because, in spite of the very effective promptings of the noble and learned Lord Morton of Shuna, who now sits on the Cross-Benches in another place, the
  200
  Government have still not realised that they are proceeding in part I in a way that is quite inimical to the law on charity in Scotland.
  A consequence of the provisions, which the Secretary of State did not deal with when I intervened, is that, if the trustees with responsibility for a village hall—heaven knows, there are many village halls up and down the length and breadth of Scotland—try to run an event that they describe as being for charity because it is for the purpose of replacing the roof of a village hall, they may be the subject of prosecution and ultimately conviction because they are holding themselves out to be a charity, although they are not a recognised body. If that is the abuse to which the Government are directing the provisions, they have a most peculiar idea of what constitutes abuse.
  I am also profoundly disappointed in what is omitted from the Bill. Nothing in the Bill will extend real and effective access to legal services to members of the public who do not at present enjoy that access. The Bill is a miscellany, as its name demonstrates. It has all the appearance of an overfilled net brought to the surface after a trawl through the filing cabinets of long-resigned Scottish Office officials. Cowperthwaite and Sharp may have gone from the Scottish Office, but their names live on for ever.
  I suppose, perversely, that one might welcome the Bill because it shows the inadequacy of Westminster as a forum for the proper scrutiny of Scottish legislation. In some quarters, the Bill may be regarded as an eloquent argument in favour of a Scottish Parliament, not least for the following reasons. A provision such as clause 53— which makes a radical change in divorce provisions in Scotland and is a distinctive change from divorce provisions south of the border—should not be embarked upon without careful scrutiny. The Secretary of State told us that he was relying to a large extent on public opinion in making some of the provisions in the Bill. I challenge him to test public opinion on whether any divorce should be possible with consent after the expiry of a period of 12 months. I challenge him to test public opinion on whether divorce should be possible after two years without consent. I suspect that the public would be antagonistic towards the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Dewar: Although I have some sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, I think that the Government would rely on the public opinion poll in the Law Commission's report which took a sample of nearly 1,000 people and found a good deal of support for their proposals, in that sample at least.
  Mr. Campbell: As has been pointed out, much depends on the terms of a survey and the way in which it is carried out. I suspect that the majority view of the people of Scotland is that, after 12 months, it should be possible for the two parties to say that they are satisfied that their marriage has irretrievably broken down and that, consequently, they are entitled to go to court and have a rubber stamp put on the dissolution of that marriage. No doubt we shall all wish to return to that matter in Committee.
  The liquor licensing provisions may be among the most controversial. I welcome the procedural improvements, but the main issue principle is whether off sales premises should have an automatic right to open on Sundays. Why

  201
  do the Government think that that is appropriate when the Bill preserves the situation whereby public houses are required to make a special case for opening on Sunday? If it is necessary for a public house to satisfy a local licensing board that it is desirable that its premises should be open on a Sunday, why not leave to the local licensing board the issue whether an off-sales premises should be open on a Sunday?
  There would be a great range of circumstances throughout Scotland, but there would also be a great range of circumstances throughout the jurisdiction of particular boards. There may be compelling reasons why off-sales premises should not be open on a Sunday in Glasgow, Garscadden. However, there may be good reasons why such premises should be open in Renfield street in the centre of Glasgow. That should be left to the discretion of the local boards.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: That is a dangerous approach. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, one of the attractions bringing big supermarkets to the massive retail parks throughout Scotland and making them decide to build in Dunfermline rather than Kirkcaldy would be advance information that their licensed section could open on a Sunday. The hon. and learned Gentleman's approach is not responsible.
  Mr. Campbell: With the greatest respect, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's approach is to deny the discretion of local licensing boards. As he was the architect of the legislation that forms the centrepiece of the liquor licensing legislation in Scotland—in which licensing boards were given enhanced powers over the licensing courts that they replaced—I should have thought that he would be happy for discretion to rest with those who are, after all, the locally elected representatives. A licensing board is not a creature of the district council, but it is composed of district councillors. In those matters, one is far better employed in relying on the good sense of those who have been given that responsibility, rather than endeavouring to lay down blanket provisions throughout Scotland.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: I should like to continue because I am conscious that others wish to take part.
  As I pointed out to the Secretary of State in an intervention, I was in the minority on the Clayson committee on the issue of the police right of entry into clubs. The Clayson committee's report bears re-reading because it sets out the arguments in favour and against with great clarity. This provision—the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) would perhaps agree on this matter if we cannot on others—was originally in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, but the House of Commons, in its wisdom, voted against it. If there is to be a change in the legislation, we are entitled to know the objective circumstances that give rise to the need for it. The fact that 70 or 80 organisations may have expressed a view that the law should be changed in this way is no justification for doing it, unless what they claim is capable of objective assessment.
  202
  We are entitled to ask the Government the number of occasions on which it can be claimed that the proper administration and supervision of clubs have been prejudiced by the failure of officers of the rank of police constable to enter such clubs at will, especially as a warrant can be obtained and, in my professional experience, is usually capable of being obtained on not very substantial information. Such a warrant can be obtained and be effected at short notice. Thus far, we have heard no justification that is sufficient to make us give sympathetic consideration to extending police powers in a matter where so far it has not been demonstrated to be required.
  One clause will allow the chief constable to make "observations" and requires him to intimate and give notice of those observations in a particular way, but it gives him a fallback if he fails to do so and allows a licensing board to take account of those observations. I have never understood why police authorities, which have licensing departments, should have placed upon them an obligation in terms of the form of notice and information required, but they are given a ready-made excuse. That matter arises in relation to objections under section 16 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, and I hope to return to it in Committee.
  I do not oppose the extension of rights of audience, but in this matter access for the public to legal services is much more important than whether solicitors should have access to the supreme court. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross touched on a matter that the Government have not yet properly addressed. The legal relationship between a client and an advocate is that of a mandate and is separate and distinct from the legal relationship between a client and a solicitor. A solicitor is bound by contract to his client; an advocate—by that I mean a member of the Faculty of Advocates—has a mandate. Until the time it is recalled, a mandate entitles the person in whose favour it has been given to do as he thinks fit in the context of the legal case in which he is engaged. It entitles an advocate to settle a case even against the wishes of his client. That right is rarely exercised, but it demonstrates the fact that the essential relationship between client and advocate is different from the relationship between client and solicitor. That matter may have consequences beyond those to which the Government have given consideration in the Bill so far, and I hope to return to it in due course.
  The point should be made in relation to Scotland that we are dealing with a relatively small scale. There are about 250 practising advocates at the Scottish Bar. In recent years, as many as 80 per cent. called in any one year have qualified as solicitors before coming to the Bar. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands East (Mr. Smith) did that, as I did myself. The former shadow Lord Advocate, now the noble and learned Lord Morton of Shuna, who sits on the Cross-Benches in the other place, also qualified as a solicitor. There has been an easy movement between the solicitors' and the advocates' branches of the profession in Scotland. Although I do not oppose the extension of the rights of audience, I have some concern and reservations about just how effective that apparently radical change will prove to be.
  It may be a result of my inability rather than the draftsman's, but I cannot understand the provision on partnerships for advocates, which seems to be put in the most convoluted way. I believe that there is no justification in a country the size of Scotland for there to be

  203
  partnerships between advocates at the Bar. For that reason, it is essential to maintain the largest number of wholly independent practitioners. That is why, on occasion, I have appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State one week and against the Secretary of State the next. If I were locked into a partnership, it might be difficult for such independence to be exercised. I welcome the assurance of the Secretary of State in relation to legally aided persons. He will know that that matter has caused some concern. It is a considerable relief to know that the right of a legally aided person to be represented in the way that he or she chooses will not be prejudiced by the proposals.
  I am very suspicious of the proposals in clause 23, which could be construed as giving rights of audience to professional or other bodies to practise in every court in Scotland and as giving them immunity from liability for negligence. In Committee, I hope that we can test at some length the justification for that outwith legal services and those who are legally qualified.
  Most significant for those of us who represent rural areas is the provision of legal services in such areas. The reservations have already been expressed, so I need do no more than associate myself with them. There is real apprehension that the overall provision of legal services will—not immediately, but inevitably—be affected if the proposals on executries and conveyancing are carried through. There is real apprehension about the strength of the financial institutions, and of nationally based and organised estate agents. There is also real apprehension about the possibility of conflicts of interest. When people, especially young people, make their first important purchase and legal transaction, it is right that they should have the most independent advice available. The Secretary of State must by now have realised that these matters will be brought to his attention time and again. They will be the touchstone against which every line of the Bill will be tested.
  It is not understood that in rural areas, conveyancing is often used as a form of cross-subsidy. It is not frequently understood that in rural areas, solicitors often perform for honoraria of £250 the responsibility of secretary of this institution or of trustee of that, or that they may run something else or factor at levels that can hardly be described as economic. They do that because they take their service and their fee income in the round. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) suggested that that part of the fee income may be as high as 80 per cent. If a substantial part of that income is at risk, the provision of such service pro bono publico will be put at risk and the quality of life in rural areas may be severely prejudiced.
  Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate what he has said? I do not necessarily disagree with his point. He began by saying that it was important to protect the interests of young married couples in their most important purchase, but he has just told us—and this may be accurate—that young married couples pay a conveyancing fee that is used to subsidise other legal services provided by solicitors. Does not that suggest, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, that the level of conveyancing fee is higher than it should be to provide the service to those of his constituents whom the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to help?
  Mr. Campbell: As the Secretary of State knows, there is now competition among solicitors in those matters. It must be well known to him that in many cases, solicitors offer and give discounted fees, especially to people who are starting out, for the very reason that they hope that if they do so, they will continue to have their business throughout their lives. They hope that they will draft their wills and that in due course, if they survive long enough—
  Mr. Harry Ewing: And their divorces.
  Mr. Campbell: Yes, solicitors may even do their divorces and wind up their estates. As I said a moment or two ago, the truth is that solicitors take their fee income and their obligations in the round. If we enter on this new course, we may find circumstances in which the services provided by solicitors—often at uneconomic rates in rural areas—are withdrawn.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that all people in business take their services in the round and that, if the core of their business is the most profitable part, it could be said to be subsidising other parts of the business? It is the fact that the business is an entity that brings people to it in the first place.
  Mr. Campbell: I do not for a moment dissent from that point.
  Looking at the Bill as a whole and especially at the measures that deal with the provision of legal services, one is driven to the conclusion that it is neither a considered nor a spontaneous response to the needs of the public identified in Scotland. One feels entitled to make the judgment that, in many respects, it seems to be a slavish response to events in England. It is frequently forgotten that part of the provocation for a change in the provision of legal services in England and Wales arose not from the structure of the legal profession, but from the different structure of the courts.
  As the Secretary of State told us, in the sheriff court, in its civil jurisdiction in Scotland, one can sue for any sum of money. One may sue for £20 million if one chooses to do so. In its criminal jurisdiction, an accused person, if convicted, may be sentenced for up to three years. The consequence has been that solicitors in Scotland have done a substantial range of work that was denied to them by the nature of the court structure in England and Wales. That is why I believe that the Bill is a slavish response that could not be regarded as either considered or spontaneous.
  Access to a lawyer for the public in Scotland should be not simply to any lawyer, but to a proficient lawyer. The Bill does not do sufficient—indeed anything—to widen that access. I am driven to the conclusion that in this matter, the Government have no feeling for the law in Scotland. That is why I and my hon. Friends will decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who declared an interest, I declare a lack of interest. I have no legal interests or training. I am not a trustee of any charity. I have no intention at present of buying or selling a home. I do not drink alcohol and I have no intention of taking up the drinking of alcohol, although there are limes when I feel that some things could drive one to drink. I find

  205
  that I have little enthusiasm for the Bill, and in that sense, too, I declare my lack of interest. Yet this is a Government-sponsored Bill, and I am a loyal supporter of the Government.
  Mr. Canavan: Toady.
  Mr. Walker: I have never been called that before.
  I am aware of the politically sensitive nature of some of the matters dealt with in the Bill, and I realise that the Committee stage will be followed closely in Scotland. The Conservative members of the Committee—at least those of us who represent Scottish constituencies—will therefore expect Ministers to take on board the views that we express in Committee. We shall expect any changes in the Bill adequately to take account of Scottish views. I caution the Government that the limited time available for the Committee stage is likely to highlight the need for them to be sensitive to the views expressed. In my view, it would be most unwise to attempt to steamroller the Bill through its Committee and Report stages.
  I welcome some of the changes proposed with regard to charities. Some changes are necessary, although I wonder whether the Government have not gone overboard with what they have attempted in the Bill. We shall discover whether that is so during our detailed study of the Bill in Committee. Nevertheless, some aspects of charity operations in Scotland certainly needed to be looked at, and the Government were right to recognise that.
  On part II, I should first make it clear that I believe that it is right that the public should have choices and options. But it is also right to examine the present state of affairs before determining whether simply to free up the arrangements. We are not dealing with the high street here. I am a great supporter of what happens in the high street, and a great supporter of the marketplace, but when it comes to legal advice and legal services we must be very careful.
  After all, if one makes a mistake while shopping in the high street, the consequences are not likely to be all that severe, even if one is temporarily inconvenienced, but if one makes a mistake during the purchase of one's home, or if one is given detrimental advice, one can end up with a problem which remains throughout one's life. That is one of the awful problems that we face. I look upon the provision of legal services as I look upon people's ability to fly aircraft. We must provide a regulatory framework properly to protect the interests of customers. There is no question but that we shall have some interesting debates in Committee on part II. I accept that the Government are determined to provide a level playing field, and our debates will show whether they have succeeded.
  Whatever the outcome in Committee, I make no apology for saying now that I want to ensure that my constituents in North Tayside have access to solicitors within an acceptable distance. People living in Aberfeldy or Blair Atholl should not have to travel to Perth or Edinburgh to obtain the advice that they require when buying a house. In one of the most interesting and stimulating speeches that he has made for a long time, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) dealt with the legal matters in considerable depth, and his contribution was later
  206
  enhanced by those of other hon. Members. I repeat that I have no legal training. My only experience has been as a customer—as one of those making use of the services.
  I think that every hon. Member will acknowledge that the profession about which we receive the most complaints is the solicitors' profession and we must all welcome the fact that the Bill will establish an ombudsman. I hope that the ombudsman will have teeth, because there is no doubt that, when things go wrong or when solicitors behave improperly, the consequences for individuals can be enormous.
  On part III, I repeat that I have no interest in the consumption of alcohol, although I make no apologies for having a great interest in the well-being of the whisky industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that, under the Bill as drafted, our splendid whisky distilleries, open for the benefit of the tourist trade, will at long last be able to sell their products at times and on days when they cannot sell them at present. I hope that the Bill will change that.
  Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about supermarkets and off-licences and I hope that we can deal in detail with them in Committee. There are obviously differences, and public houses in rural areas should not be disadvantaged. It is nonsense that, in a small village or town with five hotels and one pub, the pub should have to close while all the hotels can remain open. That never struck me as sensible. We should try to introduce some sense into those arrangements, which particularly affect the tourist areas of Scotland.
  With regard to the ability of the police to enter clubs, I am concerned about and I hope that we shall be able to deal with it in more detail in Committee. I cannot claim to be happy with the provision as it stands and I look forward to hearing why the Government think that it is necessary.
  Clause 53 makes certain changes in respect of divorce. There is no way that I can support what is proposed. That is one provision on which I have already reached a decision. It may be said that my prejudices are already showing, but I believe that marriage is far too important an institution for us to create a climate in which people think that they can get divorce on demand. It is not just important for children—it is important to the fabric of society.
  One of the great tragedies of recent times is the way in which we have encouraged people to get married and divorced as though it were of little or no consequence. The family unit is the basis for our society and we should be looking for ways and means of sustaining it. I hope that I am not oversimplifying by saying that, like all things which matter, marriage has to be worked at. There is no easy way for two people to live together for a long period, and concessions have to be made.
  We surely cannot think it sensible for people to bring something as important as a marriage to an end after just one year. I am also not happy with the reduction from five years to two. Such matters should be dealt with in the courts. I hope that in Committee we shall arrive at an answer which will satisfy those of us who have grave doubts about the clause.
  On video evidence, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he might find himself in some difficulty because he might agree with me. I hope that narrow political prejudices will not influence the way in

  207
  which we view the matters with which the Bill deals. I hope that we will consider video evidence in connection with offences against children and rape.
  I hope that I have not spoken for too long, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. However, I believe that this Bill will be one of the most interesting to come before the House for the past three or four Parliaments. It is interesting because it is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. It ranges widely and we shall also consider additional clauses and amendments.
  I hope that we shall keep in mind the fact that we have a unique legal system in Scotland. As Scots, we want as far as possible to maintain all that is good about our legal system. We do not want to be the same as other people simply for the sake of being the same. We want to improve our legal system. When we consider the various clauses and the amendments, I hope that we shall consider the Bill in the best interests of our constituents, because that is what we want to do at the end of the day. More importantly, I hope that we shall recognise that we shall be creating a new political environment—because the Bill covers many areas—in which people in Scotland will face substantial changes. I hope that we shall get it right.
  8.11 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) has volunteered me as a member of the Standing Committee to consider this Bill. I served on the Committee which considered a previous Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and some of my memories of that Committee are not particularly happy. I remember trying to give added legal protection to complainers in rape cases and having my case demolished by an odd trio of legal minds: the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), the then right hon. Peter Fraser QC and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). However, like as not, I will have another go with that issue.
  I am also unhappy about the introduction of the Bill at this stage in the Session. A number of clauses of particular interest to me are well down the batting order. I hope that their consideration will not be skimped as a result. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is listening with his usual rapt attention to the speeches of Back Benchers. With regard to part I of the Bill, can he tell us what will happen to new charities that are often set up in the aftermath of a huge tragedy elsewhere in the world? Some of those new charities are entirely legitimate and honourable. However, there are odd occasions when unscrupulous individuals try to milk the kindness of ordinary people who respond to requests for help. I hope that those villains will be dealt with, if only indirectly, by part I.
  I do not want to repeat some of the arguments about part II. However, I am pleased to say that I agree with the creation of the office of legal services ombudsman, although I should have thought that such an official requires a substantial staff to deal with complaints brought against solicitors who provide their clients with a slovenly, careless and thoughtless service. It is not for me to defend the profession, which is remarkably conservative, full of Conservatives. Ministers should consider some of the serious reservations expressed earlier in the debate.
  208
  The overwhelming majority of solicitors in small communities—and not only in small communities—provide a fine and honourable service to their clients. It is absolutely essential that that service is not diminished by some of the clauses in part II of this hotch-potch of a Bill.
  I also have serious reservations about part III, particularly in light of clause 37, which will allow the opening of off-sales premises on Sundays. Last week I presented a petition to the House protesting against that measure on behalf of the Rev. Ernie Scott, minister of St. Andrew's church in Port Glasgow, and over 300 members of the members or adherents of his church. I have received similar expressions of concern from Mount Kirk in Greenock and the Welpark Church in Greenock. Only today I received a letter from John Lindsay, the session clerk of Finnart St. Paul's church in Greenock, who wrote:
  "The Kirk Session of the above Congregation, part of whose parish lies within your constituency, have asked me to advise you that at their last regular meeting on 15 May they expressed their unanimous opposition to any extension of the existing opening hours which would involve the opening of off-licensed premises on Sundays."
  In this House, we occasionally discuss the serious problems of drug addiction in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I believe that the most prevalent form of drug addiction and misuse involves alcohol abuse and misuse. Clause 37 enables smoother and wider access to that kind of drug. I will be voting against such a so-called liberalisation of the licensing law.
  Part IV relates to miscellaneous reforms. I want to ask the Minister several questions to enable me to be better equipped to serve on the Standing Committee. My service on that Committee seems likely, thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok.
  Clause 48 offers a full refund to local authorities for approved expenditure in providing probation and parole supervision and social inquiry reports. In that regard, will there be financial compensation for any additional training that social workers, who presumably will be the probation officers under the terms of clause 48 for the regional and island councils, if they have to introduce extra training?
  Why, in clause 54, in addition to the proposed change to section 15 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, have the Government decided against introducing a provision which would enable the police to remove from the matrimonial home the alleged perpetrator of an act of sexual or physical abuse? I believe that it is established social work procedure throughout Scotland—it is certainly the case in Strathclyde—that in such cases, all the children aged under 16 in such a home are removed. Why should only the children be removed from a home in which such dreadful abuse has occurred? Why should the alleged perpetrator not be removed? He or she could be given financial provision for lodgings, and I give notice that I shall be tabling an amendment to deal with that issue.
  In terms of balance, I agree with the sentiments in clause 55, which will give added protection particularly to women who have suffered what is called domestic violence. I am not sure how such a person will be classified under that provision. How will she prove her case to the local housing department and regional social work department?
  Clause 56 deals with the use of live television links as evidence in certain criminal proceedings. Why does the Bill contain no provision for the use of televised interviews or

  209
  examinations in child and sex abuse cases? It is allowed in England by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 32 of which states:
  A person other than the accused may give evidence through a live television link on a trial on indictment or an appeal to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal or the hearing of a reference under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 if—(a) the witness is outside the United Kingdom; or"—
  as is the case with clause 56—
  "(b) the witness is under the age of 14 and the offence charged is one to which subsection (2) below applies",
  a part of which deals with offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the Indecency with Children Act 1960, the Sexual Offences Act 1967 and the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  If children in England and Wales receive that protection, why not children in Scotland? I have argued before that children in such cases should give their evidence in as informal a place as possible. They should not be in, say, the sheriff court within 10 to 15 ft of the accused. That happens in one of the most modern court buildings in Scotland, the sheriff court in Glasgow: a child giving evidence in such a case in one of those court rooms is situated within 15 ft of the accused. That is a scandalous state of affairs, particularly bearing in mind the English legislation that we passed about three years ago.
  I should like in such cases to see the judge with defending and prosecuting counsel seated at a table in, say, dark lounge suits—divested of their ceremonial outfits— with a child sitting at the table with them, perhaps in the friendly presence of a social worker or some other befriender.
  If we introduced a new clause in line with the English legislation, we might see a lowering of the stress inflicted on children by the ordeal of giving evidence in the presence of the accused. More cases might also be reported to the police.
  The Government should be providing all our major hospitals with suites of rooms equipped with video equipment for the interviewing and examination of children involved in such cases. Those video recordings should be allowed in evidence, although I appreciate that all manner of problems surround the use of such recordings, including their care and security. But at least hospitals should be equipped with such facilities.
  I know of only three suites of rooms in Scotland. One, the Fred Stone suite, was opened in the Yorkhill children's hospital in Glasgow two weeks ago. It comprises four rooms with video equipment. The cost was about £70,000. It is named after the famous and estimable Professor Fred Stone, one of our foremost experts in the treatment of such cases and until recently professor of child psychiatry at Yorkhill hospital.
  Another suite of rooms has been established at the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children centre at Anfield place in Glasgow. That was jointly funded by the RSSPCC and Strathclyde regional council. A third has been set up by the social work department of Strathclyde regional council in the offices of the Drumchapel area social work team, and video equipment is about to be installed in that unit.
  I am pleased to say that a similar unit is being set up in the Inverclyde Royal hospital in Greenock. With my wife, I visited that unit recently. I told John Ryan, chairman of
  210
  he Argyll and Clyde health board, that I welcomed the innovation but regretted the absence of video equipment. I believe that Mr. Ryan's view is that, if the provision of such equipment became law, he would have it installed the following day.
  That is the direction in which we should be moving in the treatment of child and sexual abuse cases. As I have explained, there are major omissions from the Bill. I shall seek to correct that state of affairs, I hope with the support of other members of the Committee, but I do not want our discussion of those vital issues to be hasty.
  8.28 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall follow the example set by other hon. Members and declare those of my interests which are affected by the Bill. I am an unpaid adviser to the Scottish Law Agents Society and I am married to the junior partner of a small legal firm called Ewing company, based in Glasgow. I stress, however, that I earn my own income independently. I felt it important to put those details on record because I want to speak mainly about the Bill's implications for the legal profession. I wish to speak essentially as a consumer—although I prefer the term "client"—and as a constituency Member of Parliament.
  The laws of our land need to have the confidence of the populace and this Bill is not just about the implications for the legal profession; it is about the delivery of legal services to the population. A great deal of concern has been expressed to me about the implications of this legislation for the delivery of those services.
  First, can the Minister tell the House whence the demand first came for this piece of legislation and why these measures have been included in a Bill that is essentially a hotch-potch of other matters? If the Minister maintains that there was a clear demand for reform of the legal profession in Scotland, surely that reform merited a separate Bill, which could have been discussed in detail and less hurriedly than we shall have to deal with this one. I remind the Minister of the comments of Professor T. B. Smith, whom I am sure he studied at length in his training. Professor Smith once said that the law was rather like a drainage system to which no one paid any attention unless something went wrong. The people of Scotland have given no clear sign that they have lost confidence in the legal profession or in the delivery of services, so it seems strange that we are faced with these proposals.
  Scotland is the only country in the world that has its own legal system but which lacks a legislature. We are also in the unique position of having two parliament buildings but no Government. That conundrum underpins many of the proposals in the Bill. As far as I can see, there has been no demand from the public for the proposed changes; the Government have undertaken no research; and the consultation process was largely a sham because most of the responses that came back to the Government were highly critical of the proposals in the Green Paper and in subsequent documents.
  What is the rationale behind these proposals? We must look at what the Secretary of State said in paragraph 1.3 of the consultation paper:
  "The independence of Scots Law and the distinctive Scottish Legal System are important corner stones in the preservation of a Scottish identity. The Scottish Legal System has its own historical origin and has developed in its own way. The organisation of the Legal Profession is, in part, a reflection of the distinctive Scottish Legal System",

  211
  and of the distinctive Scottish way of life.
  These may have been fine words but little in the proposals received the approval of the Scottish legal profession or of the public at large. Most lawyers see the proposals as an attack on the legal profession, which is one of the last bastions of the Scottish nation. Teachers, doctors and social workers in Scotland have already been on the receiving end of Tory reforms, and now it seems that the Government are determined to undermine the last of the independent professions in Scotland. Lawyers are to be sacrificed on the altar of the false gods of consumerism and competition which are so ruthlessly pursued by the Government in their legislative programme.
  In their letter to me dealing with this legislation, the Scottish law agents said:
  "The Scottish Bill mirrors the terms of the English Courts and Legal Services Bill. Our members deplore the assimilation of treatment for the two distinct jurisdictions."
  That speaks volumes for the attitude of the legal profession in Scotland.
  Secondly, does the Minister believe that this legislation deals with the real needs of society for the delivery of legal services? We are debating it without having any debate on the legal aid system of Scotland. If we are to discuss consumerism and freedom of choice we must first discuss access. Without access to the law, there is no choice. People who can afford it have the luxury of a choice of solicitor, but consumers' choice becomes irrelevant when legal aid is denied them. I think, for instance, of areas such as personal injury, legal aid for tribunals—especially industrial tribunals—the delays in the determination of applications for legal aid civil cases, and the determination of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to operate a system of economies under which it refuses to increase the permitted levels of advice and assistance cover and regularly refuses to backdate assistance when new evidence become available.
  The Government are determined to cut legal aid even further. I remind the Minister from his own statistics that bankruptcy cases now place a projected demand of £50 million by 1996 on the public purse whereas legal court aid costs only £11 million, which seems to reflect a strange set of priorities.
  I refer the Minister to an article which appeared in The Times—The Times of London, not the Glasgow Evening Times which is held in such affection by many hon. Members—by Anthony Thornton QC, who writes of amendments to the Courts and Legal Services Bill
  "which may erode the rights of legally aided litigants … the government has maintained, until now, that the bill does not affect the structure of legal aid. Many fear the Government has now decided to use the bill to enable it to cut back expenditure on legal aid."
  Does the Minister intend to bring in similar amendments to this Bill to reflect those tabled to the English legislation in another place? If such amendments are carried, the erosion of legal aid could become institutionalised, which none of us would want. It is despicable that we have not dealt with legal aid before embarking on reforms of the legal profession.
  In several earlier interventions, I touched on some aspects of the Bill. The idea that there will be a level playing field in conveyancing as between law practices and building societies and banks is misleading. The Minister will recall that the Building Societies Act 1986 specifically
  212
  excluded Scotland, so what has changed since then to convince Ministers that building societies, estate agents and banks should be brought into conveyancing?
  Many hon. Members referred to rural practices—the small town practices which are so vital to our communities. I do not like the expression "cross-subsidy" being used in this context. Conveyancing is the bread and butter of many of those small practices. If they did not perform conveyancing in their communities, they would go out of business. By being based in small communities, solicitors build up expertise in technical areas of law. In my constituency, that can mean land tenure, tenancy, fishing law, agricultural law—all specialised areas which are fundamental to the well-being of the communities that we represent. There is a danger that those practices will not be able to compete with the larger conglommerates or with the multi-disciplinary practices, so the expertise provided in our communities will disappear. It is all very well paying lip service to the continuation of our rural economy— Ministers spout it often enough from the Dispatch Box— but if we do not take action now to ensure the survival of our small legal practices we shall be driving another nail into the coffin of our rural economies.
  I have a great deal of confidence in the solicitors who work in my constituency, and I have spoken to many of them about the implications of the Bill. In return. I have received many letters and good ideas. They say that they will not be able to compete. It was rude of the Secretary of State to say that I do not have confidence in my local solicitors when I put in a plea that we should guarantee the survival of small practices. I do not understand what the Secretary of State meant by "monitoring" over the next few years. What happens in the interim? What happens if these practices disappear? Will all my skippers have to go to Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow to find someone who will understand the fishing laws and to assist them in any cases in which they might be involved?
  It will be difficult for any of us to assess the implications of the Bill for the building societies and the banks if the code of conduct is not published in the primary legislation. It is not good enough to talk about such a code being set out in regulations because there is no guarantee that Members of Parliament will be afforded enough time to examine the regulations. A fundamental right is at stake.
  I cannot understand why the Secretary of State and his Ministers have so rigidly set their faces against publishing a code of conduct. What do they have to hide? What is their reason for not doing so? If the Government wish to allay fears and suspicions among solicitors, the best way forward would be to publish the code of conduct before the Committee sits, so that those right hon. and hon. Members who serve on the Committee can look at it in detail and receive comments from the various organisations involved and from members of the profession and work out whether the regulations are appropriate for the quasi-legal individuals who will be able to do conveyancing in other organisations.
  I say this against a background of a declaration by one of the major building societies, Nationwide Anglia., that it made a £90 million loss on estate agency work last year. It can hide such a loss in other aspects of its work, and consistently undercut those who are fully legally qualified to undertake conveyancing, rather than facing the consequences of such a loss. We need much more detail from the Scottish Office about what the code of conduct and the requirements will be.

  213
  The Government are adding to the cost of conveyancing, first by refusing to provide sufficient resources to the Registers of Scotland, or the central deeds office. This means that, while the whole of Scotland was to benefit by the registration of title process, only one ninth of Scotland will be helped. For example, according to a recent Glasgow Herald survey, conveyancing costs in Edinburgh are more than they are in Glasgow. That is partly because, under the new system, there is less work to do and the fees are cheaper.
  Secondly, as from 6 April, the Government introduced agency status for the Registers of Scotland as part of their continuing privatisation programme so it will be essential for the agency to show a profit. The Government, for their own purposes, will want it to be profitable, because otherwise it will be seen as a failed experiment. I have it on excellent authority that the Government will be increasing the sums paid by the public for registration and recording of deeds, so that the agency will show a profit. I should like some straight comments from the Minister about that, because the Government are increasing the cost of a legal service.
  The Bill covers many other aspects, on which I should like to touch, but I am conscious that other hon. Members have been waiting so I do not want to take too much time from them. Suffice it to say that, if I serve on the Committee, I shall move many amendments and new clauses. We face a difficult situation in that in June or July Scottish Members are being asked to spend lengthy days and probably nights considering a complex Bill covering a wide variety of subjects, from criminal evidence proceedings through conveyancing to amendment of the licensing laws, all of which are controversial and in need of detailed examination. Moreover, we shall have to deal with all of them within four or five weeks. That will put an incredible burden on those serving on the Committee and on outside organisations wishing to see changes made to the Bill.
  The Government would be well advised to take the Bill away, separate the parts dealing specifically with legal provisions and make one Bill on that, leaving the other miscellaneous provisions to be dealt with in a correct miscellaneous provisions Bill. When I table my amendments and new clauses, I shall not withdraw them, as was done with amendments and new clauses in another place. That will be especially true of those on subjects which are dear to my heart, such as warrant sales, which I have raised previously in a private Member's Bill.
  I am determined that we shall use the opportunities available to us, as the Government are determined to pursue their course, to raise other aspects of what needs to be done within the law of Scotland. May aspects are in much greater need of reform than those dealt with in the Bill. I find it insulting to the legal profession that it has been drawn into this hotch-potch of a Bill. The Government should take the Bill away, think about it and bring it back another day to be dealt with in another and more effective way.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) rightly described the Bill as a hotch-potch. It is a motley collection of unrelated
  214
  measures. It consists of over 100 pages, and almost the whole of the first page is taken up by the long title. It could be subdivided into at least four separate Bills, but the Government have not done that—for the self-evident reason that they do not have enough Tory Scottish Back Benchers to man one Scottish Standing Committee, never mind four. This reinforces the need for a Scottish Parliament, so that adequate scrutiny can be given to Scottish legislation.
  Part I deals with charities. It is not often that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) but I agreed with much of what he said about the need for a national register of charities, so that people who want to give money for a specific charitable purpose can find out which is the most appropriate charity. It is also a pity that the Bill misses the opportunity for a stricter definition of charity. It is anomalous that an amateur sporting organisation would not normally qualify for recognition as a charity, while an organisation like the Adam Smith Institute, which is heavily involved in political activities, does qualify for charitable status and therefore for tax relief. I hope that, at a later stage in the Bill, we shall have an opportunity to look at this and other anomalies.
  Part 2 deals with the proposed changes in legal services. I am not legally qualified, but I have a fairly open mind and I listen to the arguments put by both sides, although I have been critical of the lawyers' closed shop, or the legal mafia as it is often known. When I make up my mind how to vote on the proposals, the main criterion for me, as it should be for all hon. Members, whether or not they are lawyers, is whether the proposed changes, or amendments to them, are in the interests of the consumer or the client.
  It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about level playing fields, but they are no use if they are covered in ice or broken glass. It is the poor consumer who may suffer from the possible effects of the deficiencies in some of the proposals.
  Part III relates to liquor licensing. That always has been and always will be a controversial subject in Scotland and we shall never please everyone when amending licensing legislation. I remember the passage of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which contained some fiercely controversial measures. In the light of the experience of 14 years, however, many of the Clayson proposals, which have been enacted, are generally excepted as having introduced a more liberalised and civilised attitude towards the consumption of alcohol in Scotland.
  Draconian or restrictive legislation does not necessarily eradicate or minimise alcoholic abuse—it may well have the opposite effect. As a consistent decentraliser, I also believe that some discretion should be given to the licensing boards so that they can take into account local circumstances before final decisions are reached. I hope that the eventual legislation will give those boards the opportunity to exercise some discretion in such matters.
  Earlier, I raised with the Secretary of State his proposal to allow the police entry into registered clubs without a warrant. The Secretary of State referred to a survey that had been undertaken and I hope that the questions put, the organisations and individuals questioned and the results of it will be published in due course and given to all hon. Members, particularly those who are selected to serve on the Committee.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest, as I am a member of the Camelon Labour club and the Bannockburn miners'

  215
  welfare club. I believe that my membership of the latter entitles me to reciprocal membership of virtually every miners' welfare club in the country. It is important to remember that a club is not equivalent to a public house. Originally, the club was considered to be an extention of the home.
  Clubs must keep a register of members and anybody who is not a member must be signed in for entry. Most club members would consider it a gross invasion of privacy if the police were allowed entry into clubs without a warrant. Most clubs operate a successful system of self-discipline and I do not know of any widespread abuse. If there is trouble in a club, even under the existing system the police can get a warrant to deal with the situation. In the final analysis, clubs are accountable not to the licensing board, but to the sheriff. The sheriff may refuse to renew a club's licence if there has been any misbehaviour, evidence of which has been given him by the police.
  It is not just Labour Members who have expressed grave reservations about, not to say downright opposition to, the proposal. There are many types of social clubs—working people's clubs, ex-servicemen's clubs, British Legion clubs, sporting clubs, Labour clubs, miners' welfare clubs and even Conservative clubs. I appeal to the Minister to consult those in the House who speak on behalf of the Conservative clubs north and south of the border. He should ask them what they would think if they were sitting in their club having a private meeting when, suddenly, in burst the police without a warrant. That is a gross and unjustified intrusion.
  Way back in 1976, the late Willie Ross was persuaded to withdraw a similar clause. He had a great deal of common sense and he listened to the views expressed by the public and by hon. Members. When the clause was considered on Report, my recollection is that it was withdrawn without being forced to a vote. In that connection, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) who, as the Minister responsible for piloting the legislation through in 1976, listened to the views expressed by hon. Members.
  Although the Minister may think that he has good intentions and that those who support the clause are similarly minded, it would have a damaging effect on police-community relations in many parts of Scotland. There is also an understandable fear that, if the measure reaches the statute book, it is only a matter of time before clubs in England and Wales face the same threat.
  Part IV deals with miscellaneous reforms, including penal reform. Recently I had occasion to visit the young offenders institution at Polmont, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East. I was invited by the governor primarily to witness a great sporting event held to raise money to send youngsters from the Central Region to the special olympics. In my following remarks, I have no criticism of the governor or the staff at Polmont, but I am critical of the system that they are obliged to operate.
  After the sporting event, I took the opportunity, at the governor's invitation, to look at some of the facilities available and speak to some of the inmates, I understand that Polmont was originally a borstal, with a fairly open regime. Recently, it has been surrounded with a perimeter fence and additional security arrangements have been introduced. The Minister will be aware from a parliamentary reply to me that that cost the taxpayer no less than £1·25 million.
  216
  Given the increased security, I thought that all the inmates at Polmont were high-risk young offenders who had committed grevious offences. However, I must tell the Minister of a conversation I had with a young 16-year-old inmate who, for obvious reasons, shall remain nameless. I asked him how long he was in for and he said four weeks. When I asked him what he was in for, he said that it was for not paying a fine of £100. I asked him why he could not pay it and he said that he had no job and received only £22 a week on social security, of which £15 went to his mother for his keep. Yet the sheriff ordered him to pay the fine at £7 a week. Understandably, he fell behind in his payments and, as a consequence, he found himself in that high-security detention centre.
  Does it make sense in terms of penal or economic policy to spend more than £1·25 million to surround such young people with a high-security fence and all the rest? Surely they would be better on a community service order or some other alternative to custodial punishment. Something could and should be done about such a situation. I am sure that that young man's case is not unique.
  There is a lot fundamentally wrong with Scotland's penal system in general. I must make it clear that I am not talking about Polmont when I say that, if people in our prisons are treated like animals, there will be a tendency for them to behave like animals. Long before the riots started in Strangeways, the track record of the penal system in Scotland under this Secretary of State for Scotland left a lot to be desired, with prisoners taking to the rooftops and prisoners and prison staff being subjected to violence and threats of violence. If inmates are treated in a barbaric fashion—it is not surprising that some of them sometimes behave in a barbaric fashion—and I am not justifying their actions by saying that.
  I hope that the Bill gives us the opportunity to discuss such matters. It would be a great pity if we were to miss the opportunity to bring about a radical reform of Scotland's penal system.
  There is not much that is good about the Bill, but today's Second Reading debate is encouraging in that, much more than in any other piece of Scottish legislation in this Parliament, valid points have been made in a conscientious manner from both sides of the House, sometimes with cross-party agreement. Therefore, I hope that, at a later stage, we will be able to have a positive and constructive debate, so that the Bill which emerges from the Standing Committee will be much improved on Report and Third Reading.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Because of the time, I shall truncate my speech. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for giving some of his time to me. The lack of time only serves to illustrate the most important conclusion that many of us have drawn from the legislation—that the case for a Scottish Parliament has been made out.
  It is well known that I was a doubter in 1979 hut, for the record, I voted yes in the referendum for devolution for Scotland. Every day that we consider Scottish legislation in the House, I am more and more convinced that it is inappropriate to do so in this sort of environment, in this truncated time, with not a soul on the Conservative

  217
  Benches other than the Ministers on the Front Bench. The case for these matters being discussed in Scotland by people who know the conditions there is overwhelming.
  I must declare an interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. Because of lack of time, I do not intend to address myself to many of the measures that affect rights of audience. I should like to do so, but I cannot, because I am duty bound to raise matters that affect my constituents, particularly on licensing.
  I am concerned about one aspect in particular—clause 39, which requires licensing boards to have regard to what is called the need in "the locality." What is the locality in central Edinburgh? Is it the immediate locality—for example, Stockbridge or Tollcross—the city centre, Edinburgh or the Lothians? What is the licensing board supposed to consider?
  The problem in Edinburgh at present is that there are a large number of licensed premises in the comparatively small area of the city centre, and they are open for long periods. That causes those who live near them considerable inconvenience and irritation, particularly at night. As I said in an intervention to the Secretary of State, many of those premises are well run and cause no problem, but it is simply the presence of a large number of licensed permises open late at night, disgorging many people into the streets, which causes the problem. That is a problem that the Bill should address, but does not do so.
  In the time available, I wish to describe a few things that could be done. The first will cost money. It is to allocate more money for police overtime. I have long believed that policemen on the beat on the streets late at night reduce both the number of general disturbances and the incidence of serious crime. They deter problems before they arise. Secondly, licensing boards should be given additional powers to close premises that cause problems on a temporary basis. That immediate deterrent would make many landlords who keep unruly houses—for want of a better word—keep their customers in order.
  There is also a clear need to make it easier for ordinary people to object to late licences. At present, the odds are stacked in favour of the brewers and licensees. A simplified procedure under which it was not necessary to follow the exact statutory terms of the objection would make it much easier for not only those who live nearby but community councils and residents' associations to make their voices heard. Why not give them a right of appeal? The licensee can appeal to the sheriff court, so why cannot those who live near the nuisance? Some flexibility would be greatly welcomed by many of my constituents.
  I cannot say any more about licensing because of the time, but I wish to mention several minor points which arose in the debate and about which I feel strongly, both as a Member of the House and as someone who has practised law.
  Several comments have been made tonight about divorce. No one wants to make divorce easier, but that is not the question before us. Hon. Members might like to bear in mind the fact that, if one commits adultery the night after one gets married, one can get divorced immediately. The idea that somehow there is a two-year period before divorce can take place when there is consent and a five-year period when there is not, is nonsense. When we consider the nature of the institution of marriage, we
  218
  should be in no doubt that, if one wants to, one can get divorced easily. I have never understood why it is necessary to shackle people in an unhappy domestic situation and an unhappy marriage when it is obvious that the partnership has broken down. I hope that the members of the Standing Committee will consider the practical effects on the individuals involved rather than worship an institution that may be worthless in the individual case.
  I should have liked to mention several other matters in the Bill, but because of the time available it is not possible to do so. I conclude by saying that the two fundamental problems that people face in the provision of legal services are cost and often delay, particularly in the courts. The Bill does nothing to address either problem. It simply extends monopolies in certain cases. It does not get around the obvious problems of conflict of interests. It does not get round the problem that choice is not extended simply by increasing the number of people involved in providing legal services. Choice includes the quality and impartiality of the advice. It includes many things by which the Government do not seem to set any store.
  In short, the Bill seems to monkey around with the present system, and at the end of the day, the consumers of legal services will not find the service greatly improved. Many other areas have not been considered, including no-fault liability or putting the resoluton of more disputes out of the legal environment.
  I am grateful for this brief opportunity to touch on matters which are important to all of us who live in Scotland. I conclude where I started: it is a tragedy that the whole matter has been discussed here in a rush and in such circumstances, when it could and should be discussed 450 miles away to the benefit not only of people who live in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  9.8 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I too am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have a great deal to say about the inadequacies of the conveyancing system and about the appointment and preservation of judges on the Bench, but I shall save it for the Committee. On licensing, I do not see why people should be entitled to peace and quiet only on a Sunday. If local pensioners or mothers with young children are being annoyed by hooligans with carry-outs on any day of the week, they should expect the licensing boards to crack down on the supplier. In Committee, I shall be concerned to make it easier for the public to complain. Why should people have to take unpaid leave from work, wait outside the court for several hours, and then find that the case is not even to be heard? The licensing procedure is in a shambles, and something ought to be done about it.
  I want to draw particular attention to clause 34. For a five-year period to operate in the case of a contested divorce puts the non-consenting party in a very strong bargaining position. If that party has possession of the family home, the other partner is forced to find whatever accommodation they can. Not every local authority is particularly helpful, and it usually means a worsening by far of the housing standards that the individual must endure, possibly together with the children of the marriage. He or she might have to live on benefits or part-time earnings, while his or her share of the value of

  219
  the marital home remains tied up until the divorce is finalised many years later. That places enormous pressure on that individual to settle and to accept an unfair deal.
  If the other party wishes to remarry, an enforced wait of five years is far too long. It would often prevent the new couple from having children of their own for that considerable length of time. If the woman is close to an age when she knows that pregnancy could result in serious foetal abnormality, it may even prevent the couple from starting a family. What is the point of a five-year wait? Is it likely that many spouses who have refused to have anything to do with each other for two years will have a change of heart between the third and fifth year? I am likely to support the change in the Bill, but I will bring my remarks to a close, so that my hon. Friend on the Frong Bench can make his speech.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: For the first time since I entered the House, I can say with entire sincerity at the conclusion of a Scottish debate that we have had an excellent and real debate, with people speaking from the heart and from the head rather than along party lines. I am delighted that that happened because the issues that we are confronting are extremely important, not only in parliamentary terms but to the social ethos of Scotland. The issues that we have debated have a real effect on the lives of many of our fellow citizens, and they have been approached with the seriousness that they justify.
  As the Secretary of State for Scotland has only just rejoined us, I am sure that he will receive reports of the debate. He should be aware that probably the most scathing criticism of the Bill, with which I should not seek to compete, came from his own side of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) described it as
  "a bad Bill. It is a sandwich of stale bread and poisoned meat."
  I should not seek to improve on that short title. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that it was a pity that the House was not consulted before the Bill was brought before it. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was, as befits of a man of his station, more cautious in his criticisms, but he too showed serious disagreement with many of the Bill's aspects.
  We reiterate our anger at the way in which the Bill has been presented and the time scale that we have been offered. It is a major piece of legislation. As every hon. Member who has spoken recognised, its provisions should not be contained within a single Bill. Perhaps Professor Wilson of Edinburgh, who specialises in Scottish law, was exaggerating when he described it as the Scottish Law (Abolition) Bill. But, with the common consent of the House, it might be termed the Small Town Solicitor (Scotland) (Abolition) Bill.
  The Bill embodies what should be a major piece of licensing legislation in its own right. It incorporates as an afterthought significant changes to Scotland's divorce laws that will crucially affect the lives and future happiness of hundreds and, in time, thousands of our fellow citizens. As a throwaway, it contains also charities law, without an iota of party politics in it, but involving significant reforms. Its miscellaneous provisions cover such matters as court proceedings and matrimonial homes. That is a huge gamut of extremely important measures.
  220
  A Bill having the title of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill should conspicuously and unmistakably extend and strengthen the rights of the citizen. To win the approval of the House, it should enhance the availability and likelihood of justice, irrespective of the individual's ability to pay. By the common consent of the House, there is little in the Bill that readily suggests that it meets those criteria. There is no reference to the extension of legal aid and to what is probably the greatest legal controversy in Scotland at present, the use of warrant sales. Many large areas of Scottish law that are in need of reform are not addressed by the legislation.
  I shall deal briefly with charities, because in the short time available I have no wish to reiterate issues that have already been dealt with in some detail. I support the concept of greater disclosure about the identity of charities, and the purposes for which they exist. I also believe, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr, Canavan), that there is a good case for including in the Bill provisions to examine the criteria and the basis upon which charities exist, and the charitable purposes of some organisations that are quite wrongly designated as charities.
  I have no doubt that in Committee one organisation that we shall be interested to inquire into is the Atlantic Salmon Trust. For the life of me, I cannot imagine how an organisation that is in the business of buying up salmon net fishings in Scotland to protect the vested financial interests of riparian owners there can possibly qualify as a charity. If that trust can be defined as a charity, I suspect that many other organisations are masquerading as charities when they should not be, and we shall certainly explore that in Committee.
  A small matter—almost a personal hobby horse—is local charities or voluntary groups that have fallen by the wayside and become defunct. The knowledge of their past existence, perhaps stretching back for several decades, exists only in local folk memories. Perhaps they were never registered or formally wound up. There may be some confusion about whether they had any money and who is responsible for it. The information has disappeared in to the mists of time. As things stand, the only beneficiaries of such confusion are the banks, where the money rests for ever and a day. I hope that so that their charitable funds may be merged or so that the bodies may be redefined in their purposes, as the Bill rightly proposes, there will be an onus on banks to declare the existence of dormant accounts belonging to all voluntary or charitable bodies registered or unregistered. Further steps can then be taken.
  The largest area of contention in the Bill is legal services. I am the only hon. Member at either Dispatch Box who does not declare a vested interest, and who does not need to be addressed as learned. Personally, I think that that has more to do with the inadequacies of terminology in the House than with anything else.
  It is crucial that legal services are subjected to the critical scrutiny not only of lawyers—we have heard plenty from them tonight—but of the consumers, the people who use such services. The consumer has a strong interest in distinguishing between genuine choice and the illusion of it. Simply because the Government refer to choice does not mean that it exists. The route to all the proposed reforms seems to be the part of the Bill that deals with conveyancing practitioners. The Secretary of State referred to the very high standard of service that is at

  221
  present provided by solicitors in the sphere of conveyancing. I should have thought that a reasonable maxim for the Government is: if it is not broken, do not fix it. Yet we have this legislative basis for the introduction of conveyancing practitioners. The terminology suggests a new breed of person who will deal with conveyancing as if it were a separate compartment of the law, apart from all others. It is like a heart surgeon not being required to know anything about what happens in the arms and legs.
  If he is to fulfil his conveyancing responsibilities, the conveyancing practitioner—whether he is a solicitor or not —will need to have a real understanding of the law of contract, property law, company law, bankruptcy law, the law of succession, taxation law, the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, and doubtless many more Acts. If that person does not hold the required professional knowledge of all those branches of the law, how can his performance compare with that of the solicitor who is regarded as competent in them all? The public should not have foisted upon them, in the name of choice, a conveyancing practitioner who is less well qualified than those who are already available to them.
  The theory is that choice will be extended. Choice, however, will not be extended if all that is available is a lesser breed of practitioner. Choice will certainly not be extended if solicitors lose the essential income that allows them to practise conveyancing, thereby forcing the consumer into the hands of a diminishing number of practices. That problem ties straight in with the question of multi-disciplinary practices.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries made an interesting point when he referred to difficulties over the legal definition of a rural area and an urban area. Solicitors in small towns may disappear and be replaced by a multi-disciplinary practice, which could be in Dumfries, Perth and Inverness. I do not accept that a few glossy, one-door practices in the larger towns and cities of Scotland are any substitute for the large network of solicitors that can be found in virtually every town, and sometimes in the villages of Scotland. That, however, is a real possibility if the Bill is enacted in its present form. It will push people towards the bigger practices, towards the one-door approach. Many of those professional services will be offered by only a few larger business organisations instead of by a large number of small organisations at local level.
  Reference has been made to first-time buyers. I should like to give my personal experience under the existing system, not under the system that is envisaged in the legislation. When I bought my first flat in the west end of Glasgow I went, in all innocence, to an estate agent in Byres road. I apologise if I am revealing disturbing middle-class tendencies, but my first priority was to secure that flat. I was much more worried about that than about shopping around.
  From the time I entered that estate agency I was carried along inexorably on a magical mystery tour. It took me first to a back room in the office where I was "advised" about mortgage facilities. I was then carried, even more mysteriously, to a solicitor's practice in an upstairs attic in Hamilton. Eventually I ended up in a bank in Busby. That was the result of taking the first basic step of going through an estate agent's door in Byres road, Glasgow. There may
  222
  have been—although I would not have noticed them—many funny handshakes during that magical mystery tour, but the point is that, even as matters stand now, there is not a one-door approach but an interlinked approach.
  I know that there is considerable concern in the Law Society and elsewhere about such operations. If anything, the Bill should be trying to put a stop to such practices rather than formalising and legitimising them through multi-disciplinary practices that will extend the principle far beyond the experience that I described. Multidisciplinary practices might mean that an inexperienced person buying a house will find it difficult to resist the pressure to go from one stop to the next in the way in which I described, and will provide a greater deterrent to the person saying, "I do not want to go to the professional associate just up the corridor to whom you are trying to direct me." If we are trying to establish choice and if we want people to consider their options independently—that is exactly what they should be able to do—putting all the disciplines under one roof with all the pressures that will then be incumbent upon people is the antithesis of choice.
  In small and medium-sized towns in Scotland, enterprising solicitors might decide to fight back against the development of multi-disciplinary practices and might say, "A multi-disciplinary practice in Perth is taking our business away; we shall try to extend the same facilities to our clients in Blairgowries. We shall try to give them the same package on the spot." But under the Bill such a solicitor is prevented from doing so because of the incomprehensible distinction that it draws between those firms that have court practices and those that do not. So solicitors who are partly dependent upon court practices will have to either give that up or abandon the idea of becoming a small multi-disciplinary practice. Once again I cannot see how that in any way extends choice.
  My great fear is that there will be an erosion of legal services. I shall not go over the ground again about the dependency on conveyancing work in small solicitors' firms. If we take that away from them, undoubtedly we shall diminish access to the other legal services that they provide.
  On the subject of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board that is proposed in the Bill, the English equivalent has been legislated for in such a way as to provide a balance of interest between providers and consumers. That is the least that we would expect in Scotland. We welcome unreservedly the creation of the ombudsman post, but we should also welcome some sanction. I understand that the English legislation introduced the concept of £1,000 maximum compensation at the behest of the Law Society, and I believe that such a sanction should apply to Scotland. Again, many constituency cases involve people who have been through the entire process of the Law Society, the ombudsman and so on but achieve no satisfaction.
  I give notice that Labour Members and, I believe, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will table an amendment in Committee to allow the cost of a survey in a conveyancing transaction to be borne by the seller. That idea might put a few cats among the pigeons.
  I shall not go over the same ground again on rights of audience. I speak as a non-lawyer, but the issue may be seen by some people as a matter of internal dispute among lawyers. It will not be discussed in that way in Committee,

  223
  as at the end of the day it is the consumer or the person consulting the lawyer who matters and we want to ensure that they have access to the best available people. I found the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross fairly powerful.
  I wish to move on quickly to the licensing provisions. We could spend the night regretting the rushed and confused way in which the whole matter has been presented to us. I have no doubt that the Scottish licensing laws need serious reform and review. Some of the aims of Dr. Clayson and of the subsequent legislation have been fulfilled. There have been some improvements in Scotland's licensing laws and licensing provision, but no one who knows anything about the nuts and bolts of Scottish society can be in any doubt that there is much to be done in terms of licensing and alcohol. I do not say that in an unco' guid or patronising way—far from it. If we are to seek serious improvements in Scottish society, licensing laws should not be the subject of a subsection but should be a matter of serious review. Whatever our generation may have seen, we do not see anything much better in the attitudes of young people towards drink. They are subjected to advertising pressure by breweries pouring money into campaigns to make drink seem an essential adjunct of every activity. We want a different approach to drink in Scotland.
  If people were to be asked in a survey on licensing laws in Scotland how to get a better attitude towards drink, I suspect that the last proposal of 99 per cent. would be to open the off-licences on a Sunday afternoon. That does not seem to be a social reform that is much in demand. Many, but by no means all, off-sales premises in Scotland, especially in inner-city areas, are part of the problem rather than of the potential solution. When one walks into the shops that are selling from behind high wire fences an extremely limited selection of extremely potent beverages, I do not think that one can see any part of what Dr. Christopher Clayson had in mind for the liberalising reform of Scottish licensing laws. Opening on a Sunday will do no one any favours, other than the people who own those shops.
  In the context of pub opening hours, the Secretary of State spoke of Sunday as a time for peace and quiet. Why should not it also be a time of peace and quiet for people who live next door to an off-sales premises and who often suffer at least as much discomfort and environmental intrusion as those living next door to public houses? As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, these will be matters for a free vote among Labour Members, so I am stating what is largely a personal view.
  On club licences and police access, it is essential to note that there has been no demand for the measure from those clubs. We heard from the Secretary of State that 18 community councils in Scotland—a small proportion—are in favour of such a measure. Perhaps more significantly, we heard that four licensed trade organisations favour giving the police access to social clubs. With respect, of course four licensed trade organisations are in favour, because that is a device which they see for eventually getting rid of competition and the different kind of establishment that social clubs offer.
  The issue is of interest not only north of the border —which it would immediately affect—but in the south. I note from a letter from the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations that, if the Secretary of State goes ahead with
  224
  the proposal, he will have not only the opposition of his Back Benchers but the unremitting opposition of the Royal British Legion clubs, the Royal Naval Association clubs, the Royal Air Force Association clubs, the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs, the National Union of Liberal Clubs and the Working Men's Club and Institute Union Ltd. Perhaps most ominously for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the letter added:
  "We are also of one accord with a similar view held by the Association of Conservative Clubs on this issue."
  I should like to place on record the views of the Law Society of Scotland, because it was ungracious of the Secretary of State not to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to provide a point of information. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not give way, I must provide that information. The Law Society of Scotland states:
  "Clause 46 provides that a police constable may enter a club at any reasonable time. He does not need a warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime to be able to exercise his right of entry. This does not put clubs on an equal footing with pubs.
  This clause was in the Bill when introduced by the Lord Advocate in the Lords and its exact terms were only known then. In view of its terms the Law Society considers that it requires amendment in order to prevent undue restriction of the liberty of the individual and to preserve, in a manner consistent with good public order, the privacy of the individual."
  I am glad that the record can be set straight.
  We are all members of clubs. I note from "Who's Who" that both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State are members of the New club in Edinburgh. The Under-Secretary of State is also a member of the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers. If the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State were having a small refreshment in the New club, they would not be terribly pleased if the police exercised their right to enter every hour on the hour because of a little local upset, such as members misbehaving in the street.
  However, that is not the reality. The clubs that would be far more likely to be affected are those to which ordinary folk go to have a relaxed social evening. If the Secretary of State goes ahead with the proposal, he will introduce more problems than such a measure is likely to resolve.
  The mere fact that it takes so long to go through the Bill illustrates the rag bag of measures with which we are dealing tonight under the title of one Bill. Few of the measures, as has been ably demonstrated tonight, have many friends among Conservative or Opposition Members. I assure the Secretary of State that we shall contribute to the process of healthy debate and that every time we defeat one of the measures in the Bill with Conservative Members, we hope to be invited by the hon. Member for Dumfries to join him in a large Laphroaig.
  9.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): This has been an especially good debate. It has been useful to have the evidence of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who piloted the Licensing (Scotland) Bill through in 1976. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) also expressed strong views at that time. Five of those who took part today are lawyers. However, I am glad to say that the majority of those who contributed were not. Three of those who are lawyers have had the

  225
  distinction of being the junior counsel to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and are still here to talk about it.
  I want to give an example of an issue on which we should like to reflect. I was asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) why a provision for evidence by television link for children in sexual offences cases was not included in the Bill. The Scottish Law Commission published its report on the evidence of children and other potentially vulnerable witnesses in February this year. The report makes a number of recommendations on the giving of evidence by children and by other vulnerable witnesses. The recommendations are now being considered. I want to reflect on the points made by hon. Members and we shall return to the matter later in Committee.
  Dr. Godman: I have listened carefully to the Minister on this important matter. Will he give the House an assurance that his officials will give careful attention to the experiences gained by English courts vis-a-vis the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and, in particular, clause 23?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will certainly make a point of looking with particular care at that. I do not mean only my officials, but Ministers, as we are responsible. I would not come forward with proposals unless I felt that I could satisfy the House on them.
  There have been substantial criticisms of the Bill on the ground that it covers too wide an area. We belive that it is better to take the opportunity presented by such a Bill rather than to wait for two or three individual Bills, which would necessitate many Second Reading debates and subsequent Committees. I stress to the House that we shall approach the Committee in a constructive spirit and that we shall accede to amendments when they contain reasonable and well-thought-out proposals. Even when they do not, if they have well-thought-out principles, we shall act on them. We shall listen with the utmost care to what is said.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the point about what the Law Society had said. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State correctly recorded its representations during consultation that year. However, in the past two days, the Law Society has sent in written representations expressing concern, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow said, and we shall look at those with particular concern.
  Mr. Dalyell: I accept that there was a genuine misunderstanding: the Secretary of State did not have in his hands the letter that the rest of us had.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter will be looked at with great care. In the other place, more than 800 amendments were tabled in Committee and on Report and nearly 300 were carried. Although many of those 300 were Government amendments, many of them represented a response to arguments advanced during our debates. I have every confidence that the hon. Members who serve on the Standing Committee will rise to the challenge and that the outcome will be a measure of significant and lasting benefit to Scotland.
  226
  I am particularly aware of the concerns expressed about conveyancing and about rural solicitors. I have been employed by rural solicitors in the past, and I assure the House that we shall look at the matter carefully.
  Each of the Bill's four constituent parts is intended to confer significant benefits on Scotland. Part I deals with charities. Given the important role that charities play in Scottish life, they must have the confidence and respect of the public. The obvious way of preserving the good will that they enjoy is to ensure that all charities are accountable for the way in which they conduct their operations and the way in which they employ the resources that they have in their care. The Bill is important because it gives the public the right to be informed of the bodies that have received recognition as charities.
  Shortly after my appointment as a junior Minister, I visited UK 2000, which said that Scottish charities were at a disadvantage in relation to their English counterparts because the necessary access-to-information arrangements were not in place. The Bill requires a charity to provide on request a copy of its explanatory documents—for example, a trust deed or other document setting out its aims and objectives. It is especially relevant that members of the public will now be able to acquire the necessary information.
  Some hon. Members are concerned that there is nothing in the Bill to require the Inland Revenue to maintain a register or index of charities to which the public has access. Although the point is not made explicit in the Bill, I am happy to assure hon. Members that the Inland Revenue will maintain a microfiche index of the Scottish bodies that they have recognised as charitable. Members of the public will be able to call in person to consult the index or to write or telephone for information about specific charities. The Inland Revenue will be able to tell members of the public the names and addresses of the bodies that it has recognised. Armed with that information, members of the public will be able, as of right, to obtain copies of the charity's accounts, together with reports of their recent activities and, if required, a copy of the founding deed.
  Part II of the Bill seeks to achieve our overriding aim of providing reforms to improve the provision of legal services to the consumer. We intend to do that by increasing the choice of legal services and, where possible, improving consumer protection mechanisms. The measures in part II have been prepared fully to reflect the distinctive characteristics of Scottish law. In another place, we had the benefit of the views of members of the Scottish judiciary, and many amendments were made as a result.
  In putting together the licensing package, our general approach was to heed the majority view. We aimed to achieve three objectives: first, to enhance the more civilised regime that has been in place since 1976; secondly, wherever possible, to remove red tape from the procedures; and, thirdly, to tighten up the law where practical experience of the operation of the existing provisions suggested that that was needed. I have no doubt that we shall devote a good deal of time in Committee to the details of the provisions.
  The Government will be willing to consider whether the objectives to which I have referred can be achieved more easily if adjustments are made. We intend to move carefully, as it is clear to us, from the many representations that we have received, that there is widespread and strong feeling in Scotland concerning the details of the licensing

  227
  regime. Our intention must be to ensure changes which confer clear practical benefits on Scotland and which are seen to secure such benefits.
  Part IV of the Bill contains an important package of miscellaneous reforms. A number of the provisions are intended to improve and expand social work services in respect of the criminal justice system in Scotland and have the objective of increasing the range of alternatives to imprisonment.
  For example, the measures on fines are intended to make the fines system operate more effectively in practice and to reduce the incidence of imprisonment for fine default among those less able to pay. I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about Polmont, although some of the issues involved in that may be beyond the scope of the Bill. I will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
  It comes as no surprise that very diverging views have been expressed about divorce in the debate. The Scottish Law Commission discovered from its public opinion survey about the desirability of changing the law that no reform of the divorce laws will please everyone. However, one of the main reasons for trying to reduce unnecessary use of the behaviour ground is to minimise unnecessary hostility in the interests of the children in the marriage.
  In nearly 50 per cent. of divorce actions, the grounds for divorce are based on the behaviour of the defender. Although of course there are instances in which the behaviour of the defender is indeed the real cause of the breakdown of the marriage, there is reason to believe that many actions are raised on behavioural grounds simply because of the length of the separation periods. No doubt the pursuer would prefer not to make allegations against his or her spouse, but is advised that, unless behaviour is used, there will be a delay of at least two years from the date of separation.
  Reducing the periods should make it easier for parties to focus on the welfare of the children, because they will not need to resort to recriminations about each other's behaviour. That is the moral justification for the measure. However, I appreciate that there are strong views on that subject which no doubt will be dealt with fully in Committee.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that divorce is a last resort, and we are not touching the provisions on reconciliation. While separation periods should be long enough to substantiate a breakdown, it would be wrong for them to be even longer. Having no statutory period would encourage parties to manufacture evidence about each other rather than to focus on the welfare of their children.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If the argument is correct that reducing the period would make people concentrate on the welfare of their children, presumably a statutory period of separation of seven days would benefit the children.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Those are matters of judgment and balance. I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend is going a little too far.
  I could say an awful lot about charities, but many hon. Members referred to the legal services, so I will deal with some of the important amendments that will be tabled in that regard. A Government amendment will be tabled in Committee to make regulations under clauses 15 and 17 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both
  228
  Houses of Parliament. Regulations under clause 15 will deal with the registration criteria for conveyancing practitioners and the codes of conduct and practice that will govern such practitioners once they are registered. Regulations under clause 70 will cover the conduct and practice of executry practitioners and the educational qualifications and practical training that will be required of those undertaking executry business.
  There is also considerable merit in the proposition that bodies applying for rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation under clause 23 should make their application available for public inspection, and that the Lord President and the Secretary of State should have regard to objections received when considering whether to grant such an application. Therefore, amendments will be tabled requiring those making the application to advertise that fact and to make copies of the draft scheme for regulating their members' exercise of any practising rights available for public inspection. The Lord President and the Secretary of State will then be required to consider any representations made about any application by outside bodies before reaching a final decision.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister agree that the list of Government amendments of which he is giving notice at the Dispatch Box, in addition to the fact that we will have at most five weeks to consider the Bill, contributes to the feeling that we are facing a period of chaos in an attempt to pass this important legislation? Will he respond to the point which is supported by Members on both sides of the House: that the Government should take the Bill away and reconsider it or we should extend its consideration beyond the summer?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have no doubt that, just as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East was able to persuade hon. Members to rise to the occasion when he took his Bill through the House, so we shall rise to the occasion and be capable of serving our constituents well enough to sit long enough to do justice to this measure.
  We also believe that there is need for a review procedure for rules, and we shall introduce proposals on that subject.
  The ombudsman will certainly have teeth, as hon. Members have requested. We propose to extend the list of exclusions from eligibility for the post of Scottish legal services ombudsman to members and officers of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board and conveyancing and executry practitioners and their employers.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will not give way because I am anxious in the short time available to deal with the whole issue of conveyancing.
  It is important that solicitors should be fairly treated. A vital point is that conveyancing practitioners must offer prospective clients an interview close to home or to the property being conveyed before any instructions are accepted. It must be with a qualified person—that is, a solicitor or, in time, a qualified conveyancer—and that will be dealt with by way of regulations.
  Similarly, each service must be priced separately so that clients can see if cheap conveyancing is being paid for from elsewhere. Also, each transaction must be supervised by a qualified person with whom the client will be able to deal

  229
  on a personal level. Agency arrangements will be possible, with conveyancing practitioners employing local solicitors to do conveyancing work, including interviews, for them.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked whether banks and building societies would do conveyancing. Hon. Members will have noted from the briefing circulated by the Council of Mortgage Lenders that it is unlikely that large institutions will wish to operate as conveyancers outside large population centres. That is a further reassurance that the viability of legal practices in rural areas will not be compromised.
  It has been argued that rural solicitors will see a large proportion of their fee income removed by competition. The argument is that such solicitors are able to stay in business only because of the fees they receive. In such circumstances, it could be suggested that conveyancing fees are higher than they need be to provide a fair return on the provision of conveyancing services in isolation. Neither the Secretary of State nor I accept that the imposition of what may be high conveyancing fees is necessarily the best way of maintaining the existing network of rural solicitors' offices.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: No hon. Member has suggested at any stage in the debate that higher fees are being charged for conveyancing in rural practices. We have pointed out that as much as 80 per cent. of the income of those practices is dependent on conveyancing fees. That is the bread and butter of those offices. If they lose that, they will not be able to provide the other vital services.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understood that the suggestion was that there had been cross—subsidisationthe hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) used that expression—although I accept that the hon. Lady did not say that.
  We have undertaken research to establish the present accessability of the people of Scotland to solicitors' offices. The results of that exercise are now available and I am placing copies of the report in the Library. Using the most recent available data, we see that 98 per cent. of the population of Scotland live within five miles of a solicitor's office in urban areas and within 10 miles in rural areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. We have conducted a survey. Furthermore, we will repeat the survey, probably in 1993, to monitor the situation and compare the position, recognising that any change will be the product of a number of factors.
  The argument that rural solicitors will suffer substantially also implies that the location and structure of solicitors' practices will be unchanging over time were it not for the effects of the Bill. That is not so. The solicitors' profession is far from static: it is continually changing in response to factors such as clients' needs, population shifts and trends in practice. There has been a trend towards larger practices, reflecting increasing complexity in the law and of clients' needs. We believe that this dynamic process is bound to lead to a shifting geographical pattern of outlets and to amalgamations and regroupings.
  One important feature of the conveyancing code of practice to be made in regulations will be the free interview with a solicitor or qualified conveyancer, which all practitioners will be obliged to offer—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the legislation will lead to amalgamations and regroupings, how will that increase choice, given that the client will have fewer firms of solicitors from which to choose?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman will find, I think, that many rural solicitors will be used on an agency basis, a system which will grow. Years ago, advocates put the same argument, saying that they were very much against solicitors taking on divorces in the sheriff courts since it was argued that that would be taking away their bread and butter work. The Bar has doubled since then, and its work has increased out of all recognition.
  It will be a function of the board to monitor the interview and personal contact obligations that I have outlined to ensure that prospective and actual plans received the degree of individual attention that they require. We shall look with particular care at these provisions. I am aware of the misgivings that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, so we shall be especially careful when we scrutinise this part of the Bill.
  As for Sunday opening of off-sales premises and public houses: religious organisations have expressed regret about the permitting of off licences on Sundays. I have received more than 50 letters on behalf of Kirk Sessions and other religious bodies expressing concern. Other bodies have welcomed the provisions in the Bill, which reflect the majority view of those who responded to the consultation document—
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have only a few moments left.
  There is a clear demand for off-licence premises to be opened on Sundays, and the Scottish Office's view is that the period of 12.30 pm to 10 pm strikes the right balance. The Bill proposes no addition to present Sunday opening of pubs, because the overwhelming majority of response were strongly against that, on the grounds that the traditional Scottish Sunday is a time of peace and quiet.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) asked what was meant by "locality" in clause 39 (1)(b).
  That is a matter for the judgment of the licensing board in the circumstances of the particular case. The board must take full view of whether the locality can be drawn narrowly or widely and must set the benefits to the community of the extension applied for against any detriment to the locality—
  Mr. Darling: If the board will have that much discretion, it will be able to drive a coach and horses through the provisions which the Minister tells us will improve matters. He will really have to do better than that next time around.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I believe that the tightening up of late-night licensing will be warmly welcomed by the hon. Gentleman's constituents and by many others in city centres. Children's certificates will also be welcomed, as they will help with tourists.
  The part of the Bill that might be referred to as having been called for by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr.

  231
  Hood) has already been mentioned. On this matter, we have taken the acton required. The main objective is to make certain that we have a regime that minimises the scope for sales of alcohol in off-licences to under-aged persons—
  Mr. Canavan: What about the police?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The overwhelming majority of responses on that have gone against what the hon. Gentleman has said, but we shall examine the matter with care in Committee.
  Hon. Members have raised many issues, and it has not been possible to answer all of them in the brief time available. I have no doubt that we shall return to every one of the issues of concern. The Scottish Office will listen to what is said with the utmost care and will respond accordingly to all the issues that are pursued. We believe that the Bill as a whole will, if enacted, confer significant benefits on the people of Scotland. It will make the regulatory regime for charities more transparent and effective. It will provide practical benefits in terms of wider choice for the users of legal services. It will provide useful reforms of the liquor licensing regime and other important improvements. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 207.

  Division No. 228]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Allen, Graham

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Alton, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Barron, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beckett, Margaret

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

  Beith, A. J.

  Flannery, Martin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Derek

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Graham, Thomas

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Haynes, Frank

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Carr, Michael

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Cox, Tom

  Janner, Greville

  Crowther, Stan

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Darling, Alistair

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dixon, Don

  Livsey, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  232

  Loyden, Eddie

  Richardson, Jo

  McAllion, John

  Robertson, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McCartney, Ian

  Rogers, Allan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Rowlands, Ted

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKelvey, William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  McWilliam, John

  Snape, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wallace, James

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Nellist, Dave

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, William

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Brian

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Worthington, Tony

  Prescott, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Redmond, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Mr. Alien Adams and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Reid, Dr John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Alexander, Richard

  Eggar, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Evennett, David

  Allason, Rupert

  Fallon, Michael

  Amess, David

  Favell, Tony

  Amos, Alan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkins, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Franks, Cecil

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Freeman, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

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

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gow, Ian

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Ground, Patrick

  Butcher, John

  Hague, William

  Butler, Chris

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, John

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Conway, Derek

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hill, James

  Day, Stephen

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Devlin, Tim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dicks, Terry

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dover, Den

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  233

  Irvine, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Jack, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Key, Robert

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Kilfedder, James

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Price, Sir David

  Knowles, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Knox, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lang, Ian

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Redwood, John

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Riddick, Graham

  Lightbown, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Rost, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Maclean, David

  Ryder, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mans, Keith

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Marland, Paul

  Shelton, Sir William

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Sims, Roger

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mills, Iain

  Speed, Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moate, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stern, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stevens, Lewis

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Norris, Steve

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Paice, James

  Thornton, Malcolm

  234

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wilkinson, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wood, Timothy

  Walden, George

  Yeo, Tim

  Walker, Bill (Tside North)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Irvine Patrick.

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) the expenses of the Lord Advocate in carrying out his functions under the Act;

  (b) sums required by the Secretary of State for the payment of—

  (i) grant to the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services board;

  (ii) amounts payable by him under the Act in respect of the Scottish legal services ombudsman and of any staff appointed for the ombudsman;

  (iii) the remuneration of temporary judges appointed under the Act; and

  (c) any increase.attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money provided by Parliament; and

  (2) payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  EC Railway Policy
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  10.13 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4478/90, relating to Community railway policy; and broadly welcomes proposals aimed at improving the efficiency and competitiveness of the European railways.
  The proposals on Community railway policy set out in the Commission documents which the House has before it are, in the Government's view, a useful and important contribution to preparing for and exploiting the benefits of the single market.
  The heart of the Commission's approach is that the European railways need to become more competitive. Indeed, the whole approach of the Commission is against encouraging any nation to continue to subsidise railways or, as in the past in some countries, to have railways which are production-led and do not cater sensitively and flexibly for the interests of their consumers, the passengers. The Commission wants commercial and autonomous organisations which are sensitive to the needs of the customer. The Government welcome the approach of the Commission in that regard.
  That approach is in marked contrast to that of Her Majesty's Opposition in the past. Undoubtedly, we shall hear from the Opposition spokesman whether the Opposition welcome the refreshing approach of the Commission in favour of a profitable European railway industry. That is the approach that the Government have pursued. We now have a railway that is more vigorous, profitable and responsive than when the Opposition party was in office. The changes that have occurred in our railway system in the 10 years of this Government are a great credit to British Rail and to this Administration, who supported British Rail in some of their sensible investment decisions and provided the cash from the taxpayers for those ends.
  The Government want to see a thriving United Kingdom and European railway system. We want to ensure that that is done fairly, sensibly and profitably. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier in the House today, we believe that there should be no subsidy to international traffic, passenger traffic or freight traffic. That is enshrined in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. The Government have no intention of changing that principle or repealing section 42 of the Act—unlike the Opposition, who voted for the Channel Tunnel Bill but have now changed their tune and want section 42 repealed to permit subsidy of international traffic.
  Mr. David Shaw: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, under this Government, the ferries of Dover are safe from unfair, subsidised competition and that, if a Labour Government were elected, public money would go into unfair competition that would do down the ferry industry of Dover and make many ferry workers unemployed?
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One can extend the argument. Why should subsidised international freight and passenger traffic have to compete with the unsubsidised air and ferry traffic between the United Kingdom and the continent? I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon used the word "international" when referring to the provision of public funds for rail links, she chose her word carefully? Can he confirm that there is nothing whatever in what she said that would preclude British Rail from approaching the Government and the Government acceding to its request to provide assistance for railway investment to cope with the inevitable congestion on the existing railway system caused by channel tunnel traffic?
  Mr. Freeman: I can confirm my hon. Friend's interpretation of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. There are three principles involved in my hon. Friend's question. First, the Government have ensured that there are substantial public funds for sensible British Rail investments. Some £3·7 billion has been earmarked by British Rail for investment over the next three years. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will know, that will in part be paid for by the taxpayers. The second principle is that there is an understanding of and recognition by the Government that in the case of domestic services, there may be a case for grant aid, as is the case in respect of Network SouthEast and provincial railways. That is perfectly consistent with the principle of no subsidy to international traffic.
  The third principle is that British Rail should be encouraged to exploit the environmental advantages of rail traffic in terms of lack of congestion, speed, and convenience. Those are great advantages for any rail network, and British Rail, like other European railways, should be encouraged to exploit them.
  The fourth principle is that we believe strongly that the customer should pay his or her fair share of the cost of railway journeys. It is understood that, particularly in the south-east, heavy expenses are incurred in providing a peak-hour service. That involves for Network SouthEast what amounts to running an unprofitable service. Therefore, the Government recognise, through the public service obligation grant, the need to contribute to British Rail in providing those services.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Minister explain therefore why Network SouthEast will have much less money next year than this year, in terms of its PSO grant?
  Mr. Freeman: The reason is that Network SouthEast is running its services better and more efficiently, so the public service obligation grant can be a little less next year than it has been in the past. That is to the credit of British Rail. As the hon. Lady knows, British Rail has great difficulty in providing services in the south-east, but those offered to the commuter this year will be better than last year. Because of the £3·7 billion British Rail investment programme, a portion of which will go to Network SouthEast, services will improve further over the next two to three years.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As to clause 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, can my hon. Friend tell the House by what means the massive infrastructure improvements in the Pas de Calais are being carried out? A major country is undertaking those improvements in competition with us. As my hon. Friend knows, I am

  237
  deeply concerned that the North-West region should be able to take advantage of the Channel Tunnel Bill, which I fully supported when it went through this House.
  Mr. Freeman: I am not responsible either for the French Government or for SNCF. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government recognise that the north-east and the north-west, and all regions outside London, must benefit from the opening of the channel tunnel. That is why British Rail will, by the opening of the tunnel in 1993, have invested more than £1 billion in making sure that both freight and passenger services in all regions of the country can capitalise on the opening of the tunnel.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Minister ensure that British Rail finalises its decisions not next week but this week, so that local authorities having an interest can clearly plan for the future? British Rail and the Government have been waffling about the benefits that will go north, but will the Minister ensure that speedy decisions are made, so that any local authorities that are affected can make good plans for the future?
  Mr. Freeman: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We expect an announcement shortly—I hope in the next week or so—on the first freight terminal in the north. British Rail will make announcements before the end of this year on all the regional freight terminals that will be available to capitalise on the channel tunnel.
  The Commission proposals before the House tonight fall into three parts, and I shall deal briefly with each. First, the Commission recognises that certain services may need specific grant assistance, especially urban commuter services. That is largely due to the problem of peaking, and the need for rolling stock, which cannot be used at an even load throughout the day. The Commission wants that grant assistance to be properly indentified and paid for by the Government or local authorities, possibly as a contract, as opposed to the grant procedure that we have at present. That is simply a difference between revenue and expenses. We will consider that proposal. It is certainly an interesting idea. It will not affect the amount of financial assistance that the taxpayer has to provide, but it is an interesting idea for the form that the assistance takes.
  Sir David Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that grants of that sort ought not to be designed to benefit railway users—who in many cases, in the commuter belts, are some of the most well-off users—but should be designed to help reduce congestion on the roads for others who do not use the railways and are much affected by the congestion that they would otherwise have to face?
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is my predecessor bar one and was a distinguished Minister in the Department of Transport. In evaluating British Rail's investment proposals, we recognise implicitly the benefits of relieving congestion. My hon. Friend knows that, in certain investment appraisals undertaken by British Rail and reviewed by ourselves, we take that into account. He is right to draw attention to the advantages of rail as opposed to road transport, and of bringing commuters on to the new light rail schemes.
  238
  Recently, I inaugurated the Manchester metrolink scheme, which will bring great advantage to the citizens of Manchester. I hope that that will be a means of avoiding having to bring cars into the centre of our big cities.
  The second proposal from the Commission argues for separating the infrastructure, and by definition one supposes its financing, from competing railway operations, which the Commission says should be run on a profitable basis. Presumably the railway operations would pay, through some form of leasing or franchising arrangements, for the use of the infrastructure.
  The Government are not convinced by those arguments. It is an interesting approach, and we agree with the Commission that there should be transparency—the true costs of the infrastructure, track, signalling and stations, should be fairly allocated to the different railway business sectors which operate over the track. That is the path down which British Rail is going: the allocation of infrastructure costs to each of the five separate business sections of British Rail. It is interesting to note from recent reorganisations at SNCF that it appears to be heading down the same route.
  Mr. Peter Fry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal by the Commission would provide an answer to those who often claim that road transport runs on an environment which is paid for by the taxpayer, whereas the railways have to run on tracks that they have paid for. The removal of that sort of argument would ensure that there was fair competition between rail and road.
  Mr. Freeman: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am not convinced at the moment that we need to separate the finances of the infrastructure from railway operations to achieve what my hon. Friend is seeking: some recognition in investment appraisals of the benefits of relieving congestion and the related social benefits. My hon. Friend and I are at one in seeking to achieve those benefits. I do not believe that the Commission's proposals are necessarily the only solution.
  Thirdly, as regards combined transport—when loads are carried by road and then transported for part of the journey by rail—the Commission has made certain recommendations about reduction or reimbursement of vehicle taxes. We do not accept those, and in any case, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for Transport Ministers. We do not accept its arguments. The House has the proposals. Our reaction is set out in the explanatory memorandum that we have provided.
  The draft Council directive on the development of the Community railways and the draft Council regulation amending regulation No.1/91/69, which established the public services obligation regime, set out the proposed organisational and other objectives to which I have referred. These proposals together represent the latest thinking of the Commission and supersede earlier proposals—in particular, the contents of departmental documents Nos. 4901/80, 4351/84 and 7343/85.
  Discussions within the Council on the two proposed Council directives and the proposed Council regulation have so far been limited. Therefore, it is too early to give the House an idea of how the discussions are likely to

  239
  proceed and when they are likely to be concluded. The Government hope that it will be possible to make reasonable progress on these important matters.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Is it not the case that a number of the proposals in the draft directive have already been rejected by a number of the railway undertakings on the Continent and are therefore likely to be opposed by a number of member Governments? How much importance should be attached to the draft directive? Is it likely to be given a fair wind and to form the basis of serious intergovernmental discussions? If so, when may it emerge as a directive?
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend anticipates the last of the Commission's recommendations dealing with the high-speed rail network. I anticipate that it may occupy the House's attention first and foremost. In December 1989 the Council of Transport Ministers invited the Commission to consider the priorities for developing a European high-speed rail network. I expect that report, from officials of the various countries involved, to be completed by the end of the year. It is important that it should be received in good time. I have already referred to the Government's response to the three previous proposals. A Community response to the other three is likely to take longer than the time scale for considering the high-speed rail network.
  We want high-speed rail network systems to be developed, but they must be developed on a sensible basis. We want such networks to permit the through running of trains. The existing tracks for TGV trains are not compatible with the TGV Atlantique trains. The latter cannot run on the track currently laid to Lyons. When we refer to ensuring that high-speed trains can run on the whole European network, we must remember that the French already have a problem with running those two types of train.
  The House ought to give credit for the fact that British Rail operates more services at 100 mph and above than any other continental country except France. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) may laugh, but he should not run down British Rail's services. I shall deal with the geographic and demographic advantages that the French enjoy in planning their high-speed rail networks, but British Rail operates more services at these very high speeds than any other continental railway except SNCF.
  High-speed train services in this country are excellent. Recently I had the opportunity to inaugurate the electrified line between London and Leeds. I have ridden on the track. That new service, using class 91 locos, will benefit many of my hon. Friends who use the east coast line. It is an excellent service. It has cost the taxpayer £450 million. In due course, it will be extended to Edinburgh. The French have made excellent progress. We give credit where it is due. Their high-speed trains are suitable for their terrain and demography. The French do not have the problem of London as a capital city, where tunnelling under part of the capital is inevitable for the construction of new rail links.
  Those on the Opposition Front Bench probably have not appreciated that the international high-speed services operating through the tunnel after 1993 from Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow will be able to travel as far as
  240
  Paris, but there passengers will have to change. The French do not provide through services for British passengers beyond Paris.
  In debates about high-speed rail links, there is a danger of forgetting the importance of making sure that we improve our domestic services, particularly commuter services. My hon. Friends who represent north Kent constituencies are rightly concerned—
  Mr. Peter Snape rose—
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
  Mr. Freeman: I shall finish my point; then I shall happily give way, first to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce).
  I recognise the problems faced by my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent, particularly with the north Kent line. I have visited London Bridge station and seen for myself the rolling stock, which is some 30 years old, and the overcrowding on those trains, but I can tell my hon. Friends that relief is at hand. Part of British Rail's £3·7 billion investment plan over the next three years is allocated to improving the quality of services on the north Kent line. That involves not only new rolling stock, which will begin to appear next October or November, but also the lengthening of the station platforms so that larger train capacity will be able to run on those lines.
  Mr. Snape: Can I take the Minister back to Paris, away from the realms of fantasy in which he is now becoming involved? The French do not want to take through passengers through Paris; they want to take them round Paris. That is exactly what the Opposition want to do with through passengers travelling through London.
  Mr. Freeman: I repeat the assertion that I made earlier. Passengers from Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow travelling through the tunnel after 1993 will have to change in Paris if they want to travel further on the French railway system.
  Finally, I turn to the three points of misrepresentation and misunderstanding by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: How will the subsidies to the railway system in France, including the subsidies that undoubtedly will be necessary for the high-speed train, be shown and reflected in fares in France and Germany, so that there is a level playing field in terms of competition between the European countries? Flow will that be demonstrated in the prices?
  Mr. Freeman: I am not responsible for the way in which the French and Germans run their railway systems. However, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the document before the House, containing the recommendations of the Commission, which state that each of the European nations' railway companies should be profitable, independent and autonomous. We accept those principles, as we hope our European partners do.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in many continental countries, the use of a high-speed link is regulated by a higher fare for that service? In other words, they use the market to determine whether people are willing to pay more money to use that service. In my constituency, British Rail abandoned and ripped up a

  241
  track between Wareham and Swanage, having decided that it was uneconomic, and a group of enthusiasts are now relaying that track. Instead of using it for a fun railway, they are now demonstrating that people would like to use that line again. Private enterprise and the market are showing that railways can be built at an economic price. Surely that is what the Government are saying to those in Kent who oppose the high-speed link.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations.
  At least three points of misunderstanding have been expressed by the Opposition about international rail link services. First, there seems to be an assumption—certainly by the media, and perhaps also on the Opposition Front Bench—that we are unprepared for the opening of the channel tunnel in 1993. British Rail has spent £1 billion on railway infrastructure to ensure that we have passenger and freight services to exploit the benefits of the channel tunnel in 1993. Coupled with that, by 1993, £600 million will have been spent on our road systems. Those sums are significant, and they show that we are prepared for the opening of the channel tunnel.
  The traffic forecasts show that, by the turn of the century, extra capacity may be needed not only to carry international traffic through the tunnel but to provide for commuter services. I am well aware of those forecasts, as are my hon. Friends. As for a high-speed rail link between Folkestone and London, at the turn of the century—not 1993—proposals have been put to us and a statement will be made shortly. The business aspects must stand up in terms of international traffic and be viable, but we understand that, as regards domestic Kent commuters, different financing principles will apply.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will my hon. Friend confirm British Rail's present assessment that the traffic carried on its commuter lines is at a level that would make the provision of extra capacity unnecessary? Would my hon. Friend like to consider whether changes in working patterns, because of the massive increase in the use of fax, computer networks and so on, may throw out the traffic forecasts, and whether this expensive project may be unnecessary?
  Mr. Freeman: Those who have made traffic forecasts would not share my hon. Friend's judgment. The forecasts which the Department has seen and which were made by a number of promoters of alternative links, and British Rail's figures, show that, perhaps by the turn of the century or a bit later, depending on the forecast made, extra capacity will be needed. That will mean not just using the infrastructure better but having additional lines.
  The second misunderstanding has been expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. It has been said that Government money is not involved in either the preparations for 1993 or thereafter. I have already made our position plain on section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act, but it is important to delve a little deeper into the Opposition's claim that private sector finance is available in great quantities and on competitive terms to help finance—
  Mr. John Prescott: Knocking on the door.
  Mr. Freeman: Let me just analyse the hon. Gentleman's statements a little further. He asserts that this money is not disguised gilt-edged borrowing—in other words, it is not guaranteed or procured by the Government, which would count as public sector borrowing. Any private sector finance brought in to finance any part of British Rail's plans, including a high-speed link, will cost more than gilt-edged borrowing. The private sector rightly demands a higher rate of return, because the private sector wishes to minimise or hedge its risk. Private sector finance is not an easy option.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East wishes to bring in substantial private sector money to finance his grandiose plans for the railway networks of the next century. He will find that the private sector will demand far higher rates of return. By definition, public sector finance, which looks for an 8 per cent. real rate of return, will often be a better way of financing railway expenditure. I appreciate, of course, that the involvement of the private sector, in terms of engineering and route design, can sometimes bring economies and savings about which British Rail and the public sector have not thought. Private sector involvement can often be a better mechanism to ensure that money is not overspent and that projects are controlled properly.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Has my hon. Friend noticed something else odd about the private-public mix? The Opposition are keen to see public money go into British Rail as it is organised at present as a nationalised industry. As and when it is privatised, as most Conservative Members hope, if such a proposition were put to the House, the Opposition would be screaming blue murder and saying that we were subsidising our friends.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is something inconsistent about the Opposition's argument that somehow private sector money is knocking on the door for railway investment. We have asked British Rail, together with its partner Eurorail, to consider carefully the financing of a high-speed rail link. That is private sector involvement. We are appraising that proposal at present to see whether it makes sense and whether it stacks up against the criteria that we have outlined.
  Mr. Gerald Bowden rose—
  Mr. Freeman: I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will find that private sector money is not available in great quantities on the terms that his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer or his hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is prepared to accept.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the only section of the directive that refers to Community funds being established to finance the network is the section on the high-speed trains? Will the Minister tell the House—this is terribly important—whether, if Community funds are established, as proposed in that section of the directive, that would be a way of getting round the financial restrictions of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987? Is he aware that hon. Members would feel cheated if, having passed a Bill that said that no public funds would be available, we found a Community fund

  243
  being established to finance gaps and to finance high-speed trains, which would simply be a way of tearing up all the assurances given in this place?
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will finish on that point. My hon Friend has put his finger—
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Freeman: I will give way before I conclude, because I am aware of my hon. Friend's close interest in the rail link.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has put his finger on the third and biggest misunderstanding and misrepresentation by the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talks grandly about European Community financing. In a recent radio broadcast, he talked about the opposition's plans for a high-speed rail link from Folkestone to Scotland costing £15 billion, and he argued that a great proportion of that sum would come from a European infrastructure fund. That is pure fantasy.
  Mr. Prescott: That is not true.
  Mr. Freeman: I have read the transcript of the broadcast.
  That argument is wholly unrealistic, for two reasons. First, the European budget contains only 60 million ecu at present, which is £40 million. That is equivalent to the cost of buying two trains to run through the channel tunnel. Secondly, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has argued that, somehow, our European partners can be conned into financing an enormous European infrastructure fund and that we should be net beneficiaries on a substantial scale. That is wholly unrealistic. Let him talk to the French and the Germans to try to persuade them to finance further British Rail investment. Before I conclude, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden).
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—especially so because I know that he will agree with me. No amount of public money can make a bad scheme a good scheme, and British Rail's present scheme is a bad scheme. Alternative schemes command commercial support.
  Mr. Adley: Developer-led.
  Mr. Bowden: I hear a sedentary voice say, "Spiv-led."
  Mr. Adley: No: developer-led.
  Mr. Bowden: If ever a scheme was developer-led, it is the British Rail King's Cross scheme, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for making that point.
  Let us look at the alternatives calmly: they are economically viable and they would go through a part of the country which is not made up of prime farm land or heritage landscape, which does not house communities, which is not inner London and which is not my constituency. I make no apology for defending my constituency, or, for that matter, for advancing a view that would benefit the whole of the United Kingdom. I urge my hon. Friend to consider the alternatives, which are economically viable and environmentally acceptable, which command widespread commercial support and which would be operationally effective.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I gave him assurances on those very points in the debate that he initiated a short time ago. He referred to King's Cross and the Stratford alternatives. Even the proponents of those alternatives believe and accept that the services must eventually run through to King's Cross and the other major London terminals, so I suggest that having King's Cross as a terminal centre—a second terminal—is not entirely inconsistent with those proposals.
  I commend the motion to the House. We believe in a profitable railway system. We are pragmatic, sensible and realistic, and we will deliver the goods.

  EC Railway Policy
  10.51 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, to leave out from "policy" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "and welcomes the proposals to upgrade to European standards Britain's inadequate railway system by filling in the missing links, and especially welcomes the establishment of a high speed rail network to include a dedicated high speed rail route from the Channel Tunnel to Scotland which requires the recommended changes in the present financial controls over nationalised industries, notably British Rail, in order to take into account the general needs of the community.".
  I hope that the House will understand that if I am to allow other hon. Members the opportunity to speak, I shall not be able to give way as often as the Minister did.
  In view of the statements made by the Prime Minister this afternoon and in the past by the Secretary of State for Transport, to the effect that no subsidy would be available for a high-speed international rail link, no debate could be more apposite than this debate on the Community's rail policy. If that is true—we shall have to await the contents of the statement that may be made to the House on Thursday to find out—Britain will remain committed to its existing 19th-century railway system while Europe develops the railway system of the 21st century.
  That will be bad news for the tunnel that will connect the two systems and it will make it much more difficult to raise the finances for that tunnel. It will be bad news for the already congested south-east railway network, which will have to carry an additional 16 billion passengers. It will cause considerable environmental damage. It will be bad news for the northern parts of Britain, which will not have the fast access to Europe so necessary to their economies. It will prevent the relief of major congestion in Britain and the limitation of environmental damage, which could both be achieved were we to develop fast links such as those provided by the TGV in France. Britain will pay a high price for such a decision.
  The Opposition amendment is based on those aspects of policy which, as the Government made clear in their evidence to the Committee—and as the Minister made clear tonight—they do not accept. The Government do not welcome the idea that a railway system should be developed to meet the community's needs, that is, that there should be a fast high-speed network throughout the Community. If that were the case, people could travel from Scotland to Portugal, into the south of France or to Italy on a fast rail system. It is somewhat contemptible for southern hon. Members to say that such a system might save only 10 minutes on a journey in the south. A high-speed network is vital to the northern parts of Britain and that should be accepted whether hon. Members live in the north or the south.
  Apparently the Government do not accept the need to co-ordinate. They accept that we need to harmonise some of the technical provisions, but they are not prepared to plan to ensure that we have a high-speed system similar to that in the rest of the Community and to fill in what the document and the Community refer to as the missing links in such a system.
  The proposed plan for the European high-speed network extends only as far as London—according to the
  246
  definition of a high-speed link. The European definition of high speed is 180 mph and there are test trains on the TGV system capable of 300 mph. It is all very well for the Minister to refer to the Leeds line. I travel on that line regularly. It is a good quality train, but trains on that line travel at two thirds the speed of trains in Europe. The problem is that the ride on the line is most uncomfortable because the track is not suitable for high-speed traffic. The Minister said that he has travelled on that line. I defy him to keep his coffee in a cup, if he can get it on a table, when the train is travelling at 120 mph. If he doubts what I say, he need only ask any hon. Member who uses that line.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I invite hon. Members to travel on that line and to see for themselves. A fortnight ago I travelled on a TGV at 190 mph and I could have stood a pencil on its end. That is the difference in the quality of the high-speed lines.
  The Government reject the idea that there should be any subsidy for international passenger services or for freight services. The Government would not offer a financial incentive for combined road-rail services to move traffic off the roads on to rail. The Commission believes that someone using road and rail is being charged twice for the track costs—for the freight carriage and on the road. Therefore, there should be an entitlement to a reduction in the road tax. That is a reasonable argument and one that I should have thought would appeal to the marketeer arguments that we hear from Conservative Members. The Community's desire to see more freight transferred from road to rail and the use of subsidy should be an objective. That might not be achieved as a result of market forces, but it is recognised as desperately necessary in the south-east and in east Kent, where people do not want hundreds of thousands more lorries on their roads.
  We disagree with the Minister about freight. The Government want a policy that reduces the public subsidy, leaving the issue to the market and to competition and hang the consequences. I am afraid that the Opposition do not accept that. Our amendment seeks to highlight the differences between us and the Government over the development of a Community rail policy.
  Our system is inadequate and has missing links in that some lines still require electrification. I should have thought that the east midlands point might strike home with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who no doubt campaigns for it. We need a high-speed link from the channel tunnel to Scotland. It should go not simply to London; it should go to the north. The Government must also change the financial framework to allow a high-speed network to be built. Those are the possibilities to be found in the document with which we agree.
  Mrs. Currie: If the Labour party is so keen to develop rail links in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, why has Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council refused to help to fund a feasibility study into the development of the Ivanhoe line, to improve passenger rail services in my constituency?
  Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Lady visited Europe and looked at the railways there, she would discover the European rail systems are paid for by the state, which plans the development and finances the investment and

  247
  does not constantly impose increasing charges on the local authorities to carry the rail burden, which is what the Conservatives in Britain have been doing. They have been transferring the cost from national to regional and local expenditure, with all the difficulties that that is bound to create.
  Mr. David Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: Never to the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: `Windy."] Windy? The man is an idiot.
  Our railway system is inadequate, and hon. Members need not take my word for that. They heard the groans that accompanied the comments about the Kent railway system. We have a passenger consumer body that has made it clear that the quality of the service has been deteriorating in punctuality, cleanliness and quality of service because of the reduction in the public service obligation grant. The grant in Britain is a fraction of what is given in Europe, and the result is bound to have an effect on the quality of the service.
  There is no need for us to argue about whether our rail system is inadequate. It clearly is, on the basis of speed, quality and comprehensiveness of the network. On all scores the British rail system does not measure up to the best in Europe, and we should not have anything but the best.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Prescott: No.
  If the argument is that our railway system is under-resourced, with a reduction in grant and investment levels, one need only examine a CBI report on the subject that was issued recently. That showed how much we spend on the infrastructure compared with our competitors. They are spending four or five times more than us, including on the railways. Presumably the CBI's arguments are accepted by Conservative Members.
  Sir David Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Moate rose—
  Mr. Prescott: No.
  The same applies to the amount of passenger journeys by electrified lines—56 per cent. compared with an average of 70 per cent. in Europe generally. On all fronts our system is inadequate and we must fill in the missing links if we are to achieve the improvement that we need.
  On the freight side, we have a clapped-out engine system. We have been supplied with only half the engines that we need. Whereas, in 1975, 15 per cent. of products went by rail in this country, only 9 per cent. now go by rail. In Europe the figure is 15 per cent.
  What do the Tories think section 8 grants are when they talk about no subsidies being given for freight? About £50 million has been given by the Government in section 8 grants since 1980, and that is called a subsidy. I agree. It is a subsidy designed expressly to achieve a transfer from road to rail. But it has been announced, with the collapse of Speedlink, that those who were encouraged to invest will no longer have the wagon facilities because the financial burden placed on the freight side of British Rail—now further increased in view of the greater rate of return requirement—has forced a cut in wagon loads.
  It is always claimed when a cut in Speedlink is mentioned that it will represent only 2 per cent. of the tonnage: But that percentage represents about 100,000
  248
  lorries on our roads. Can our roads bear that additional number of lorries, considering our present congestion and environmental problems?
  Incentives must be made available if we are to achieve improvements in the rail system. Conservative Members have much to say when we discuss subsidies and incentives. What happens when there is talk of reducing company car allowances? Those, too, are subsidies.
  The Minister is apparently opposed to the idea of the Community having some influence on the nature of our rail system. The Government made it clear in evidence to the Select Committee that, in their view, they do not feel that what is required in Europe should necessarily have relevance to our railway system. I disagree. The British people would like to see a TGV fast railway link. That would give them choice. Conservative Members should favour choice, enabling us to compete against the aeroplane, thereby reducing congestion at our airports, and against other forms of transport. If time permitted, I should say a lot about the problems of congestion at our airports. It is no longer a matter of competition with the ferries. They will look after themselves very well; they are now bigger and faster. The tunnel will cost twice as much as they will, so price sensitivity is no longer such a concern for them.
  Mr. David Shaw rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I have no time; other hon. Members want to speak.
  The aviation industry is congested and we should relieve that congestion, just as the French have clone. All those matters are relevant to our rail system.
  Mr. Moate rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I appeal to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not want to give way?
  Mr. Prescott: I do not, in order to allow other hon. Members to speak.
  Mr. Moate rose—
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is just a yobbo. The Minister took 40 minutes—
  Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can we establish that endeavouring to persuade a spokesman to give way does not make an hon. Member a yobbo? I hope that we can, as the Minister was courteous enough to give way several times.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That was one of the most genuine points of order ever put to me. That can indeed be established.
  Mr. Prescott: To show how impertinent I am, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman is displaying great courtesy—
  Mr. Wells: And his usual charm.
  Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman is telling the House that a future Labour Government would put massive new resources into the rail system. Will he confirm that one of

  249
  the first actions of the previous Labour Government was to cancel the Channel tunnel project? They went on to make major cuts in the railway investment programme, an action of which the hon. Member for Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was a regular critic. Why on earth should the House or the country believe that any future Labour Government would carry out any of the promises that the hon. Gentleman is making?
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman knows that I adopted a position similar to his on the channel tunnel at that time. It is now partly completed and it will be an important part of our transport network. The question now is how to connect the link to it.
  I come from the shipping industry and I know its sensitivities. I still advocate the need for a tunnel and rail connection, because the shipping industry will look after itself.
  Mr. Shaw rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I need no lectures about the transport system from an idiot like you—
  Mr. Shaw rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) does not want to waste the time of the House with such phrases, and that he will now withdraw it.
  Mr. Prescott: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I directed the remark to you. I did not intend that, although I may have intended it in other directions. I withdraw any insinuation against you, Madam Deputy—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Just to put the record straight, it was not a reflection on me. I clearly heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I take it that he has now withdrawn the remark so that we can proceed in good order in what little time we have left for the debate.
  Mr. Prescott: In the little time I have left I shall not give way to anyone else. I want to finish my speech.
  I have been asked to quantify the money involved, and I do not want to evade the question. I do not want to be like the Secretary of State, who runs away from every argument. I take every opportunity to deploy my arguments, and the Secretary of State should do the same.
  The Government's position on these matters is: leave it to the market; everything must pay its own way; the needs of the community are irrelevant. As our amendment makes clear, we reject that point of view. I should have thought that even those with an A-level in economics would know that transport costs are an essential part of any economic development—[Interruption.] I think I was right before about the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), but I must not spoil my image and keep laughing.
  Mr. David Shaw: Every clown has his day.
  Mr. Prescott: There is an hon. Lady who might reflect on that comment.
  A European high-speed rail system of the TGV type is essential for this country, and it is necessary for us to secure it. It is possible to do so, and we must, to reduce congestion, improve the environment and build an
  250
  economy to aid Britain's development in the European Community. Britain cannot have less than is available abroad, particularly when she is on the periphery of the Community, and needs a high-speed connection into that system. Therefore, the argument about the different routes is tragic.
  The Prime Minister has said that there will be no subsidy for international links. Presumably, that means that costs are too high, and are greater than those on which one can except a rate of return from the projects. Those costs were inflated by a rumoured £1 billion by the Prime Minister saying, during the campaign for the Kent county elections, that people in Kent should not worry about their environment, because the route would be tunnelled. British Rail then had to come up with a plan to meet the evironmental requirements. I support the need to meet the requirements, but it is the worst of all worlds to impose such a social cost on a railway system and then, when one finds that it does not pay, to cancel it.
  The argument is about whether we need the system, and, if so, how to pay for it. I do not know how much it will cost because we do not even know what the Eurorail preferred route is, because the Government do not give us any information. Nobody knows what the costs are, but we have heard that there is a difference of about £400 million. With a project costing £3 billion, it seems a good deal for the Government to put in £400 million to complete a high-speed rail link. With other projects—for example, in the London docklands—the Government's argument is that one puts in a little bit of public money to generate an awful lot of private capital. What is so different about a high-speed rail link?
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Advancing public money would be fine if the payment of £400 million were one off. What would the hon. Gentleman say if developers came along and asked for another £400 million, and then another?
  Mr. Prescott: What has happened with the building of the tunnel, by another private enterprise flagship, has made me aware of that tendency. This is a problem, and one on which we have to concentrate our minds. However, if it not unique for such systems to be financed with private capital. I shall come to that, because it is relevant.
  When I hear the hon. Member for Dover saying that he does not want subsidies for the ferries, I wonder whether he advocates the subsidy of £100 million-plus that goes to Network SouthEast. Does he want that removed, so that fares will be set in fair competition? Presumably they will have to rise to meet what is already a declared Government policy of reducing the public service obligation for Network SouthEast. He may think that that is good, but I think that if one forces up the fares, one will force more people into cars, which will have the worst possible consequences in an already congested area. That is not good sense. I only hope that it will dawn on the hon. Member for Dover, as we get near the election, that it might not be a good deal, because an awful lot more people travel on the trains than go on the ferries. He might rethink his order of priorities. It will not matter, because he will be out anyway.
  The provisions of section 42 are an important element in the debate about public money. As I have said before, both sides of the House agreed with that section. The aviation and shipping industries were concerned and put

  251
  on pressure then, but things have changed since 1986. For example, it was said that the south-east could handle all channel tunnel traffic, but since then it has increased by 25 to 30 per cent. The ferries are now faster and bigger and able to cope with the traffic. The cost of the tunnel has doubled, and the price factors make a difference in competition. Much the same has happened in aviation. Therefore, the Government could repeal the section, and I offer them the opportunity to do so.
  The argument is: what is the combination of private and public money? The reputable Connect organisation surveyed 100 Tory Members, and 50 per cent. of them said that public investment should be made in the project and that section 42 should be repealed. We must wait to see what happens about that.
  The central issue is whether the public sector can use private money to develop the channel tunnel and the high-speed link that should go up to Scotland and not end in London. That link becomes all the more important the further one travels from the tunnel.
  We must change the rule that governs the nationalised industries in this country, which has been deployed by the Treasury under Labour and Conservative Governments. The document published by the Commission makes it clear that the financial framework should be changed in such a way to encourage private investment. A week ago Commissioner van Miert came here and suggested that projects such as the tunnel cannot always be made profitable and that the Euro-infrastructure fund should make up the difference in costs. That fund can offer only a small sum of money because of the Government have set their face against a larger such fund. But for the inadequacies of our system, Britain would be in a similar position to that of France regarding the common agricultural policy. We would be a net recipient of money from the Euro-infrastructure fund and we would be building up our communications system. Instead we are paying out on the CAP and paying higher costs for the project.
  The nationalised industries of France and Germany have borrowed varying amounts from the private sector to cover three quarters of the cost. I have read the pamphlet from the 100 group about public utility financing. All the top private companies brought their auditors together and they recommended that it is time that we changed the rules in the Treasury concerning nationalised industries, to enable them to borrow on the private market. One could bring in equity financing and change the debt structure if desired, but it is not beyond our imagination to change the financial framework so that the major burden is not totally on the taxpayer, but balanced by the fare payer. That burden could also be reduced by development contributions and infrastructure money. At least that would mean that we had a rail system adequate to the needs of the 21st century.
  We need such a system, but that needs imagination from the politicians. They must rethink some of their views so that Britain is given the transport system that she fully deserves.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is less than 30 minutes for the remainder of the debate. It will not be possible for me to squeeze a litre into a half pint, but I shall do my best with the co-operation of hon.Members.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: I am not sure whether I am a litre or a half-pint. The fact that more than 50 hon. Members are present, many of whom wish to take part, shows the political interest in transport matters and in railway policy particularly.
  I make no complaint that the two Front-Bench spokesmen have taken up an hour of the one and a half hours available, but if any of the Government business managers are listening I hope that more time will be made available for such important debates.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the courteous and thoughtful way in which he introduced the European document. I was glad to hear that my hon. Friend, in his new position, intends to listen well, as there is a lot to learn about the railway industry. I suggest that my hon. Friend should check how much of what we call the subsidy to British Rail has, in the past 10 years, come from subsidies from the public loans fund board and how much from British Rail via its funds and from fares from its customers. I believe that my hon. Friend will discover that the claims that the Government make about the amount of subsidy given to British Rail for investment are a long way from reality.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), my near neighbour, referred to the Swanage railway, which is run by volunteers and acquired old irons to make one of its signal boxes from a sale in my garden a few years ago. That that railway should be compared with the investment requirements for the TGV leaves a little bit to the imagination.
  The Opposition's amendment would be all very well had we not rather longer memories of what happened under the last Labour Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) pointed out. They have never yet shown an ability to match their ambitions with the reality of the economic policies that they have pursued. Perhaps that is why there is a reference to "missing links" in their amendment. Some of us remember that it was Barbara Castle who closed the Somerset and Dorset joint railway, the Great Central railway, et alia.
  Conservative Members are entitled to say that the problems that we are facing now in our debates about the railways are caused by the congestion created by a successful economy generating a great deal of prosperity for millions of our fellow citizens which has been manifested in more cars on our roads. That is the political reality that we face today.
  The document that we are debating contains a number of interesting proposals. It considers the role that the railways can play. One particular paragraph in the draft directive on the development of Community railways says:
  "the manner in which road users currently pay for roads and the historical anomalies concerning inland waterways makes the achievement of equality of treatment between competing transport modes difficult."
  That lies at the heart of this debate and all our debates. It is the debate that we had in the House a few Fridays ago. It is the debate about the double standards adopted by the Department of Transport since time immemorial towards investment in our roads as opposed to investment in our railways. That is the key to all this.
  The document also says:
  "The role of governments should rather be to provide a competitive framework within which railways and other modes of transport can compete on equal terms."

  253
  Unless and until we have equal terms, there will be no sensible debate. There is all the difference in the world between the way in which the ferry operators and the airlines, for example, get their passengers to airports and ferry ports, and the way in which British Rail gets its passengers to the channel tunnel.
  As far as I know—my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—the Department of Transport is not proposing to form a company next week called British Roads plc and it is not proposing to have a scheme whereby those who use the roads are required to pay for them. The taxpayer will provide all the money for all the roads for all the passengers to get to the airports and ferries. But British Rail must provide its own track costs out of its own funds. That is what many of us mean about the inequality of investment criteria.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Adley: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to abide by strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall not give way.
  The perceived role of the railway in a modern industrial society on a small, crowded island such as Britain leaves us living on a different planet from the perceived role of the railways in various other EC countries.
  We have all heard about the French railway system and I do not propose to discuss it this evening. But will my hon. Friend take every opportunity to study what goes on not in France but in West Germany? Most people would accept that the West German Christian Democrat Government are far from being a socialist Government. But the way in which the West German Government provide funds and assistance for their railway system can only cause one to gasp in anticipation and at the same time to groan with despair when we realise what a different attitude Britain has to our railway system.
  The Deutsche Bundesbahn receives three types of funding from the West German federal Government. First, it receives compensation for public transportation services. The railway receives funds to help offset the costs of services which are not meant to be profitable, particularly in relation to urban transit or to regional transport in rural areas.
  Secondly, subsidies are aimed at eliminating competitive distortions. In its attempts to compete with alternative modes of transportation, the federal railway is hampered by the fact that it is a Government entity. The Government provide funds to reduce some of the company's imbalances, particularly the extraordinarily high financial costs incurred for civil service training, retirement and welfare expenses. No such thoughts have ever crossed the minds of successive Governments in this country.
  Thirdly, Deutsche Bundesbahn receives grants to ensure a stable capital base and maintain a healthy level of investment in the firm's railway infrastructure. As the owner of the federal railway, the West German Government are obliged to support the railway in that area. My hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessors have told me that they are uncertain of the West German Government's assistance to their railway. I spent time recently with the West German ambassador, with the
  254
  transport attaché and with the head of Deutsche Bundesbahn in London. I should be happy to impart to my hon. Friend such information as I have received.
  In West Germany, the modern railway is a national asset and part of the country's economy. It is an essential factor in both economic growth and environmental protection. I give only one illustration of environmental protection, which my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned in his speech. Recently, I supported the Government in their decision on the Winchester bypass. It was explained quite properly that, to alleviate environmental damage, the Government would provide millions of pounds to overcome the environmental objections to the bypass. Yet when British Rail makes proposals and, quite properly, is told that it must provide environmental protection, it has to find the money out of its own funds. There is an inconsistency in the treatment of British Rail. Until we have the level of playing field to which the document refers, we shall never have an honest and straightforward debate.
  I shall end on the following point. I am sorry if I weary the House, because I have made it many times before. Public transport policy and party political dogma are uneasy bedfellows. Congestion and concern for the environment are national problems which will grow worse and worse over the years. I know that some of my hon. Friends wince if I dare to use the word consensus, but we must find a consensus across the political divide in the House. We must come up with a transport policy which operates in the interests of our nation. Inevitably, that will require far greater public investment in our railway system. There is no alternative if we are to continue to provide an environmentally acceptable and pollution-free opportunity for our citizens to enjoy a reasonable means of travelling in comfort and safety.
  11.27 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It says little for the House of Commons that a major debate on transport is jammed into one and a half hours when we are endeavouring to take major decisions about the future of a railway system. I do not object to the length of the speeches from Front Bench Government and Opposition Members. It is important that we learn from the Government whether they have a transport policy at all. They make it clear that to them the transport system should be treated rather in the manner that some doctors used to be said to treat their patients—with masterly inactivity. They believe that, if they do nothing, with any luck something will happen. The difficulty is that in those circumstances the patient frequently dies.
  We now face a major decision about a major transport link, the channel tunnel, which will affect not only the south-east of England but the economies and futures of the north-west and north-east, not to mention the state of Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland. Married to the plan for developing a high-speed link must inevitably be a clear view of where the freight depots will lie, how the passengers and freight will get around a major conurbation such as London and how we can plan, with the addition of local authority money not only for a land bridge to Northern Ireland but for the development of stations and traffic which will make a major and important

  255
  contribution to the transport system of the next century. Those factors have not been made clear by the Government.
  We know that the Government have one policy, which is to squeeze the rail system of as much finance as they possibly can, by setting increasingly difficult targets and demanding that the investment should come almost entirely from passengers or those who use freight services. Neither the environmental costs nor the development costs are important to the Government so long as they can cut subsidies. It has been made clear today that that is an unequal policy, because the Government happily choose to subsidise alternative forms of transport, although they are anxious that that should not be seen to be done.
  The directive is a major departure. It suggests that rail systems will, in all probability, be split in two and that in financial terms the infrastructure will be divided from rolling stock and other services. It says nothing about how that will be planned or financed, and nothing about how we can achieve transparency in the financial system. While every other European country with the exception of Greece subsidises its rail system to an enormous extent, we are at the bottom of the table.
  What do the Government intend to do to ensure that British Rail is not required to play off one local authority against another all across Britain due to the Government's attempts to have local ratepayers meet the cost of the sites to be developed as freight depots? What are the Government prepared to do about planning those systems so that they are economically viable and logical for the future development of this country's industry? That has not been made clear, for the simple reason that the Government are determined that such decisions should be made by British Rail. They will then put an enormous financial squeeze on the rail system so that decisions will be take by default which will have far-reaching consequences and will be impossible to alter when we are no longer competing.
  It is the height of hypocrisy for the Government to argue that the Confederation of British Industry is concerned about congestion and the cost to British industry of not having an adequate infrastructure, and then not to make a single clear decision in relation to London, the movement of freight, or the development of high-speed trains.
  Every other European nation has spent at least five years and probably 10 years planning to link its transport systems into HGVs, not just into their own future system but into those of other countries throughout the continent. We are the only nation to have left that aspect to be decided by default, on the back of an envelope, when it happens to be politically useful to make a statement in the House, like a bone being thrown to a little dog.
  It is the height of irresponsibility for the Minister to come to the House today and still not make it clear how the Government envisage the future not only of the high-speed link but of the freight depots and of investment throughout the country. In the north, we need a clear statement of how passengers and freight will be transhipped around London and connect to a high-speed system. We need to know where electrification will come and why the Government will not encourage proper transport planning. None of those questions has been answered. It says very little for the Minister and nothing for the Government that they have such a weird set of priorities.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: You may be amazed to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I listened intently to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I was appalled to hear him call for a high-speed railway running at 190 mph. That would smash through Kent with scant regard for its environment.
  In the short time available to me, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to get on with the job of scrapping the current high-speed rail link proposal. It is a botched job, which takes no account of the environment of Kent. It is inadequate for the purpose, as it carries only passengers. It would overload railway lines into south-east London—God alone knows that our constituents suffer that bad railway journey into London every day in the south-east—and to finance it, British Rail is asking for a blank cheque from the taxpayer. The Bill needed to achieve that would be a hybrid Bill, reliant upon whipping on Conservative Benches, which certainly would not be the way to get the legislation through.
  The whole proposal is typical of a nationalised industry, with its traditional enthusiasm for white elephants. I do not see why the taxpayer should subsidise jet setters from London going to Paris or Brussels, or business men on their journeys to the continent. We do not want a rush job, which makes a fundamentally wrong decision about such a long-term project as a high-speed railway network.
  I also listened intently to the Minister and he quite clearly said that when the channel tunnel opens there will be a railway network that provides a framework for freight and passengers to get through this country, and that £1 billion of British Rail money has been invested to ensure that that happens.
  Tonight we are discussing a European document. Now is the time for us to calmly put our efforts into the working party of the European Commission, which will weigh up the priorities for high-speed links throughout Europe. However, when we consider a rail link passing through Kent, we should think of the environment and we should also consider a link that will carry both freight and passengers.
  I represent one of the north-west Kent constituencies and that area has nothing to gain from a high-speed rail link. Our people will pay the price in terms of its effect upon their environment. If we are to have such a link, investment by the rail users must be used to protect people in north-west Kent who would otherwise pay the environmental price.
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I am almost reluctant to speak, because obviously, at this time of night, with another speech coming up and with the Front Bench spokesmen having already taken up one hour of the debate, it is impossible to say what one really wants to say.
  However, it would be useful to establish the principles upon which I base my argument. As a Liberal Democrat I am committed to one Europe. As a country, we should be playing a positive role within Europe and not, as is often the case with the Government, dragging our feet and setting up obstacles. Narrow-minded nationalism and remarks such as "This is our railway," which the Minister,

  257
  the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), made on television last night, are hardly the spirit in which we should approach European unity and the single market.
  Even if the Government are not committed to an integrated Europe, surely they can see that any delay in grasping the advantages for commerce and trade that the single market and the opening of the channel tunnel offer can spell only doom and gloom for Britain's economy. Those countries with advanced transport systems, including rail, which can transport passengers and goods in a fast, safe and efficient fashion, will corner the market. By the time we have stopped burying our heads in the sand, the rest of Europe will have established itself in the market and will be reaping the economic and social benefits.
  If we are not going to try to compete on equal terms with our partners, the channel tunnel will be nothing more than an eyesore—and an expensive eyesore at that. Whether or not, as individuals, we want it in place, the fact is that it will be there—or it may be there; we are not quite sure, and I have my doubts about the project ever being finished as costs are spiralling and have already almost doubled. Do the Government know more than we do about that, and is that the true reason for their reluctance to invest in a high-speed network? Without an efficient rail link, our existing freight and passenger lines will not cope with the increased capacity. All major roads in the country will be jammed with lorries and cars making their way to Dover. The damage to our environment will be immense. The roads in Kent will be unbearable.
  To resolve the congestion, we build more roads and damage the environment even further. If we do not resolve the problem of congestion, people and goods will eventually stop coming to Britain. Tourists will find it easier to travel in other parts of Europe, European companies will find other markets more profitable and British companies will find it increasingly difficult to justify the cost of transporting goods to Europe.
  If that is the scenario for the future, it is not one that should be advocated in this Chamber. Railways have been proved to be far more environmentally friendly in terms of landscape and capacity, and the new technology means that they are also becoming noise-friendly. A high-speed rail link to benefit the whole of the United Kingdom—including the west and south-west coasts and not just the south-east and the route to Scotland, as the Labour party's amendment seems to advocate—will open up so many frontiers to us that we cannot help but benefit from it.
  The claim that section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 prevents the Government from providing the funds is hogwash. The Government know very well that they could fund some of the high-speed rail link by means of the public service obligation to Network SouthEast. All that prevents them from doing so is the fact that it goes against the grain of their policy of making Network SouthEast self-sufficient.
  I suppose that if we hold out long enough we may qualify for a grant from the proposed Community fund for the missing links of the European network. The Secretary of State is fond of saying that he has a balanced policy for transport. I suggest that he should put it into practice in
  258
  this instance. These are not the policies that we require. We want policies which make for a fast and effective transport system.
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Many hon. Members are in the House tonight because we all like railway debates. Whenever we hold a debate on railway policy, there are always some hon. Members who have a lot to say about the investment that should be made in the railways, how it should be spent and what the priorities are. I hope that hon. Members will reflect on the fact that, if the proposals become the law of Europe, there will be precious little point in holding any debates on railway policy in the House. As directives are published, I hope that hon. Members will become aware of the extent to which we are totally throwing away decision making and giving it to another body in Brussels.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) referred to the new funds that will be made available. Provision is made for funding. If we want high-speed rail links, we shall have to go to Brussels and say, "Please may we have them?" Other countries will have to do the same.
  I hope that hon. Members who like the idea of a high-speed rail link will read the document. The idea that there will be a coherent policy is utter nonsense. All we have are the old Euro-beliefs. We are told that a competitive, safe and environmentally friendly railway network will emerge from the proposals. Those are daydreams. According to page 57, one of the aims is to provide a common and, therefore, a more effective and credible front in the face of competition from Japan. I had never thought that one of the major problems facing British Rail was competition from Japan.
  I hope that hon. Members also realise that if we go ahead with the proposals, there will be subsidies for high-speed rail links and crossing points. We all know that section—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), to put the Question necessary to dispose of them.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 149.

  Division No. 229]

  [11.43 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Allen, Graham

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald

  Cox, Tom

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Crowther, Stan

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beckett, Margaret

  Darling, Alistair

  Beggs, Roy

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Boateng, Paul

  Dixon, Don

  Bradley, Keith

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Buchan, Norman

  Fearn, Ronald

  Buckley, George J.

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

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Derek

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Foulkes, George

  Carr, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  259

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Parry, Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Patchett, Terry

  Haynes, Frank

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Prescott, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Home Robertson, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George

  Ingram, Adam

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leighton, Ron

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Snape, Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Soley, Clive

  Livsey, Richard

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stott, Roger

  McAllion, John

  Turner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Wallace, James

  McFall, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McKelvey, William

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wilson, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Martlew, Eric

  Worthington, Tony

  Maxton, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Michael, Alun

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Martyn Jones.

  Mullin, Chris

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Amess, David

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Amos, Alan

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davies, Q. (Stamfd & Spald'g)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dover, Den

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Durant, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Favell, Tony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

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

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Burns, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butcher, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butler, Chris

  Freeman, Roger

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  French, Douglas

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gill, Christopher

  Chapman, Sydney

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Chope, Christopher

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  260

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Norris, Steve

  Gow, Ian

  Paice, James

  Gregory, Conal

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Pawsey, James

  Hague, William

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hannam, John

  Price, Sir David

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

  Raffan, Keith

  Harris, David

  Redwood, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hayes, Jerry

  Riddick, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Irvine, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jack, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Steen, Anthony

  Knowles, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Knox, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lang, Ian

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sumberg, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lilley, Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Maclean, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walden, George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mans, Keith

  Watts, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Wells, Bowen

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Mills, Iain

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Moate, Roger

  Yeo, Tim

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Neubert, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Maintain Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4478/90, relating to Community railway policy; and broadly welcomes proposals aimed at improving the efficiency and competitiveness of the European railways.

PETITION

  Sheppey General Hospital
  11.55 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I beg leave to present a petition to the House from Mrs. B. Hardman, clerk to the Leysdown parish council, supported by about 1,000 other signatories. I am in total agreement with the petitioners, whose case has already been put on a number of occasions to the House of Commons. The petition states:
  The Humble Petition of the Residents of Sheppey herewith. That the decision to close the Medical Care Beds at Sheppey General Hospital will cause great distress and possible loss of life to cardiac and stroke victims and persons with other life threatening conditions by forcing them to travel to hospitals on the Mainland of Kent.
  Your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take issue with the Medway Health Authority to reverse the decision to close the said beds. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray.
  I also present a petition from Mrs. Weller, of 145 Wards Hill road, Minster on Sea, Sheerness. This is also supported by about 350 other signatories and is in broadly similar terms. It reinforces the distress felt on the Isle of Sheppey at this time. It says:
  The Humble Petition of the Residents of Sheppey showeth
  That the decision to close the Medical Care Beds at Sheppey General Hospital will cause great distress and possibly loss of life—
  by forcing residents—
  to travel to hospitals on the mainland of Kent. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take issue with the Medway Health Authority to reverse the decision to close the said beds. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Birmingham Pub Bombings
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr.Chapman.]
11.57pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: This is not a party political issue, and I hope that the Minister will not treat it as such. As he knows, it has aroused concern among people of every political persuasion. He has no doubt cast his eye over early-day motion 36, which is sponsored by myself and his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), and has been signed by a number of his colleagues. It is not uncommon in this place for Ministers to urge me to continue to raise this issue, so I do so in the knowledge that the issue arouses widespread concern.
I appreciate that the Minister may not share my view, but he must by now know enough about the case to realise that there is something seriously wrong. I draw his attention in passing to the fact that it was January 1982 when I first wrote categorically and in some detail that the persons convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings were innocent and that the Maguire family were innocent. What has happened since in the Guildford case is a matter of record, and the Minister will be aware that the convictions of the Maguire family are collapsing daily in front of Sir John May's inquiry.
The case of the six people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings has also collapsed. The trial judge, Lord Bridge, said in his judgment that there were two main planks of the Crown's case against those six people—one was the forensic evidence and the other concerned confessions. The star forensic witness was Dr. Frank Skuse, who has since been dismissed, at the grand old age of 51, for what the Home Office coyly calls "limited effectiveness". The test that he employed, which was the central feature of his evidence, has been discredited. Even the Lord Chief Justice accepted that at the appeal two years ago.
The forensic evidence now hangs by a single thread—the test carried out by Dr. Janet Drayton at Aldermaston. The printouts from that test—the only documentary evidence of it—have disappeared, as have some of Dr. Drayton's notes. The notebook still exists, but the stubs of pages that were torn out have gone. Dr. Drayton's recollection of the result of that test are different from those of Dr. Skuse. That is all that remains of the forensic evidence.
As the Minister will be aware, it was obvious from the outset that the confessions contradicted each other in every major respect and those contradictions were examined in detail at the trial. It is also evident that, in their first few days in custody—this is not, I think, controversial—the men were severely beaten. The controversy arises over whether they were beaten in police custody or in the custody of Winson Green prison warders, or whether, as they say, they were beaten by both. No month has passed without someone contacting me who has overheard police officers involved boasting at one time or another about what happened to the men, although it is fair to say that they have gone a bit quieter in recent years.
The list of witnesses who have put their signatures to statements saying that the men were beaten in police custody—or that there was some evidence of that—include

263
the two solicitors who interviewed them in police custody, two prison officers who received them at Winson Green prison, three former police officers who gave evidence at the appeal hearing and Dr. David Paul, the coroner of the City of London. I believe that further evidence has been submitted to the Minister by defence solicitors. I put it to him that that undermines any credibility that the confessions ever had.
The Minister will tell us that all this has been considered by the Court of Appeal, and so it has. But I wonder whether a jury would have reached the same conclusion had it been permitted to pass comment, and had its members known what we now know. That surely is the key question. It has not yet been addressed, and I invite the Minister to consider it now.
Since the appeal hearing, there have been two major developments, the first of which was the release of the four persons convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, apparently because the Surrey police were careless enough to leave early drafts of the forged confessions lying around. I do not think that we shall be so lucky in the Birmingham pub bombing case. But we now know that what Lords Bridge, Roskill, Donaldson and Denning found unthinkable is possible: the police can and did commit fraud and perjury on the scale alleged. If that can happen once, it can happen twice.
The second major development that has occurred since the appeal hearing was the winding up of the west midlands serious crimes squad for—would you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker?—forging confessions—the very allegation that was one of the two central features of the trial and involving the very body of men responsible for obtaining the convictions in 1974, including at least four of the same individuals. I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the same individuals were involved. It is enough, surely, to show that the same body of people were systematically forging confessions.
So far, more than 20 people who signed confessions in the custody of the west midlands serious crimes squad have either had their convictions quashed or had the charges against them withdrawn. In addition, Police Sergeant Brian Morton has been to gaol. He was one of those around in Queen's Road police station with access to the prisoners at the time of the interrogation. He went to gaol for beating up a suspect with a view to obtaining a confession, but the Home Office is still telling us that there is no cause for concern. Ministers are still ridiculing those who are trying to draw to their attention what has happened subsequently. They still refuse to establish an independent inquiry that would command public confidence.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: The hon. Gentleman and I have had conversations about this point, and I believe that the view that I am about to describe is shared by other Birmingham Members who are present in the Chamber this evening. With regard to the constant reiteration of the possible shortcomings of the West Midlands police, whether of the serious crimes squad or elsewhere, speaking as a west midlands Member, I believe that it must be a main point of the hon. Gentleman's argument that any further measures that we take in connection with the Birmingham Six should be designed partly to re-enhance the credibility and the confidence that the public have in that force.
264
Sadly, that force has suffered from the necessity to re-examine and examine again the evidence, which has perhaps disclosed further shortcomings in that force. I believe very strongly that it is important that Birmingham Members should ensure that the matter is resolved. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will be pressing that point on my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments; and his intervention demonstrates that concern about the issue is widespread. The fact that he represents a Birmingham constituency gives particular credibility to his points. It is in the interests of the West Midlands police force as much as anyone else—and in the interests of the credibility of the entire police and judicial system—that the case is not allowed to linger on, but is sorted out as soon as possible.
Three police inquiries are under way at the present time, and they are all prevented by their terms of reference from addressing most of the fundamental issues.
The West Yorkshire police are examining the activities of the serious crime squad. However, their terms of reference preclude them from going back before April 1985, and they cannot address the serious allegations that predate that time, allegations which incidentally do not simply concern the pub bombings, but relate to several other cases.
The Devon and Cornwall police are conducting their second inquiry into the case. They are examining material that was submitted to the Home Office by the defence solicitors before Christmas. The inquiry is proceeding fairly slowly. I do not necessarily complain about that, but I do complain about the fact they they will report to the chief constable of the West Midlands police. He will append his comments and pass the report to the Home Office. It will not be available to the people who submitted the new material. According to parliamentary answers that I have received, the defence solicitors will not see a copy of that report, and it will not be published. I invite the Minister to comment on the fact that it is very difficult to have confidence in an inquiry the report of which will not be made public.
The other police inquiry that is proceeding at the same time as the others is a small inquiry being run by the Lancashire police, who are investigating how I came by some of the documents that I used in the most recent edition of my book on the case. I have written to the Lancashire police suggesting that they might like to address the contents of the documents, but I regret to inform the House that they are not interested in that aspect.
None of those inquiries is a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem, and none of them will resolve the serious and widespread public concern about the case.
I invite the Minister to comment on the need for a public inquiry along the lines of that being conducted now by Sir John May with lay assessors, but with more powers than Sir John May appears to have. As the Minister may have noticed, he is having some trouble persuading one or two of the forensic scientists to come and give evidence, and he is also having trouble getting hold of documents.
There are three specific points on which I should like the Minister to comment, and to help him take the matters seriously, I contacted his office earlier in the day and gave the details of the three points.

265
First, a large amount of evidence in this case has disappeared, which is not an uncommon feature of miscarriage of justice cases. Among the missing items are 2,000 so-called non-material statements. They were not shown to defence solicitors, as they should have been. There is not a single statement from any of the people who were crowded into the Taurus bar where the six men say they were assembled when the bombs were planted. There is not a single statement from any of the transport police who would have been on New Street station observing the comings and goings there. It is not credible that none of those people came forward. Where are those statements? I hope the Minister will do his best to find out.
Also disappeared are the playing cards. They are believed to be—although nobody can definitively assert it without them—the source of the contamination, the nitrocellulose, that probably resulted in Dr. Skuse's positive test. Those playing cards have been gone for many years and nobody has any suggestions about where they may have gone.
The third item that has disappeared is that to which I have referred already—the printouts of Dr. Drayton's tests, the sole remaining thread of the forensic evidence. We are asked to rely on her memory—I cast no aspersions on her—as to what she says she saw on a screen, a blip that lasted a fraction of a second 15 years ago. There were printouts that would have confirmed, or not, Dr. Drayton's interpretation of that result. They have disappeared. Also gone are a number of pages from her notebook. As I say, I cast no aspersions on Dr. Drayton. I just want to know where they have gone, and may we have them back, please?
The Minister will know—it received a certain amount of publicity—that in March, Granada Television provided the Home Office with a document that appeared to come from the Special Branch archives, complete with its criminal records office number. It is a precis of interviews with an IRA man who was arrested in November 1975, six months after the trial and about a year after the bombing. He was giving the police a great deal of accurate information, and he was telling them the names of some of those whom he said were responsible for the bombs. It even contained the remarkable sentence, "So-and-so told me he put one of the bombs in the pub."
While I have grown rather case-hardened over the years, I thought a decent interval would have occurred while the Home Office thought about that. But that is not what happened. Within a few hours of that document being made available to the Home Office, it put out a statement pouring cold water on it, saying that it was old news—which was correct, since the Department or somebody had been sitting on it for the last 15 years—and it contained the inaccurate statement that the document was prepared before the trial.
Where are the original notes of those interviews? This document is a precis. Particularly remarkable about it is that the interviewer can think of no supplementary questions to ask this person who has just told him that so and so told him he had put a bomb in the pub. No surprise is recorded at the receipt of that information. I am sure that everyone would like to see some information about
266
who conducted the interviews, where the original notes of the interviews are and to whose attention they were drawn at the time they were made.
I believe this to be the tip of a fairly large iceberg. I know of at least two other members of the Birmingham IRA who, in the wake of the pub bombings, to a greater or lesser extent co-operated with the police and told them that they had got the wrong people. Those people were in a position to know that.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): What are their names?
Mr. Mullin: I can provide that information. I shall not do so across the Floor of the House, but I am willing to co-operate with the Minister, and there is no problem about that.
I want to know where the notes of those interviews are. What was done with them, and to whose attention were they drawn? I hope that, in return for my providing him with the details—the Minister did not expect me to do that—the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to show me the notes.
Thirdly, and lastly, it occurs to me—I do not assert this; I merely put it to the Minister—that the connections between the Guildford and Woolwich and the Birmingham cases are rather stronger than any of us had imagined. There is the obvious point about the massive fraud and perjury which occurred in the former and could equally have occurred in the latter. More specifically, according to parliamentary answers given to me on 30 October last year, nine Surrey police officers were in Birmingham at the time of the arrests in the pub bombing case. It would be relevant to establish whether those officers picked up any of the interrogation techniques of the West Midlands police force. The Guildford defendants were not arrested until some time afterwards, and their account of what happened to them in custody bears some remarkable similarities to the allegations made by the six people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.
I just want to know the names of the Guildford officers who were in Birmingham at the time, and what they were doing there. I have tabled questions about that, and received rather unsatisfactory answers. One said that only three of them could be identified. It does not require a genius to know what step to take next: contact those who have been identified, and ask them who the others were. I leave that thought with the Minister.
I am sure that the Minister will assure us of his willingness to look at new evidence, but we have new evidence coming out of our ears. What is required is some means of assessing it that will command public confidence. This case will not go away. Just as it did in the Guildford and Woolwich case, the truth will out in the end. I am only anxious that the case should be resolved while these six unfortunate men and their families still have some of their lives left after this tragedy is sorted out, and I should appreciate any assistance that the Minister can provide to bring this great scandal to an end.
12.17 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): In the brief 10 minutes left to me, I shall do all that I can to answer directly all the questions that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has posed.

267
I, like all right hon. and hon. Members, recognise that any miscarriage of justice has a devastating effect. We all agree that any allegation of a miscarriage of justice must be investigated as fully and carefully as possible. I assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider any new evidence brought forward in this case, as he has done in the past—as when he showed himself willing to refer allegations made by the solicitor acting on behalf of these people to the investigation carried out by the Devon and Cornwall police.
There is no lack of common ground between us on the seriousness of miscarriages of justice and on the fact that they must be seriously looked into. The difference between us is that the hon. Gentleman does not think that this case is being seriously looked into, or that, if it is, it is being looked into in the wrong way.
I do not want to get involved in the Guildford and Woolwich issue tonight. I can understand that the hon. Gentleman sees parallels and, in the case of the Surrey police, even connections between the two cases. Sir John May can look after himself. He has made no public complaint about a lack of powers to summon people and papers to his inquiry. I read in The Independent the other week that he said that he felt that quiet persuasion was a better way to do things. As we know, if it was in The Independent, it must be true.
The hon. Member spoke of his concern about the apparent absence of 2,000 non-material statements and of the playing cards. I see that a question about the playing cards has been tabled, and it may come up at the next Home Office questions, on Thursday. The hon. Member has said that he is concerned that it is not possible to say what happened to these statements, which, he says, were not made available to the solicitors acting for the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.
It has not yet been established that any relevant evidence in this case is missing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the alleged failure of the prosecution to inform the defence of the existence of non-material statements formed part of the grounds of the appeals considered by the Court of Appeal in November and December 1987, when the court dismissed the arguments advanced by those representing the six men.
Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to try to answer his questions, I had better not do so.
Representations about the alleged disappearance of these non-material statements were among the matters put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary by the men's solicitor. He has passed these allegations to the chief constable of the West Midlands police, and they will form part of the inquiry being carried out by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary. That will bring to light evidence as to whether the non-material statements and the playing cards are missing or not.
It has been alleged that the police reports were inadequate. It is clear that the hon. Member is not a great admirer of the British police. I cannot remember him ever saying a kind word about them.
Ms. Clare Short: That is silly.
Mr. Patten: No, it is an important point, because the hon. Gentleman should balance his criticisms with appreciation.
Mr. Mullin: We are talking about the West Midlands police.
Mr. Patten: Indeed, and many West Midlands policemen would bitterly resent aspersions being cast on them and on the way in which they carried out their duties.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South has referred in disparaging words, which will appear on the record, to various police inquiries connected with this case. and has commented adversely on the fact that it is not intended to make public the results of these inquiries. As hon. Members will be aware, it has been the practice of successive Home Secretaries, both Labour and Conservative, not to publish the reports of such inquiries, as the information that they contain is provided to the Home Secretary of the day on a confidential basis.
However, I can assure the House that, should my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary decide, after consideration of the report from the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, when it comes, to refer the case of the Birmingham six back to the Court of Appeal, copies of all statements taken in the course of the inquiry will be made available to those representing the six men, in advance of any appeal.
The House will recall that this is exactly the same procedure as that which was followed with the Guildford Four, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), then the Home Secretary, decided to refer that case to the Court of Appeal, after considering reports of inquiries carried out by the Avon and Somerset police. On the other hand, following precedent, should my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary decide not to intervene further in the case of the Birmingham six, I assure the House that he will place in the Library a detailed memorandum explaining his reasons for that course of action, and his response in detail to the representations that he has received. That is the proper way in which to proceed.
We have confidence in the Devon and Cornwall police conducting a thorough and conscientious inquiry. I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South agrees. I note that he does not seem to; that is a matter for him. The inquiry will, of course, include the allegations about collusion between the officers of Lancashire county council and members of the West Midlands police to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that allegations about misconduct by members of the former west midlands serious crimes squad are being considered by West Yorkshire police under the direct supervision of the independent Police Complaints Authority. Parliament has rightly set up that authority to exercise an independent supervision of the investigation of complaints against the police. Hon. Members will appreciate that we must await the results of that investigation into the serious crime squad. The Police Complaints Authority is precluded under section 98 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 from disclosing publicly any information that it has received in connection with its functions under the Act, except under certain circumstances—for example, in a

269
general statement that does not identify the person from whom the information was received or any person to whom it relates.
I am happy to repeat the assurance that my right hon. and learned Friend and I have given on a number of occasions. If anything arises from the present inquiries into the activities of the serious crimes squad that casts doubt on the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six, the most careful consideration will be given to that evidence.
The hon. Gentleman, again consistent with form inside and outside the House, has mentioned two more people, but he has not given the names.
Mr. Bob Cryer: he told you that you could have them.
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has had many opportunities in recent years to tell the House and the outside world that he knows who bombed Birmingham. This obviously makes him uncomfortable, but he has consistently refused to name them.
Ms. Short: The names have been given on television and you have done nothing.
Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady must forgive me; I am not giving way.
Tonight, the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to name those—
Ms. Short: He gave the names on television.
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman spoke of two additional people tonight, so we are no longer talking about four people, but six. If the hon. Gentleman has had those names in this possession, why were they not given many years before? One day, the hon. Gentleman must answer that question. If he does not answer it, the House must draw its own conclusions.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to present a rounded case to the House, I cannot understand why he cannot present a totally rounded one, giving all the names that he claims to have in his possession.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the material contained in the new edition of his book "Error of Judgement"—[Interruption.] I note that his hon. Friends do not much like the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not named the names and they must find them very embarrassing, but—
The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, persuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Quarantine
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for which diseases quarantine restrictions on animals can operate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Quarantine restrictions on imported animals are currently applied in relation to foot and mouth disease, Newcastle disease and rabies. Considerable importance is attached to quarantine and the Government believe that such measures should be maintained as long as they are necessary to prevent the introduction of disease.

  Caseous Lymphadenitis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries where caseous lymphadenitis is found.

  Mr. Gummer
  Caseous lymphadenitis is known to occur in many parts of Africa, south America, Asia, Europe, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of(a) sheep and (b) goats affected by restrictions for caseous lymphadenitis by county.

  Mr. Gummer
  Restrictions are at present imposed on(a) one flock in Buckinghamshire and one consignment undergoing post import on-farm isolation in Nottinghamshire (b) two herds in Buckinghamshire, two herds in Oxfordshire, and one herd each in Berkshire, Surrey and Lancashire. The flock of sheep in Buckinghamshire and one of the two goat herds in Buckinghamshire are on the same premises and subject to the same restriction notice.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from which country the current outbreak of caseous lymphadenitis originated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The current outbreak of caseous lymphadenitis appears to be associated with the import of goats from West Germany.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent further cases of caseous lymphadenitis from being imported into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  We continue to rely on certification by exporting countries that sheep and goats sent to the United Kingdom come from premises which are free from caseous lymphadenitis and the herd of origin has shown no clinical 78
  serological or pathological signs of the disease in the previous three years. Animals should also be examined immediately prior to export. Ministry veterinary officers, local veterinary surgeons and producers have been asked to be vigilant for any signs of the disease and have found infection in April in a group of sheep which were undergoing post import on-farm isolation.

  Contaminated Pigfeed
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 9 May,Official Report, column 132, if he will list the contaminants now found in pigfeed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No present problems with contaminants have been reported and feedingstuffs associated with recent contaminants have been withdrawn.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many pigs have now been slaughtered as a result of the contaminated pigfeed; from which counties they came; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the up-to-date information concerning the number of farms and pigs affected by contaminated pigfeed on a county-by-county basis.

  Mr. Gummer
  The total number of pigs that to date have been slaughtered for welfare reasons and the number of farms where pigs were affected by contaminated pigfeed, county by county, is as follows:

  Pigs

  Farms

  Devon

  3

  1

  Hampshire

  15

  1

  Humberside

  85

  7

  Durham

  126

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  1

  Yorkshire

  1,100

  62

  1,334

  77

  Scrapie
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there is any evidence of the scrapie agent being present in sheep milk.

  Mr. Maclean
  No transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, including sheep scrapie, has been shown to transmit through milk. Scientific studies on scrapie have shown that the agent is not found in milk.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the frequency of infections by(a) the scrapie agent in the muscle (meat) of scrapie-affected sheep and (b) the BSE agent in the muscle (meat) of BSE-affected cows.

  Mr. Maclean
  Scientific studies have shown that the scrapie agent is not found in the muscle (meat) of sheep naturally affected by scrapie. By analogy with scrapie, a very similar disease to BSE, the BSE agent is not expected to be found in the muscle of affected animals. Studies are nevertheless under way to confirm this.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a
  79
  summary of the results of any research work on whether the scrapie agent can be vertically transmitted by an infected ram.

  Mr. Maclean
  There has been much work carried out in this area, all of which has shown that the scrapie agent is not found in the reproductive organs or semen of scrapie-infected rams.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there is any restriction on the use for human consumption of sheep meat and offals including those from scrapie-infected sheep.

  Mr. Maclean
  No specific controls apply since scrapie is not a risk to human health.

  British Cattle Exports
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries that have now banned the import of all live British cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Israel, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, USA and the USSR.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will take action against France and Germany under article 170 of the treaty of Rome for their banning of beef imports from the United Kingdom in contravention of article 30 of the treaty of Rome;

  (2) if he will formally join with the European Commission in proceedings against France and Germany for their banning of beef imports from the United Kingdom in contravention of article 30 of the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Maclean
  The action taken by France and Germany to ban imports of beef from the United Kingdom offended Community rules and I supported the Conmmission's intention to institute legal proceedings should these bans remain in place. However, as I announced in the House on 7 June, those bans were lifted following discussion in the special Agricultural Council.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the names and number of cases of BSE detected at each abattoir;

  (2) how many cases of BSE were (a) volunteered by farmers, (b) detected at cattle markets, (c) detected at abattoirs by veterinary inspectors and (d) detected at abattoirs by other personnel.

  Mr. Maclean
  Over 98 per cent. of suspect cases of BSE have been reported on farm. Up to 31 March 1990, 133 suspect cases had been reported in markets (of which 92 were confirmed) and 203 suspect cases reported at abattoirs (of which 149 were confirmed). A breakdown of abattoirs involved is not available.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether the Government will initiate a programme to look for the possible occurrence of spongiform encephalopathy in dogs;

  (2) if he will investigate the incidence of canine spongiform encephalopathy among breeding bitches in licensed and unlicensed puppy farms;
  80
  (3) if he will investigate the incidence on puppy farms of proprietors feeding their dogs on (a) dead sheep which have may have died of scrapie, (b) condemned meat and (c) beef infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make it his practice to advise all puppy farmers to avoid feeding any meat which contained offal.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been no reports of naturally occurring or laboratory-induced spongiform encephalopathy in dogs. Nevertheless, as recommended by the Tyrrell committee, the health of dogs is being monitored by veterinary surgeons and a study is being planned on hounds, which are traditionally fed fallen livestock.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is responsible for the disposal of the carcases of BSE-affected cattle; and what proportion are(a) incinerated, (b) disposed of in toxic waste tips and (c) disposed of in domestic refuse tips.

  Mr. Maclean
  The disposal of carcases of BSE-affected cattle is the responsibility of the Ministry. Nationally about two thirds are incinerated and one third are disposed of by burial on licensed waste disposal sites approved by local authorities for this purpose. Information on the classification of individual sites is not held centrally.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in developing a test for identifying BSE in live cattle; and how soon he expects such a test to be available.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 21 May at column 86.

  Drift Nets
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations are currently in force to prevent the use of drift nets of over 5 km in length on United Kingdom boats; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that no United Kingdom vessel uses drift nets as long as 5 km and indeed the substantial proportion are between 200 and 400 m in length. There is no general length restriction in force but there are several regulations which limit drift nets in specific fisheries or areas to well within 5 km in length.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the annual accidental catch of birds and marine mammals by United Kingdom drift net boats is reported to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is known that fishermen in the United Kingdom may accidentally catch mammals and birds in their nets, but there is no evidence that this occurs on a significant scale. The drift net fisheries around our coast are quite modest and do not give rise to the sort of environmental problems associated with the very large-scale drift netting operations in the Pacific, about which there has been justified concern.

  Veterinary Products
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the use of veterinary products that are likely to affect the wider environment, whether licensed or not, are recorded, regulated and monitored; and if he will make a statement.
  81
  Mr. Gummer
  All veterinary medicinal products must be licensed under the Medicines Act. They are assessed for safety, quality and efficacy before any licence is issued. The likely impact on the environment is taken into account by independent scientific experts on the Veterinary Products Committee as part of that assessment process. My Department is currently carrying out a review to ensure that all licensed veterinary medicinal products meet up-to-date standards. Any person who causes or knowingly permits veterinary products to pollute any controlled waters is liable to prosecution by the National Rivers Authority under the Water Act 1989. Under the Animals and Fresh Meat (Examination for Residues) Regulations 1988 farmers must keep records of medicines administered to animals and these are subject to checks by members of the state veterinary service.

  Fish Farms
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the Veterinary Products Committee regarding the review of the licence for Aquaguard for use on salmon farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I hope to make a statement shortly.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has measured the quantity of antibiotics released into the marine environment as treatment for diseases of farmed fish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  All veterinary medicines including antibiotics used for treating fish diseases are assessed for safety, quality and efficacy under the Medicines Act before a licence is issued. Any likely impact on the marine environment is taken into account by independent scientific experts on the Veterinary Products Committee as part of that assessment process. When a licence for such a product is due to expire, evidence of environmental impact is carefully assessed before any decision is made to renew the licence. Antibiotics used for treating fish disease are available only on prescription from a veterinary surgeon.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been conducted by him into antibiotic residues in farmed salmon; and when and where the results will be published.

  Mr. Gummer
  Surveillance for antibiotic residues in farmed salmon is in progress and the results will be published in the food surveillance paper series once the work has been completed. It would be premature at this stage to make a statement.

  British Beef Exports
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries that have now banned all imports of British beef.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following countries have notified a ban on imports of British beef: Austria, Bahrain and Turkey.

  Hound Ataxia
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instruct veterinary surgeons to conduct post mortem investigations in cases of hound ataxia to ensure that it is not unrecognised canine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware that any cases of hound ataxia have occurred in Britain in recent years. No cases of spongiform encephalopathy have been identified in canines but the state veterinary service investigates suspect cases in various species referred to it.

  Live Horses (Export)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy not to allow the export of live horses to Europe for slaughter to start again.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's policy is to maintain controls to prevent the export of horses for slaughter.

  Casualty Animals (Slaughter)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will consider the introduction of a certificate of receipt system for the slaughter of casualty animals;

  (2) whether he will consider a review of the Slaughterhouses (Hygiene) Regulations 1977, to prevent the slaughter of casualty animals without a veterinary officer's certificate.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Slaughterhouses (Hygiene) Regulations 1977 already require a veterinary health certificate for animals known or suspected to be injured or diseased, and for carcases of such animals, intended to be presented at the slaughterhouse, subject to certain exceptions. These relate to injuries of recent origin, such as during transit when a veterinarian will not be available, and for welfare reasons to sheep and lamb carcases, where a declaration by the owner is acceptable.

  It is an offence to allow casualty animals or their carcases to enter a slaughterhouse uncertified under any other circumstances.

  I am already considering whether any changes to the regulations may be desirable.

  Bovine Head Meat
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will introduce regulations to ban the removal of meat from a bovine head until the skull and brain of the head have been removed from the head by an authorised boning plant;

  (2) whether he will introduce regulations to ensure that the trimming of meat from bovine heads is allowed only after the removal of the skull and brain.

  Mr. Maclean
  Cattle which show signs of BSE, or are suspected of having the disease, are slaughtered and do not go for human consumption. The ban on brains and other specified offal is an ultra-precautionary measure applying to clinically healthy animals.

  Nevertheless, we are aware of concerns about particular methods of brain removal. Wherever possible, head meat

  83
  should be removed before the skull is opened so that brain tissue does not come into contact with the meat. We have conducted studies into the methods employed for removing brains where this is not feasible. The Tyrrell committee has been asked to review our findings and I shall consider whether any further action is desirable having regard to the committee's advice. In the meantime, the state veterinary service is ready to give advice if needed.

  Beef Cattle (Slaughter)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will ban the slaughter of beef cattle presented for slaughter at a slaughterhouse, where those cattle have been transported more than 20 miles.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so.

WALES

  Project 2000
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will reconsider the contents of his circular of 27 April, reference DGM/90/32, concerning the phasing in of Project 2000 in Wales; and if he will take urgent steps for full implementation of Project 2000 throughout Wales at the earliest possible date, if possible by autumn 1991 in line with the original proposals.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 24 May.

  a. Perinatal mortality1

  1986 Number

  1986 Rate

  1987 Number

  1987 Rate

  1988 Number

  1988 Rate

  1989 Number

  1989 Rate

  Wales

  384

  10·3

  351

  9·2

  334

  8·6

  318·0

  8·3

  DHA/Management Units Clwyd DHA

  52

  10·2

  46

  8·8

  40

  7·6

  45

  8·5

  North Clwyd

  26

  12·4

  21

  9·8

  13

  25·8

  15

  27·1

  South Clwyd

  26

  8·7

  25

  8·1

  27

  28·9

  20

  9·4

  East Dyfed DHA

  32

  12·5

  28

  10·1

  25

  9·1

  25

  9·5

  Ceredigion

  5

  27·5

  11

  215·1

  6

  28·2

  9

  212·3

  Carmarthen-Dinefwr

  10

  213·2

  11

  213·1

  6

  27·2

  6

  27·3

  Llanelli-Dinefwr

  17

  215·0

  6

  25·0

  13

  211·0

  10

  09·2

  Pembrokeshire DHA

  11

  28·0

  12

  28·2

  19

  213·4

  13

  28·9

  Gwent DHA

  58

  9·6

  65

  10·7

  56

  8·7

  52

  8·3

  North Gwent Hospitals

  15

  210·1

  17

  211·4

  11

  27·1

  12

  27·6

  Pontypool and West Gwent Hospitals

  21

  10·4

  23

  11·1

  26

  11·6

  17

  281

  Newport and Chepstow Hospitals

  22

  8·8

  25

  9·9

  19

  27·1

  23

  8·9

  Gwynedd DHA

  37

  13·1

  29

  10·2

  23

  7·6

  19

  26·4

  Anglesey

  12

  213·6

  11

  212·0

  6

  26·4

  4

  24·2

  Meirionnydd

  3

  28·5

  5

  212·6

  2

  25·4

  4

  210·2

  Aberconwy

  5

  29·3

  3

  25·6

  4

  26·4

  3

  24·8

  Arfon

  13

  217·1

  7

  29·9

  6

  27·5

  5

  26·5

  Dwyfor

  4

  213·6

  3

  210·6

  5

  216·4

  3

  211·5

  Mid Glamorgan DHA

  75

  10·0

  56

  7·2

  71

  9·0

  77

  10·1

  Ogwr

  15

  28·4

  19

  210·7

  15

  27·8

  18

  29·8

  Taff Ely

  11

  28·1

  4

  22·9

  15

  210·8

  14

  210·4

  Rhondda

  10

  29·3

  8

  27·1

  7

  26·4

  12

  211·0

  Merthyr-Cynon

  21

  12·1

  12

  26·7

  18

  210·0

  21

  11·3

  Rhymney Valley

  18

  211·6

  13

  27·9

  16

  29·6

  12

  27·9

  Powys DHA

  12

  29·5

  20

  14·9

  17

  212·2

  8

  25·7

  Montgomery

  6

  210·8

  12

  219·1

  8

  211·6

  4

  260

  Brecknock and Radnor

  6

  28·5

  8

  211·3

  9

  212·9

  4

  25·4

  South Glamorgan DHA

  59

  10·1

  50

  8·6

  43

  7·1

  44

  7·5

  West Glamorgan DHA

  48

  10·1

  45

  9·5

  40

  8·4

  35

  7·6

  Herbal Remedies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek to ensure that dispensation is achieved from European Community harmonisation regulations in order to safeguard the right of people in Wales to continue to use herbal remedies.

  Mr. Grist
  European Community legislation applies equally in all member states. Herbal remedies currently available are controlled by the Medicines Act 1968 and subject to the provisions of the EC directive 75/319/EEC for the regulation of proprietary medicinal products. We are not aware of any proposals for further harmonisation directives concerning herbal remedies.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to maintain employment in the steel industry.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am naturally anxious to maximise employment throughout the Welsh economy, including the steel industry. However, employment in any individual sector must take account of demand for products.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of(a) perinatal and (b) neonatal mortality in each district health authority and management division in Wales in each of the years 1986 to 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the tables. Care should be taken in interpreting mortality rates derived from fewer than 20 events, and these are marked in the tables with2.
  85

  a. Perinatal mortality1

  1986 Number

  1986 Rate

  1987 Number

  1987 Rate

  1988 Number

  1988 Rate

  1989 Number

  1989 Rate

  East District Hospitals

  17

  211·3

  18

  212·2

  14

  29·5

  12

  28·7

  North and West District Hospitals

  31

  9·5

  27

  8·2

  26

  7·9

  23

  7·2

  Source: O.P.C.S.

  1 Perinatal deaths are stillbirths and deaths in the week after birth; rates are the number of perinatal deaths per 1,000 total (live and still) births.

  2 Denotes a Rate calculated from fewer than 20 events.

  b. Neonatal Mortality1

  1986 Number

  1986 Rate

  1987 Number

  1987 Rate

  1988 Number

  1988 Rate

  1989 Number

  1989 Rate

  Wales

  207

  5·6

  190

  5·0

  183

  4·7

  180

  4·7

  DHA/Management Units Clwyd DHA

  26

  5·1

  23

  4·4

  20

  3·8

  32

  6·1

  North Clwyd

  9

  24·3

  9

  24·2

  7

  23·1

  6

  22·8

  South Clwyd

  17

  25·7

  14

  24·6

  13

  24·3

  26

  8·2

  East Dyfed DHA

  15

  25·9

  17

  26·2

  13

  24·8

  7

  22·7

  Ceredigion

  3

  24·5

  5

  26·9

  5

  26·9

  2

  22·8

  Carmarthen-Dinefwr

  4

  25·3

  6

  27·2

  2

  22·4

  2

  22·5

  Llanelli· Dinefwr

  8

  27·1

  6

  25·0

  6

  25·1

  3

  22·8

  Pembrokeshire DHA

  7

  25·1

  8

  25·5

  14

  29·9

  7

  24·8

  Gwent DHA

  39

  6·5

  36

  6·0

  31

  4·8

  27

  4·3

  North Gwent Hospitals

  9

  26·1

  8

  25·4

  8

  25·2

  6

  23·8

  Pontypool and West Gwent Hospitals

  15

  27·4

  13

  26·3

  18

  28·1

  8

  23·8

  Newport and Chepstow Hospitals

  15

  26·0

  15

  26·0

  5

  21·9

  13

  25·0

  Gwynedd DHA

  20

  7·1

  17

  26·0

  17

  25·6

  12

  24·0

  Anglesey

  8

  19·1

  8

  28·8

  5

  25·3

  4

  24·2

  Meirionnydd

  1

  22·9

  4

  210·1

  4

  210·8

  3

  27·7

  Aberconwy

  2

  23·7

  1

  21·9

  2

  23·2

  4

  26·5

  Arfon

  6

  28·0

  4

  25·7

  3

  23·8

  1

  21·3

  Dwyfor

  3

  210·2

  0

  20·0

  3

  29·9

  0

  20·0

  Mid Glamorgan DHA

  35

  4·7

  27

  3·5

  28

  3·6

  42

  5·5

  Ogwr

  6

  23·4

  8

  24·5

  8

  24·2

  10

  25·5

  Taff Ely

  5

  23·7

  2

  21·4

  4

  22·9

  9

  26·7

  Rhondda

  5

  24·7

  5

  24·4

  1

  20·9

  5

  24·6

  Merthyr-Cynon

  10

  25·8

  8

  24·5

  10

  25·6

  11

  26·0

  Rhymney Valley

  9

  25·9

  4

  22·5

  5

  23·0

  7

  24·6

  Powys DHA

  2

  21·6

  7

  25·3

  8

  25·8

  4

  22·9

  Montgomery

  2

  23·6

  3

  24·9

  5

  27·3

  3

  24·6

  Brecknock and Radnor

  0

  20·0

  4

  25·7

  3

  24·3

  1

  21·4

  South Glamorgan DHA

  39

  6·7

  29

  5·0

  27

  4·5

  30

  5·1

  West Glamorgan DHA

  24

  5·1

  26

  5·5

  25

  5·3

  19

  24·1

  East District Hospitals

  11

  27·3

  10

  26·8

  8

  25·5

  10

  27·2

  North and West District Hospitals

  13

  240

  16

  24·9

  17

  25·2

  9

  22·8

  Source: O.P.C.S.

  1 Neonatal deaths are deaths within the first 4 weeks of birth; rates are the number of neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births.

  2 Denotes a rate calculated from fewer than 20 events.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the co-ordination between the National Rivers Authority in Wales and the Forestry Commission with a view to overcoming the acid rain problem affecting rivers and lakes in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Forestry Commission is in close touch with the National Rivers Authority about the problem of acid rain affecting rivers and lakes in Wales, and I see no need to review the arrangements.

  Farm Woodland Schemes
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications have been approved for farm woodland schemes in 1988–89 and 1989–90 for(a) Carmarthen district, (b) Dyfed, (c) Wales and (d) Britain.
  86
  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of applications approved under the farm woodland scheme since its inception on 1 October 1988 is as follows:

  1 October 1988— 30 September 1989

  1 October 1989— 31 May 1990

  Total

  (a) Carmarthen District

  1

  —

  1

  (b) Dyfed

  5

  5

  10

  (c) Wales

  17

  14

  31

  A further 12 applications are under consideration; four of these are in Dyfed but none falls within Carmarthen district.

  NHS Nursing Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of nursing staff employed(a) at 31 March 1989 and (b) at 31 March 1983 in national

  87
  health service hospitals, homes and clinics in Wales; what were the corresponding whole-time equivalents; and how many of them had nursing qualifications.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information which relates to total nursing and midwifery staff, employed by the NHS, and in post as at 30 September is given in the table:

  1983

  1989

  Numbers

  30,328

  33,236

  Whole-time equivalents

  25,981

  28,037

  Numbers with qualifications1

  18,056

  19,533

  1 State enrolled and state registered.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines to health authorities in Wales to ensure that when regulations regarding the ambulance service are being drawn up, or amended, prior consultation takes place with the local medical committee representing general practitioners in the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The management of the service at a local level is the responsibility of the relevant district health authority. It is for the health authority concerned to determine whether consultation is appropriate when changes in operational policy are being considered.

  Beef Producers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what special measures he is taking to assist beef producers in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on Thursday 7 June.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people who have not so far paid the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Gross capital expenditure on schools1

  £000

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  4,236

  4,179

  4,002

  3,659

  4,071

  4,830

  5,603

  6,664

  5,959

  Dyfed

  2,461

  2,672

  3,635

  4,093

  3,268

  2,569

  3,557

  5,365

  5,315

  Gwent

  4,682

  3,029

  4,155

  4,932

  4,735

  4,937

  5,020

  5,888

  6,896

  Gwynedd

  2,060

  1,648

  1,220

  1,179

  1,301

  1,801

  1,709

  2,238

  2,299

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,465

  5,831

  5,567

  5,737

  5,370

  3,096

  4,395

  6,255

  6,260

  Powys

  1,164

  1,388

  1,693

  2,241

  1,619

  1,090

  2,720

  2,452

  1,699

  South Glamorgan

  2,142

  1,469

  2,557

  1,849

  1,967

  1,384

  2,138

  1,920

  3,980

  West Glamorgan

  4,589

  3,759

  4,241

  3,292

  2,331

  3,230

  3,907

  5,059

  5,160

  Total counties

  22,254

  23,976

  27,068

  26,982

  24,662

  22,937

  29,049

  35,841

  37,568

  1 Includes nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was current spending on(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Wales local education authorities for each of the years from 1980, inclusive and county by county.
  88
  Mr. David Hunt
  I have made no such estimate. I have every confidence that the vast majority of Welsh charge payers are law-abiding and will pay their community charge.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost in Wales per person of collecting the poll tax.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The average cost in Wales per person of collecting the community charge will be about £7 in 1990–91 based on local authority budget returns.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received seeking changes in the poll tax legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations on a variety of matters. The Government are reviewing the operation of the community charge system. It is too early to say what changes might be made or whether legislation will be needed.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the presence of toxic algae from the dumping of sludge and chemicals in Liverpool bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I am advised by the National Rivers Authority that it has not detected the presence of any potentially toxic algae in the Liverpool bay area.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has of illnesses and viral infections in Wales following swimming in the Irish sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was capital spending on Wales local education authority schools for each of the years from 1980 and county by county.

  Mr. Roberts
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Mr. Roberts
  The information requested is given in the table:
  89

  Current Expenditure on Primary and Secondary Schools in Wales (£000)

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Nursery and Primary

  Clwyd

  22,129

  24,803

  25,844

  26,943

  27,320

  29,337

  31,664

  34,562

  38,208

  Dyfed

  20,276

  22,057

  22,650

  23,205

  23,962

  25,282

  28,228

  32,512

  36,264

  Gwent

  25,342

  27,700

  29,382

  30,614

  30,373

  32,136

  35,893

  39,531

  45,729

  Gwynedd

  12,763

  14,520

  15,545

  14,750

  15,892

  16,362

  18,066

  20,034

  22,010

  Mid Glamorgan

  34,815

  36,907

  39,836

  42,707

  43,684

  46,888

  50,355

  56,677

  63,068

  Powys

  7,711

  8,454

  8,920

  9,450

  9,760

  10,044

  10,845

  12,026

  14,356

  South Glamorgan

  19,234

  20,941

  21,868

  22,986

  23,421

  24,948

  29,263

  32,274

  35,960

  West Glamorgan

  22,601

  24,810

  25,769

  26,964

  26,453

  28,786

  32,455

  35,590

  39,802

  Total Wales

  164,961

  180,192

  189,816

  197,617

  200,867

  213,782

  236,769

  263,205

  295,397

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  25,969

  29,785

  32,099

  34,284

  35,435

  37,216

  40,265

  43,711

  47,445

  Dyfed

  22,610

  25,548

  27,109

  28,380

  29,333

  30,898

  33,668

  37,339

  39,276

  Gwent

  32,438

  36,440

  38,879

  40,987

  41,904

  42,731

  46,506

  49,767

  53,221

  Gwynedd

  15,211

  17,270

  18,527

  19,947

  20,979

  21,839

  23,982

  25,796

  27,168

  Mid Glamorgan

  38,527

  41,701

  44,773

  48,514

  49,960

  52,193

  56,422

  59,642

  63,307

  Powys

  8,164

  8,987

  9,477

  10,235

  10,676

  11,209

  11,945

  13,057

  15,057

  South Glamorgan

  25,372

  27,526

  29,703

  30,790

  31,260

  32,155

  36,377

  37,686

  40,469

  West Glamorgan

  26,933

  30,804

  32,505

  34,331

  33,650

  35,183

  39,238

  42,734

  46,216

  Total Wales

  195,224

  218,061

  233,072

  247,457

  253,207

  263,424

  288,404

  309,733

  332,159

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were pupil numbers in(a) primary and (b) secondary local education authority schools in Wales and in each county including the percentage change, year on year, for each of the years since 1980 inclusive.

  Primary

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1980

  Pupil numbers

  42,415

  32,881

  46,398

  24,316

  61,371

  11,198

  37,659

  38,989

  295,227

  1981

  Pupil numbers

  40,857

  31,771

  44,280

  23,398

  58,655

  10,822

  36,247

  37,505

  283,435

  Percentage change

  -3·7

  -3·4

  -4·6

  -4·2

  -4·4

  -3·4

  -3·7

  -3·8

  -4·0

  1982

  Pupil numbers

  39,012

  30,816

  42,438

  22,482

  56,291

  10,534

  35,075

  36,554

  273,202

  Percentage change

  -4·5

  -3·0

  -4·2

  -3·5

  -4·0

  -2·7

  -3·2

  -2·5

  -3·6

  1983

  Pupil numbers

  37,793

  29,909

  40,268

  21,545

  53,757

  10,262

  33,649

  35,386

  262,569

  Percentage change

  -3·1

  -2·9

  -5·1

  -4·2

  -4·5

  -2·6

  -4·1

  -3·2

  -3·9

  1984

  Pupil numbers

  37,141

  29,469

  39,642

  20,989

  52,669

  10,154

  33,496

  35,082

  258,642

  Percentage change

  -1·7

  -1·5

  -1·6

  -2·6

  -2·0

  -1·1

  -0·5

  -0·9

  -1·5

  1985

  Pupil numbers

  37,265

  29,313

  39,642

  20,377

  52,242

  10,073

  33,522

  34,861

  257,295

  Percentage change

  +0·3

  -0·5

  0

  -2·9

  -0·8

  -0·8

  +0·1

  -0·6

  -0·5

  1986

  Pupil numbers

  37,174

  29,435

  39,623

  19,972

  52,139

  9,807

  33,886

  34,762

  256,798

  Percentage change

  —0·2

  + 0·4

  0

  -2·0

  -0·2

  -2·6

  +1·1

  -0·3

  -0·2

  1987

  Pupil numbers

  37,225

  29,989

  39,818

  19,718

  52,113

  9,786

  34,375

  34,975

  257,999

  Percentage change

  +0·1

  +1·9

  +0·5

  -1·3

  -0·1

  -0·2

  +1·4

  +0·6

  +0·5

  1988

  Pupil numbers

  37,581

  30,671

  40,400

  19,710

  52,859

  9,932

  35,141

  35,407

  261,701

  Percentage change

  +1·0

  +2·3

  +1·5

  0

  +1·4

  +1·5

  +2·2

  +1·2

  +1·4

  1989

  Pupil numbers

  38,680

  31,895

  41,428

  19,991

  54,118

  10,198

  35,980

  36,198

  268,488

  Percentage change

  +2·9

  +4·0

  +2·5

  +1·4

  +2·4

  +2·7

  +2·4

  +2·2

  +2·6

  90
  Mr. Roberts
  The information as at January of each year is given in the tables:
  91

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1980

  Pupil numbers

  32,987

  27,414

  39,586

  19,038

  47,857

  9,173

  33,437

  31,279

  240,771

  1981

  Pupil numbers

  33,310

  27,360

  39,321

  19,182

  47,650

  9,162

  33,007

  30,649

  239,641

  Percentage change

  + 1·0

  -0·2

  -0·7

  +0·8

  -0·4

  -0·1

  -1·3

  -2·0

  -0·5

  1982

  Pupil numbers

  33,178

  27,258

  38,557

  19,428

  47,210

  9,009

  32,517

  29,999

  237,156

  Percentage change

  -0·4

  -0·4

  -1·9

  + 1·3

  -0·9

  -1·7

  -1·5

  -2·1

  -1·0

  1983

  Pupil numbers

  33,261

  27,215

  37,722

  19,896

  46,962

  9,036

  32,375

  29,158

  235,625

  Percentage change

  +0·3

  -0·2

  -2·2

  + 2·4

  -0·5

  + 0·3

  -0·4

  -2·8

  -0·6

  1984

  Pupil numbers

  32,874

  26,779

  36,823

  19,725

  46,316

  9,003

  31,634

  28,358

  231,512

  Percentage change

  -1·2

  -1·6

  -2·4

  -0·9

  -1·4

  -0·4

  -2·3

  -2·7

  -1·7

  1985

  Pupil numbers

  32,400

  26,386

  35,445

  19,642

  45,407

  8,976

  30,618

  27,572

  226,446

  Percentage change

  -1·4

  -1·5

  -3·7

  -0·4

  -2·0

  -0·3

  -3·2

  -2·8

  -2·2

  1986

  Pupil numbers

  31,330

  25,654

  33,864

  19,045

  43,889

  8,738

  29,646

  26,212

  218,378

  Percentage change

  -3·3

  -2·8

  -4·5

  -3·0

  -3·3

  -2·7

  -3·2

  -4·9

  -3·6

  1987

  Pupil numbers

  30·121

  24,787

  32,406

  18,335

  42,129

  8,537

  28,457

  25,137

  209,909

  Percentage change

  -3·9

  -3·4

  -4·3

  -3·7

  -4·0

  -2·3

  -4·0

  -4·1

  -3·9

  1988

  Pupil numbers

  28,647

  23,924

  30,509

  17,268

  39,419

  8,217

  27,279

  24,016

  199,279

  Percentage change

  -4·9

  -3·5

  -5·9

  -5·8

  -6·4

  -3·7

  -4·1

  -4·5

  -5·1

  1989

  Pupil numbers

  27,367

  23,682

  29,227

  16,357

  37,539

  7,986

  26,627

  23,214

  191,999

  Percentage change

  -4·5

  -1·0

  -4·2

  -5·3

  -4·8

  -2·8

  -2·4

  -3·3

  -3·7

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been expenditure per pupil in real terms for each year from 1980 inclusive, in Wales and by county,in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

  Total expenditure per pupil in primary and secondary schools: 1988–89 prices1 (£ per pupil)

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Primary

  Clwyd

  963

  1,021

  1,021

  1,033

  1,007

  1,030

  1,093

  1,142

  1,143

  Dyfed

  1,084

  1,127

  1,106

  1,090

  1,052

  1,051

  1,150

  1,244

  1,229

  Gwent

  965

  985

  1,058

  1,083

  1,028

  1,031

  1,129

  1,195

  1,284

  Gwynedd

  943

  972

  1,023

  971

  1,010

  1,002

  1.075

  1,139

  1,169

  Mid Glamorgan

  982

  995

  1,047

  1,111

  1,102

  1,106

  1,144

  1,228

  1,230

  Powys

  1,204

  1,180

  1,272

  1,363

  1,317

  1,288

  1,342

  1,404

  1,505

  South Glamorgan

  919

  911

  940

  935

  915

  919

  1,043

  1,068

  1,106

  West Glamorgan

  1,073

  1,083

  1,064

  1,093

  1,033

  1,035

  1,123

  1,202

  1,243

  Wales

  997

  1,018

  1,047

  1,067

  1,039

  1,042

  1,121

  1,188

  1,217

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  1,340

  1,392

  1,390

  1,421

  1,425

  1,487

  1,620

  1,753

  1,819

  Dyfed

  1,391

  1,415

  1,450

  1,499

  1,485

  1,480

  1,609

  1,796

  1,787

  Gwent

  1,451

  1,452

  1,483

  1,528

  1,550

  1,571

  1,676

  1,777

  1,848

  Gwynedd

  1,364

  1,391

  1,317

  1,344

  1,365

  1,421

  1,556

  1,701

  1,734

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,388

  1,403

  1,395

  1,436

  1,430

  1,422

  1,558

  1,707

  1,780

  Powys

  1,538

  1,645

  1,560

  1,608

  1,545

  1,540

  1,822

  1,892

  1,976

  South Glamorgan

  1,255

  1,254

  1,298

  1,294

  1,296

  1,278

  1,465

  1,491

  1,566

  West Glamorgan

  1,562

  1,611

  1,681

  1,678

  1,564

  1,632

  1,852

  2,062

  2,117

  Wales

  1,400

  1,425

  1,437

  1,465

  1,452

  1,472

  1,624

  1,755

  1,812

  1 Adjusted to a constant price basis using the GDP deflator.

  92
  Mr. Roberts
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Employment Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the amount of cash in real terms for employment training in Wales for each of the years from 1980 including the current year and the proposed amounts for 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  Employment training commenced on 5 September 1988. The budgets for 1988–89 and 1989–90 were £13·671 million and £32·741 million respectively. For 1990–91 the budget is £30·279 million. This is a reflection of the overall decline in unemployment.

  Deeside High School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will visit Deeside high school, Queensferry, and meet members of staff;

  (2) if he will visit Deeside high school and meet the parent-teachers association and school governors to discuss with them school closure plans.

  Mr. Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on Thursday 8 February 1990.

  Cancer Patients
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make a decision on his report concerning treatment for cancer sufferers in north Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Responses to recent consultation on the comprehensive review of cancer treatment services to north Wales patients are presently being studied. I will make an announcement when these have been considered.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his criteria for appointments to health boards in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Members will be appointed on the strength of the skills and experience they can bring to an authority's work.

  Beaches
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the beaches in Wales that meet the blue flag award standards, and those which do not.

  Mr. Grist
  One beach in Wales, Cefn Sidan, has been awarded a 1990 blue flag.

  Ophthalmic Clinics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the figures for new out-patient attendances at ophthalmic clinics in(a) South Glamorgan and (b) Wales for the quarter ended December 1989 and the quarter ended March 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of new ophthalmology out-patients recorded in NHS hospitals during the quarter ending December 1989 is given in the table. Information for the quarter ending March 1990 is not yet available.
  94

  South Glamorgan

  Wales

  New out-patient attendances

  1,952

  11,415

  Welsh Water
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the individuals in respect of whom Welsh Water, in the 12 months prior to the sale of shares, paid for overseas travel together with the capacity in which they were engaged, the purposes of each visit and the cost involved.

  Mr. Grist
  This was a matter for the Welsh water authority prior to 1 September 1989 and subsequently for Welsh Water plc.

  Diabetes and Glaucoma
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were suffering from diabetes and glaucoma in(a) Wales and (b) each county in Wales during 1988–89 and 1989–90, respectively.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of loft insulation jobs completed so far in the current year and completed in the equivalent periods of 1987, 1988 and 1989; and what were the full-year figures for 1987, 1988 and 1989 for Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the number of dwellings for which home insulation grants were given in the periods requested is shown in the table:

  Home insulation grants—Wales1

  Number of dwellings

  1987 1st quarter

  7,087

  1988 1st quarter

  5,667

  1989 1st quarter

  3,184

  1990 1st quarter

  1,326

  1987

  19,990

  1988

  14,016

  1989

  7,180

  1 Includes grants given for loft insulation. Data on specific insulation works are not collected separately.

  Railway Service, Maesteg
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that British Rail implements fully the scheme approved by the Welsh Office in November 1989 to reopen a passenger service to Maesteg.

  Mr. Roberts
  I met the chairman of British Rail recently and he is aware of the importance of the Maesteg project to the economic regeneration of south Wales. The provision of rolling stock for the line is for resolution between British Rail and Mid Glamorgan county council.

  History Committee for Wales
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received the final report of the history committee for Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  95
  Mr. David Hunt
  I am publishing the report of the national curriculum history committee for Wales today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  I am very grateful to the members of the committee, and to its chairman Professor Rees Davies, for the hard work they have undertaken in completing their task, and for the comprehensive report they have produced.

  The report sets out their recommendations for the history course for pupils from age five to 16 in the schools of Wales, and has been prepared in the light of the final report of the history working group which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science published on 3 April.

  The report is being distributed to local education authorities and maintained schools in Wales, and to other interested bodies. I shall publish later my proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study for history within the national curriculum in the schools of Wales. These will be subject to statutory consultation as required by the Education Reform Act 1988.

  HIV
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report for each health authority in Wales, the number of persons infected with HIV; and if he will separately distinguish these numbers by age.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: To safeguard confidentiality and in line with reporting procedure under the AIDS (Control) Act, actual numbers between one and nine—inclusive—diagnosed in individual health authorities are not published. Distribution by age is therefore shown for all Wales.

  Table 1: Number of Reported HIV Infections by Health Authority Cumulative to 31 March 1990

  Number

  Clwyd

  14

  East Dyfed

  1

  Gwent

  15

  Gwynedd

  16

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  Pembrokeshire

  1

  Powys

  Nil

  South Glamorgan

  69

  West Glamorgan

  27

  Wales

  157

  1 Less than 10.

  Table 2: Age Distribution of Reported HIV Infections Cumulative to 31 March 1990

  Number

  0–141

  2

  15–24

  38

  25–34

  57

  35–44

  34

  45 +

  18

  Not known

  2

  Total

  157

  1 Age group as at when first tested positive.

  2 Less than 10.

  Opencast Mine, Buckley
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Alyn and Deeside council and Buckley town council to hear their views concerning the opencast executive's proposals for mining coal in the Buckley area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In view of my statutory planning role it would not be appropriate for me to do so.

PRIME MINISTER

  Environmental Co-operation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will raise with President Gorbachev technical co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom on environmental problems, including cellulose-related pollution of Lake Baikal.

  The Prime Minister
  I was not able to raise environmental questions in any great detail with President Gorbachev in the time available. We are of course aware that the environmental problems of the Soviet Union are serious and we are at present considering what role we might best play in the ecological research centre that it is proposing to establish at Lake Baikal.

  Housing (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what further representations she has had calling for the alleviation of the housing crises in London.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government receive many representations about the housing situation in London.

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the transfer of nuclear materials, and in particular enriched uranium, to countries which have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  The transfer of nuclear materials, including enriched uranium, is authorised in accordance with the policy set out in 1976 by the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, Mr. Callaghan; that is to say:"When considering the export of nuclear equipment, material, or technology, we shall study each case on its merits. Our first consideration will always be the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Euratom Treaty, and whether or not the prospective customer has concluded a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  Our detailed requirements will include the application of IAEA safeguards or comparable safeguards which are verified by the IAEA to exported nuclear equipment and material; an assurance that whatever we export will not be used to manufacture nuclear explosives for any purpose; an assurance that our exports will be adequately protected against the possibility of theft or sabotage; and assurances that if the equipment or material that we export is re-exported, then the new purchaser will be required to give the same assurances of safeguards, non-explosive use and physical protection as were given by the original customer."

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the studies conducted inside the Cabinet Office and Prime Minister's offices by management consultants over the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no expenditure on management consultants by my office over the last 10 years. Until 1988–89 financial information about management consultancies engaged by the Cabinet Office was not identified separately from other types of consultancy. Expenditure on management consultants in that year and in 1989–90 was as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  70,608

  1989–90

  51,500

  Information on individual consultancies is available only from 1985 onwards. The management consultants employed by the Cabinet Office and the nature of their assignments are as follows:

  Firm and Assignment

  Chinal Management Services Ltd.

  Specialised training.

  Communication Audit

  Review of written guidance to promotion boards.

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates1

  (i)Management/Staff communications

  (ii) Policy work and the financial management initiative.

  Diane Bailey Associates

  (i) Training material on staff appraisal: training workshops

  (ii) Trainers' resource pack on equal opportunities

  (iii) Specialised training.

  Hay-MSL Management Consultants1

  (i) Evaluation of performance bonus experiment

  (ii) Means of assessing the potential and management development needs of staff at junior levels.

  Business Research Unit

  Evaluation of staff attitudes to the new staff appraisal system.

  Keith Robertson

  Consultancy for the 'Managing Absence' project.

  Diane Bailey Associates

  Survey on presentation of Occupation Welfare Service to management and staff in the Civil Service.

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  Advice on manpower planning and computers in personnel.

  John Rowley

  Production of guidelines for managers and trade unionists on job satisfaction projects and a summary of the guidelines for staff.

  W. O'Keefe

  Study of purchasing and stores activities.

  Hay Management Consultants

  A study of the feasibility of short service assignments in the Science Group.

  Purchasing Index (UK) Ltd1

  Development of the Central Unit of Purchasing Database.

  Frank Griffiths Associates 1

  Advice in connection with the Institute of Civil Engineers' review of conditions of contract.

  R. W. White1

  Review of arrangements for Purchasing and Supply Function in Government.

  E. R. Farnbridge and C. Evans1

  Review of Supply and Service Agreements between departments and the Central Purchasing Agencies.

  D. F. Collins1

  Advice on Written Guidance.

  98

  Training Development Approaches Ltd

  Design of manual in support of the Young People Programme.

  Industrial Training Service Ltd

  Production of a guide on conducting training needs analyses.

  WRM Ltd

  Training information and communications study.

  PA Personnel Services

  Analysis of Executive Officer and fast stream recruitments.

  Imitax Ltd.

  Workshops on job satisfaction employee involvement.

  Imitax Ltd.

  Local Office network conference.

  Inbucon Management Consultants Ltd.

  Case study on personnel and financial management.

  Industrial Training Services Ltd.

  (i) Measuring training activity

  (ii) Specialised training.

  Intra Systems Ltd. (1)

  Pilot study on the use of interactive video.

  KMG Thomson McLintock

  Review of office automation pilot programme in a government department.

  OD (Management Consultancy) Ltd.

  Review of a productivity scheme.

  PA Personnel Services Ltd.

  Study of the provision of information advice and guidance on matters of employment law within the Civil Service.

  Peter Saunders Associates

  Self instruction package on Government Accounting.

  Transform

  Specialised training.

  BGM Consultants Ltd.

  Identification of core skills for the young people project.

  Business Research Unit

  Evaluation of staff appraisal scheme.

  Centre for Training and Evaluation Studies

  Evaluation of staff appraisal material.

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates (1)

  Development of policy evaluation.

  Diane Bailey Associates

  (i) Training material on staff appraisal and training workshops

  (ii) Preparation of information pack on stress management.

  DWJ Consulting Services Ltd. (1)

  Functions review of the Crown Suppliers.

  Ernst and Whinney

  Specialised training.

  Frank Griffiths Associates Ltd.

  Review of the purchasing and supply organisation in a government department.

  IMS

  (i) Study of mobility1

  (ii) Specialised training

  (iii) Advice on working patterns.

  Inbucon Management Consultants Ltd.

  Preparation of a training package.

  Pergamon Infotech

  Specialised training.

  Peat, Marwick Mitchell1

  Development of policy evaluation.

  Psychometric Research and Development Ltd.

  Analysis contributing to the Civil Service Commission review of executive officer recruitment.

  Systems Concepts Ltd.

  Identification of information management needs.

  BGM Consultants

  Identification of core skills in clerical grades.

  Diane Bailey Associates

  Preparation of a Stress Management Training Pack. ITS Ltd.

  Guide to conducting Training Reviews.

  Systems Concepts Ltd.

  Training Information Communications Study—feasibility study.

  John Childs

  Training Information Communications Study—customer needs survey.

  99

  Anne Hughes Hallet

  Research on undergraduate attitudes to a career in Her Majesty's Tax Inspectorate.

  B. O'Connor

  Selection procedure design (engineer recruitment).

  National Foundation for Educational Research

  Aptitude test analysis.

  Centre for Training and Evaluation Studies

  Evaluation of self instruction training package for the new staff appraisal system.

  Richard Williams

  Equal Opportunities monitoring project.

  Questel Qualitive Studies Ltd.1

  Audit of recruitment publicity.

  Anne Hughes Hallett1

  Research into careers attitudes.

  Human Assets Ltd.

  Study of Information Officers recruitment procedures.

  Equalities Associates

  Guidelines for trainers on equal opportunities issues.

  Ashbridge Management College

  Study of Women's National Commission.

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates

  Pilot study on evaluation.

  National Children's Bureau

  Advice on the London Childcare Project.

  Peter Williams Associates

  Advice on the London Childcare Project.

  Price Waterhouse

  Advice on performance indicators and management information systems.

  Shaista Faruqi

  Design of recruitment monitoring system.

  1Costs for these studies were shared with other Government Departments.

  Child Sex Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress the interdepartmental group on child sexual abuse has made since her answer of 4 May 1989,Official Report, column 211.

  The Prime Minister
  Since May 1989 the interdepartmental group on child abuse has met four times and has made good progress in addressing a wide range of issues in relation to child care matters, including research.

  International Whaling Commission
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Prime Minister who will represent the United Kingdom at the International Whaling Commission meeting in the Netherlands in July.

  The Prime Minister
  As is usual the United Kingdom will be represented by the United Kingdom's commissioner for whaling, a senior official from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  ACOST (Chairmanship)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the chairmanship of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology.

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed Sir Robin Nicholson to succeed Lord Tombs of Brailes as chairman of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST) after the council meeting on 11 July.

  Lord Tombs of Brailes has chaired the Advisory Council on Science and Technology since it was formed in 1987 and also chaired its predecessor the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development from 1985 to 1987. The Government are very grateful to him for the very valuable service he has given in these posts.

  Engagements
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Open University
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the consequences of forthcoming radio wavelength changes on the work of the Open university.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our attention has recently been drawn to deficiencies in AM radio reception in parts of Scotland. This would have affected reception of the BBC's Open university and other educational programmes following their transfer to the new Radio 5 service in August of this year. In the areas concerned the BBC will continue transmitting these programmes on FM until the AM problem is resolved.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest crime figures for Basildon.

  Mr. John Patten
  Crime figures are published annually in the report of the chief constable of Essex. The latest figures are given in his annual report for 1989 when 14,559 notifiable offences were recorded in the Basildon division.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the crime figures in the west Lancashire district in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for the southern "C" division (which includes the west Lancashire district) is published in the annual report of the chief constable of Lancashire. Statistics of notifiable offences recorded in the Lancashire police force area are published in table 2·4 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1988" and in table 7 of "Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/90"; copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Badgers
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under the Badgers Act 1973 and the Wildlife and Countryside Acts 1981 and 1985 for taking or destroying a badger; and what was the percentage of convictions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No figures are available for specific types of offences under these Acts. However in 1988 there
  101
  were a total of 74 prosecutions for offences under the Badgers Act 1973 and 41 convictions. That is a conviction rate of 55·4 per cent.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on nationally recommended minimum standards to maintain fire service cover.

  Mr. John Patten
  The conclusions and recommendations in the report of the joint committee on standards of fire cover, which was published in 1985, were recommended to fire authorities by fire service circular No. 4/1985 on 22 May 1985, copies of which are in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter dated 2 May from the hon. Member for Worsley with regard to information about possible terrorist activity.

  Mr. Waddington
  I wrote to the hon. Member, after consulting the police, on 5 June.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will be sent a reply to his letter dated 12 March referring to Mrs. Frances Bennett of Rugby.

  Mr. Mellor
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 26 March. I have today sent him a further copy of that letter.

  Mr. John Harker
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will now make a statement about the case of John Harker, prisoner R69121, HM prison Kirkham, Preston, Lancashire;

  (2) if he will make a statement as to the outcome of the inquiry into the case of John Harker, prisoner R69121, HM prison Kirkham, Preston, Lancashire.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will be writing to my hon. Friend shortly about this case.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why John Harker, prisoner R69121, Her Majesty's prison Kirkham, Preston, Lancashire, has not yet heard from the parole review board held in January 1990.

  Mr. John Patten
  Mr. Harker's case is still under consideration. We expect the outcome to be known around the end of June.

  Teacher Vetting
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take to speed up teacher vetting.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that four additional civilian staff have been deployed on this work since April. I am not aware of general delays outside London.

  Arson
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to increase the maximum penalty available to the courts for arson involving damage to property, where no personal injury has occurred.

  Mr. John Patten
  All offences of arson, whether or not they involve personal injury, already carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

  Parole
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of cases in England and Wales in which a prisoner has not been given the opportunity to be interviewed by a member of the local review committee as part of the process of parole review for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  Figures are not recorded centrally. On those rare occasions when an interview is inadvertently denied, our policy is to offer a fresh review.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out for each police force in England and Wales the total number of inquiries in which a Police Complaints Authority member supervised the investigation during the most convenient recent 12-months period, the total number of hours spent on such investigations, and assuming the necessity of the Police Complaints Authority to employ its own investigators at executive officer, senior executive officer and higher executive officer grade, and working a normal home civil service week, what would be the cost implications for the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Strangeways Prison
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest estimate of the cost of repairing the damage recently caused by disturbances at Strangeways prison.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now able to give the total cost of the destruction and the policing following the prison riot at Strangeways prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  I announced on 17 May at columns 489–90 plans for the refurbishment of Strangeways prison to provide a range of new and improved facilities, including integral sanitation at a cost of £60 million. This work will also include repair of the damage done during the recent disturbances, which amounts to about £30 million.

  The Greater Manchester police authority advises that the additional cost of policing as a result of the disturbances was £580,000.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in considering Sunday trading.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since the defeat of the Shops Bill, the Government have made it clear that they are prepared to
  103
  consider reform short of total deregulation if a solution can be found which is widely accepted, enforceable, practicable and likely to command a parliamentary majority. No such solution has yet emerged and I see no prospect of sufficient support to enable us to put forward legislation in the near future.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he now expects to bring forward proposals to strengthen the law on dangerous dogs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering whether to do so.

  Dog Fighting
  Mr. Cohen
  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 on the priority given to prosecuting those involved in dog-fighting activities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  Open Banking
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received representations regarding the security aspects of open banking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. A working group appointed by the standing conference on crime prevention to look into commercial robbery mentioned in its 1986 report the increasing popularity of open-plan offices in bank branches. The working group found no evidence that the move towards open plan increased the risk of attack, but the matter is being kept under review by the Home Office, the Metropolitan police and the banks themselves.

  Trevi Group
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) what subjects of discussions by the Trevi group the Minister expects to be resolved during the Italian Presidency of the European Economic Community;

  (2) what areas of United Kingdom law are being looked at with a view to changes to meet the needs for common European Economic Community action as identified by the Trevi group;

  (3) if he will list all the meetings of the Trevi group, and the subject discussed at each meeting and decisions arrived at; and if he will indicate the future areas of work the Trevi group will be addressing.

  Mr. Waddington
  During each presidency of Trevi a number of working groups meet to further co-operation against terrorism, drug trafficking and other serious crimes, reporting their conclusions to senior officials and Ministers. I and my colleagues will be reviewing the work done under the Irish presidency in Dublin next week, and I shall report the outcome to the House. The declaration made at our last meeting in Paris on 15 December 1989, a copy of which is in the Library, sets out a programme of work which is likely to be further progressed during the 104
  Italian presidency. No changes in United Kingdom law are currently being considered as a result of work in Trevi, which is concerned with practical police co-operation.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions the Trevi group has had about passing information from the United Kingdom, held on the central police computer, relating(a) to criminal records and (b) suspected crime and suspects; and what protection the group intends to provide to protect the civil rights of any individual so identified;

  (2) what discussions the Trevi group of Ministers has had about setting up a European Economic Community-wide database; and what consideration has been given in such discussions to the laws relating to privacy in such countries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Trevi Ministers agreed at their meeting in Paris on 15 December 1989 to initiate a study of a possible common information system among member states, designed to combat the most serious forms of crime. The protection of data and of personal privacy is among the considerations to be addressed in this study, which is at an early stage. No decisions have yet been taken on whether to set up such a system and, if so, on what information it should contain or how it should work.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Trevi group of Ministers has agreed with regard to political asylum refused by one European Economic Community state; how applications will be considered in other European Community states; and what steps are being taken to harmonise the grounds for granting political asylum.

  Mr. Waddington
  At their last meeting in Paris on 15 December 1989, EC Immigration Ministers adopted a declaration relating, among other subjects, to measures on asylum. A copy of the declaration is in the Library. The next meeting is to be held in Dublin on 14 and 15 June and the outcome will be reported to the House in the usual way.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the leaflets printed and distributed encouraging overseas electors to enrol in the United Kingdom; how many were distributed; and through what channels in(a) South Africa, (b) Zimbabwe, (c) Australia, (d) Canada, (e) New Zealand and the EC.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Two million copies of the leaflet "Keeping your vote when living abroad" have been printed at a cost of £30,000. Of these, 1,023,000 have been sent to diplomatic posts and missions abroad; the remainder have been sent to electoral registration officers, or to United Kingdom organisations with overseas connections, or have been retained for future use.

  Distribution of the leaflets by British diplomatic posts abroad began in May and is continuing by various means, including mailshots to expatriates, inclusion with renewed passports, and in response to direct requests from individuals, firms and organisations. Details of the precise means of distribution in specific countries could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Disability)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are provided for disabled prisoners who are(a) physically disabled, (b) blind, (c) mentally ill or (d) deaf.

  Mr. Mellor
  As indicated in the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 16 May 1990 at column 411, prison establishments seek to meet the needs of those with disabilities on an individual basis. Their requirements are assessed by medical and other staff as part of the reception procedure.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the needs of disabled people in prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  A survey was undertaken last year into the accessibility of prison establishments for people with disabilities, including inmates, staff and visitors. The survey focused on the problems of those with physical disabilities.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any extra support for disabled prisoners' rehabilitation needs on discharge.

  Mr. John Patten
  The probation service should be informed by the prison authorities of any medical matters relating to the discharge of inmates, with particular attention given to the individual needs of blind or otherwise handicapped prisoners. This procedure will become a requirement with the issue of prison department standing order 1I later this year.

  With regard to the provision of after care, the home probation officer can arrange contacts with relevant social services departments and other bodies that are able to offer support and guidance.

  Prison Service (Disabled Employees)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many disabled employees there are in the prison service.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 1 March 1990, the prison service employed 45 people who had declared that they were registered disabled.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to obtain a transcript of the speech of Commander Richard Monk of the Metropolitan police on 7 June, on child abusers, for study by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend asked for a transcript of the speech which Commander Monk made on 7 June.

  Polling Stations
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ensure that all electors arriving at their polling station during the last 30 minutes before the doors of the polling station are closed are not denied their right to vote.
  106
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Polling hours at parliamentary, European parliamentary and local government elections are laid down in the relevant legislation. We have no reason to believe that the statutory requirements are not being complied with, but if the hon. Member knows of a particular difficulty, perhaps he would write to me about it.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  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 as to w hat plans or studies have been made or commissioned by the Metropolitan police to assess the measures that would have to be taken in the event of contamination by airborne plutonium resulting from a nuclear weapons accident aboard a Royal Navy ship docked at Greenwich.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to questions from the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 8 June at column 724.

  Life Imprisonment
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report, the recommendations from the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment which have been accepted wholly or in part by Her Majesty's Government; indicating which, if any, have already been implemented.

  Mr. John Patten
  The White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" (Cm 965) announced our decision that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the crime of murder should remain to mark the heinous nature of this crime. We are carefully considering the Select Committee recommendations on the release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment made by the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment. I welcome the recommendations to improve the arrangements for victims' families, and the recent victims' charter endorses this approach.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Telephone Facilities
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will make it his policy to ensure before 1992 that hon. Members enjoy the same international line telephone facilities to Strasbourg and Brussels which are available to Members of the European Parliament.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The provision of such facilities is under active consideration at present and I hope proposals will be brought before the Services Committee in the near future.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members are provided with telephones in accommodation in London not owned by the state outside the House where the cost of calls arising from the use of that equipment is paid for by public funds.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No hon. Members are provided with such telephones by the authorities of the House.

  Committees (Televising)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the number of times and the dates when each Select Committee of the House has been televised since the introduction of television.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information requested, which covers the period up to the Whitsun adjournment, is as follows:

  Committee and dates on which televised

  Total1

  Agriculture

  29 November 1989

  17 January 1990

  24 January 1990

  21 March 1990

  2 April 1990

  23 May 1990

  6

  Defence

  8 November 1989

  20 December 1989

  11 January 19902

  7 February 1990

  21 February 1990

  28 March 1990

  1 May 1990

  16 May 1990

  8

  Education, Science and Arts

  28 November 1989

  9 May 1990

  2

  Employment

  7 March 1990

  14 March 1990

  18 April 1990

  25 April 1990

  2 May 1990

  5

  Energy

  22 November 1989

  7 February 1990

  28 February 1990

  7 March 1990

  14 March 19902

  25 April 1990

  6

  Environment

  22 November 1989

  17 January 1990

  31 January 1990

  14 February 1990

  28 February 1990

  14 March 1990

  20 March 1990

  21 March 1990

  28 March 1990

  9

  Foreign Affairs

  6 December 1989

  13 December 1989

  7 February 1990

  4 April 1990

  25 April 1990

  5

  Home Affairs

  31 January 1990

  7 February 1990

  21 February 1990

  21 March 1990

  9 May 1990

  5

  Social Services

  10 January 1990

  17 January 1990

  108

  Committee and dates on which televised

  Total1

  24 January 1990

  31 January 1990

  7 March 1990

  21 March 1990

  4 April 1990

  25 April 1990

  8

  Trade and Industry

  6 December 1989

  13 December 1989

  17 January 1990 am

  17 January 1990 pm

  28 February 1990

  7 March 1990

  28 March 1990

  7

  Transport

  29 November 1989

  6 December 1989

  28 March 1990

  25 April 1990

  16 May 1990

  23 May 1990

  6

  Treasury and Civil Service

  22 November 1989

  27 November 1989

  4 December 1989

  28 February 1990

  12 March 1990

  28 March 1990

  3 April 1990

  7

  Welsh Affairs

  29 November 1989

  13 December 1989

  24 January 1990

  21 February 1990

  2 May 1990

  9 May 1990

  15 May 19902

  7

  Select Committee on European

  Legislation

  1 February 1990

  1 March 1990

  2

  Select Committee on Procedure

  13 December 1989

  7 February 1990

  2

  Public Accounts Committee

  4 December 1989

  18 December 1989

  24 January 1990

  12 February 1990

  14 February 1990

  21 February 1990

  30 April 1990

  7

  Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House

  23 April 1990

  1

  1 Total number of meetings.

  2 Denotes meeting away from Westminster.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the number of times and the dates when each Standing Committee of the House has been televised since the introduction of television.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information requested, which covers the period up to the Whitsun adjournment, is as follows:
  109

  Standing Committees on Bills (by reference to title of Bill committed)

  Dates on which televised

  Total number of sittings televised

  National Health Service and Community Care Bill

  19 December 1989

  6

  11 January 1990

  23 January 1990 am

  23 January 1990 pm

  20 February 1990 am

  20 February 1990 pm

  Broadcasting Bill

  9 January 1990

  16

  16 January 1990 am

  16 January 1990 pm

  18 January 1990 am

  18 January 1990 pm

  23 January 1990 am

  23 January 1990 pm

  25 January 1990 am

  25 January 1990 pm

  6 February 1990 am

  6 February 1990 pm

  8 February 1990 am

  8 Feburary 1990 pm

  6 March 1990 am

  6 March 1990 pm

  8 March 1990

  Education (Student Loans) Bill

  30 January 1990

  1

  War Crimes Bill

  20 March 1990

  3

  3 April 1990 am

  3 April 1990 pm

  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill

  1 May 1990

  1

  Protection of Badger Setts Bill

  9 May 1990

  2

  23 May 1990

  Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords]

  8 May 1990

  1

  Scottish Grand Committee

  19 March 19901

  2

  22 May 1990

  Welsh Grand Committee

  10 January 1990 am

  4

  10 January 1990 pm

  14 March 1990 am

  14 March 1990 pm

  1Denotes meeting away from Westminster.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what estimate he has made of the saving in cash and paper if the proposals of the Procedure Committee on oral questions, in its first report of the current Session, HC 379, are accepted.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  If the proposals are accepted it is estimated that savings to the public purse of around £1 million annually will arise. Over 10 million sheets of A4 paper will be saved.

  Vote Bundle
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 297, what is the total cost to public funds for the supply of
  110
  the Vote bundle as a whole since the 1987 general election and the volume of paper consumed in production of the Vote bundle for the same period.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The total cost to public funds for sittings supply of the Vote bundle as a whole since the 1987 general election is estimated at £17·5 million, to the end of April 1990. The volume of paper consumed in production of the Vote bundle for the same period is estimated at 800 tonnes.

  Recycled Paper
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 297, whether the items mentioned will be made from 100 per cent. recycled paper from low-grade paper waste; whether orders for the non-recycled versions have ceased; and when he expects present stocks to be exhausted.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I understand that the items mentioned will contain more than 50 per cent. pre-consumer recycled waste but will not be produced from recycled low-grade waste. Orders for the non-recycled versions have ceased and present stocks are likely to be exhausted by autumn this year.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the studies conducted inside his Department by management consultants over the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No study of this nature has been undertaken by the Privy Council Office in the last 10 years.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Services (Administration)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, answering for the House of Commons Commission, when he expects Sir Robin Ibbs to complete his report on the administration of House of Commons services.

  Mr. Beith
  A timetable for the completion of the review which I announced on 23 May,Official Report, column 179 has yet to be agreed with Sir Robin Ibbs. It is hoped, however, that the Commission will be able to consider any advice from Sir Robin before the end of the year.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Vehicle Test Certificates (Northern Ireland)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Attorney-General, in 1987, 1988 and 1989, how many persons were convicted in Northern Ireland of not having a vehicle test certificate.

  The Attorney-General
  I regret that this information could not be made available except at disproportionate cost.

  Television Licences (Northern Ireland)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Attorney-General, in 1987, 1988 and 1989, how many persons were convicted in Northern Ireland of not having a television licence.
  111
  The Attorney-General
  I regret that this information could not be made available except at disproportionate cost.

  Anton Piller Orders
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his written answer of 5 June to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, which problems the intended changes in the regulations on Anton Piller orders are designed to overcome.

  The Attorney-General
  The civil justice review recommended that as a general rule the same remedies should be available in both the High Court and the county courts, but that the power to grant Anton Piller orders should normally be reserved to the High Court judiciary in view of the draconian nature of these orders. The Government have accepted this recommendation, which will be taken forward in clause 3 of the Courts and Legal Services Bill and in regulations under clause 3.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Recycled Paper
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to encourage a market for recycled paper and to expand industrial capacity to process waste paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  There is already a strong market for paper products which contain recycled fibre. Government Departments generally are important and reliable customers in this market buying general notepaper, index books, graph paper and brown stationery manufactured from recycled fibre. The letterhead paper used in my Department, including that used by Ministers and senior officials, contains recycled fibre and we are increasing the use of recycled paper in our publications.

  Following a successful pilot scheme, my Department will by the end of this month be collecting separately, from eight of our London buildings, high-grade office waste paper which is currently used in the production of higher-grade recycled paper.

  Post Office
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received a copy of the Mail Users Association recent report on the performance of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I received with interest the MUA's report, "Deliver us from the Post Office", published in May last year and its follow-up "Improving Postal Services", published in March this year. Quality of service is an operational matter for the Post Office. However, I know that the chairman regards this as a key priority and is constantly searching for ways to improve performance. In this he has my full support.

  Peace Dividend
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies he is undertaking on the effects of the peace dividend on the structure of industry and employment in the United Kingdom.
  112
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what he estimates the current usage in the United Kingdom of chlorofluorocarbons in the cleaning of printed circuit boards to be; and what percentage of total United Kingdom usage this comprises.

  Mr. Forth
  In March this year DTI issued a report on "Chlorinated Solvent Cleaning: The Impact of Environmental and Regulatory Controls." Among other chlorinated solvents, the report estimated United Kingdom consumption of the chlorofluorocarbon CFC113 to be 7,500 tonnes with 45 per cent. of that total applied in the electronics sector. The report does not contain figures for printed circuit board application in particular.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to stimulate and promote research into the replacement of the use of chlorofluorocarbons in the manufacture of printed circuit boards.

  Mr. Forth
  Both the producers of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) solvents and the users within the electronics industry are actively engaged in research to develop and implement alternative cleaning products and processes to reduce the use of CFC solvents in the manufacture of printed circuit boards. The range of alternatives available are described in a report produced for the Department of Trade and Industry and published by HMSO in March 1990, entitled "Chlorinated Solvent Cleaning: The Impact of Environmental and Regulatory Controls." The DTI, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, is to support a collaborative assessment by the electronics industry of the technical performance of the alternatives to CFCs. The results of this study will be disseminated to small and medium-sized enterprises within the electronics industry. Support for collaborative research is also available through general DTI research and development programmes and, for collaboration within Europe, through the Eurek Euroenviron programme. In addition, CFCs and their alternatives are one of the selected priority areas eligible for grant aid for research up to "proof of concept" stage under the Department of the Environment's environmental protection technology scheme.

  Furnishings (Flammability)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assurance he has sought from the European Commission that legislation concerning the flammability of furniture and furnishings will meet the highest safety standards for British consumers.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has had discussions with the Commission and the second draft of the directive already contains elements of the requirements of the United Kingdom furniture regulations, including resistance to ignition by cigarettes and matches.

  We will continue to press strongly for our requirement for ignition resistance of foam and other fillings, at forthcoming meetings with the Commission and parallel meetings to determine European test standards.

  We shall shortly be circulating consultation papers including copies of the second draft of the directive.

  113
  Because the directive is to cover contract furniture as well as the domestic variety, this will be a combined exercise with the Home Office, which has the wider responsibility for fire prevention.

  Vehicle Mileometers
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to bring forward proposals to further control the clocking of vehicle mileometers.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans to do so. This practice is a criminal offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and local trading standards officers have the appropriate powers to investigate and to prosecute offenders.

  Postal Services
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received about the quality of the postal services in London.

  Mr. Forth
  Since the beginning of this year my Department has received 37 written representations about the quality of the postal services in London. In addition, two questions on this subject have been tabled in the House by hon. Members.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to establish any new bodies to oversee particular sectors of industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department has no plans to establish any new bodies to oversee particular sectors of industry.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the amount of Government cash given to(a) United Engineering Steels Ltd., (b) British Steel Corporation and (c) British Steel under Phoenix I and Phoenix II plans.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: When United Engineering Steels Ltd. was established under the Phoenix II plans the Government provided £55 million of funds through BSC. Government money was not given to BSC under the Phoenix I plans, the corporation's interests being funded internally.

  Brymbo Steelworks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the amount of Government cash given to(a) United Engineering Steels Ltd., (b) British Steel Corporation and (c) British Steel which was (i) earmarked or (ii) spent on Brymbo steelworks, Clwyd.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: When United Engineering Steels Ltd. (the owners of Brymbo steelworks) was established the Government provided £55 million of funds to UES through the British Steel Corporation. The disposition of these funds within UES was entirely a matter for the company.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will visit Brymbo steelworks to meet steelworkers.
  114
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 7 June 1990]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Brymbo steelworks.

  Refrigerators
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department is considering the introduction of deposit systems on the price of new refrigerators to encourage recycling of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: A recent report for the Department of Trade and Industry, entitled "CFCs and Halons: Alternatives and the Scope for Recovery for Recycling and Destruction", found that there is scope for further development of CFC recycling activity in respect of refrigeration. The DTI and the Department of the Environment will be examining what more needs to be done to encourage such development. Strengthening of the controls on CFCs, where the Government are committed to complete phase-out of CFCs as soon as practically possible, and certainly by the year 2000, will itself contribute a strong incentive to increase the level of recycling undertaken.

  Chlorinated Solvents
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what further action his Department proposes to take following the publication of its report on chlorinated solvent cleaning;

  (2) what action his Department has taken, following the publication of its report on chlorinated solvent cleaning, to increase the levels of awareness of the Montreal protocol in small and medium-sized enterprises and in the general engineering industry.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Copies of the chlorinated solvent cleaning report, and briefing sheets relevant to each of the sectors considered by the report, have been widely distributed to the trade associations for the general engineering, electronics, precision engineering, and dry cleaning industries.

  The parties to the Montreal protocol are to meet in London at the end of June 1990, when they are expected to strengthen the controls within the protocol on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). They are also likely to place controls on some other ozone-depleting substances, including 1.1.1 trichloroethane (methyl chloroform), which is widely used by the general and precision engineering industries. In July 1990, the DTI and the Department of the Environment are to brief trade associations on the results of this international meeting and the potential implications for their sectors.

  In March 1990, the Department of Trade and Industry co-sponsored a conference on electronics manufacturing and the environment. This was designed specifically to provide information to small and medium-sized enterprises in the electronics industry on the current and likely future controls on ozone-depleting substances within the Montreal protocol, and the range of environmentally acceptable alternatives available.

  This autumn DTI is planning to hold a series of regional seminars designed to inform SMEs, particularly those within the engineering industry, of the Montreal protocol and its likely impact. This activity complements the information provided by a number of suppliers of

  115
  ozone-depleting solvents to their customers about the controls on such substances and the options available for reducing usage and switching to alternatives.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department will propose any new codes of practice to discourage companies from disposing of solvents and to encourage their collection and return to manufacturers.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Solvent recovery and disposal is already one of the subjects covered by a European Community code of practice for the design, construction and operation of CFC-113 solvent-cleaning equipment. This code, which has been drawn up by industry and updated to take account of the development of new technology in this area, sets out guidelines to maximise the level of recovery and recycling and ensure that contaminated solvent is disposed of safely.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures on the take-up of each restart option in the Bristol area, the south-west, and Great Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the restart programme became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the chief executive of the employment service will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women are in(a) part-time and (b) full-time employment; what were the similar figures in 1960, 1970 and 1980; what the figure is estimated to be in 1995, 2000 and 2010; and if he will make a statement.
  116
  Mr. Nicholls
  Information for full-time and part-time employment was collected only from June 1971. The Department does not make forecasts of employment. The available figures are as follows:

  Female Employees in Employment (Thousands, United Kingdom, Seasonally adjusted)

  Part-time

  Full-time

  June 1971

  2,793

  5,603

  June 1980

  3,913

  5,739

  December 19891

  4,479

  6,516

  1 Latest available.

  Employment Service Offices
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by region(a) the number of employment service offices that have been established since December 1989 and (b) the number of surplus properties which are now to be disposed of following the reorganisation of the service.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The employment service, which is responsible for jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices, 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. Lady.

  Benefit Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when claimant advisers have worked out an estimate of the in-work benefits to which a claimant may be entitled if they took a low-paying job, what instructions are they given and what action should they take against a claimant who refuses to follow up the vacancy when in-work benefit calculation shows the claimant would(a) clearly be better off in work, (b) be only marginally better off or (c) be financially worse off; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the claimant adviser service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the chief executive of the employment service, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.
  117
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of claimants who have refused actively seeking work review interviews; and if he will estimate the percentage of those receiving actively seeking work warning letters who are not given the opportunity of a review interview prior to the submission of their case to an adjudication officer.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the claimant adviser 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. Gentleman.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disablement resettlement officers and blind persons resettlement officers there are in the employment service; and how many referrals have been made by them to adjudication officers following doubts on (i) actively seeking work, (ii) restricted availability and (iii) refusal of employment, since 9 October 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the provision of employment services to people with disabilities, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many UB671Ws have been issued by new claimant advisers at initial claim interviews.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the new client adviser 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. Gentleman.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the spending on the community insulation programme in (i) each region, (ii) England as a whole, (iii) Wales and (iv) Great Britain in each year from 1983–84 and estimated for 1989–90.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on expenditure on community insulation projects operated under the community programme from 1983–84 to 1987–88 is not readily available. Expenditure for Great Britain in 1988–89 was £6·34 million, but is not readily available by region. Expenditure in 1989 is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Northern

  0·57

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·10

  North West

  0·94

  West Midlands

  0·54

  East Midlands and Eastern

  0·33

  Wales

  0·52

  South West

  0·38

  London

  0·07

  South East

  0·29

  Great Britain

  110·08

  1 The figure for Great Britain includes expenditure in Scotland and on nationally contracted provision.

  118
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the number of draught-proofing jobs completed so far in the current year and completed in the equivalent periods of 1987, 1988 and 1989 for(a) the London borough of Camden and (b) the London borough of Islington; and what were the full-year figures for 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss whether short-range nuclear weapons should be included in the current CFE talks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Baker and other NATO colleagues at the North Atlantic Council meeting held at Turnberry on 7 and 8 June. NATO agreed at that meeting that negotiations on United States and Soviet short-range nuclear weapons systems in Europe should begin shortly after a CFE agreement is concluded.

  We shall continue to be in very close touch with the United States on this subject in preparation for the NATO summit in London from 4 to 6 July.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from Governments in the Indian subcontinent and the middle east respectively, regarding nuclear proliferation in their global region.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No such representations have been received, although Egypt has put forward in the United Nations an initiative calling for a middle east zone free from weapons of mass destruction.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what directions are to be given to the United Kingdom delegates to the non-proliferation treaty review conference to be held later in the currrent year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As one of the three depositary powers for the treaty, the United Kingdom will be working for a positive and successful review conference.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for the membership of the 1963 partial nuclear test ban treaty of the political union of North and South Yemen.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Yemen Arab Republic signed the partial test ban treaty in Moscow and Washington on 6 September 1963; the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen acceded to the treaty in Moscow on 1 June 1979. The new Republic of Yemen announced on 22 May has stated that it will respect all the international obligations of its predecessors.
  119
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the occasions, and level of political communications when Ministers or civil servants of his Department have raised the membership of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with(a) member state representatives and (b) non-parties to the treaty (i) during preparatory committee meetings for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty's fourth quinquennial review conference and (ii) other occasions, since 1 January.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have discussed this subject on numerous occasions and at various levels.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for the membership of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of the political union of North and South Yemen.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In a letter of 19 May to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Foreign Ministers of the Yemen Arab Republic and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen stated that, following the formation of the Republic of Yemen, all treaties and agreements concluded by either state, in accordance with international law, would remain in force.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number and types of nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices cancelled or disamantled since 1970 as a result of multilateral or bilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations involving Britain with the United States of America or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No British nuclear weapons have been the subject of such arms control agreements. But we are fully committed to the aim of enhancing security through agreements achieving a balance at lower levels of forces: NATO has unilaterally reduced its stockpile of nuclear weapons in Europe by 35 per cent. since 1979.

  South Africa
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will seek to extend the COCOM export controls to include South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The proscribed destinations to which the COCOM controls apply are determined by strategic security reasons. South Africa does not fall into this category.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will adopt the proposals made by the Commonwealth committee of Foreign Ministers on southern Africa to strengthen the arms embargo on South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We already offer the assistance to the United Nations arms embargo committee which was called for by the recent meeting of the Commonwealth committee of Foreign Ministers on southern Africa at Abuja.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will be attending the next meeting of the European Community Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend will attend the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 and 19 June.

  Palestine
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received the latest United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimate of the number of Palestinians killed and injured in the occupied territories since December 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. We are deeply concerned about the continuing violence in the occupied territories and the number of Palestinians killed and wounded.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the Falkland Islands council the possibility of permitting a limited number of British passport holders from Hong Kong to settle there.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No such discussions are proposed as it is a matter for the Falkland Islands Government.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will review the British response to the proposed Antarctic minerals convention in view of the concern expressed by individuals and organisations in Britain about the threat which mining developments would pose to the Antarctic environment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 11 June.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey,Official Report, 3 May, column 626, what response his Department will make or has made to the joint paper on the French and Australian proposals received on 3 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies on 9 May to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and to my reply on 15 May to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which conference Dr. John Heap has attended as a representative of his Department, since February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. In his personal capacity, however, Dr. Heap has attended conferences or meetings organised by the Sir Robert Menzies Centre for Australian Studies and the Royal Geographical Society in London, and the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo.
  121
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the special consultative meeting of Antarctic treaty countries will take place; who will represent his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Arrangements for the meeting have not been finalised.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the petroleum companies whose representatives his Department has met within the last 12 months with regard to the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities; the dates of the meetings and the nature of the discussions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the People's Republic of China concerning the status of British overseas citizens in Hong Kong after 1997; what assurances he has received; and if lie will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The right of abode of British overseas citizens in Hong Kong after 1997 is safeguarded under the agreement with the Chinese Government, and is set out in section XIV of annex 1 to the joint declaration.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the numbers and ages of those held in custody in Sri Lanka by the security forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  According to figures released by the Sri Lankan Government, in November 1989 there were 8,000 youths in detention under emergency regulations. No more recent or comprehensive figures have been released.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make a formal response to the recent report of the Western European Union Assembly on low flying.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Formal responses to recommendations in reports of the Western European Union Assembly are the responsibility of the WEU permanent council. We have no plans to make a separate response.

SCOTLAND

  Under-fives
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what actions have been taken by the Government since 1979 to assist with the expansion of pre-five facilities;

  (2) what financial assistance he has been able to offer regional councils to expand their pre-five facilities.

  Mr. Lang
  It is for local authorities to decide the extent and nature of the provision they make for children under 122
  five. In doing so they are assisted by financial provision made available as part of the revenue support grant settlement. This has enabled nursery education and day care places to be increased by 35 per cent. since 1979.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount of(a) perinatal and (b) neonatal mortality in each health board in Scotland in each of the years 1986 to 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Health Board Area

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  (a) Perinatal mortality numbers to Health Board Area, Scotland, 1986–89

  Borders

  8

  4

  8

  9

  Central

  31

  26

  35

  39

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12

  12

  18

  16

  Fife

  51

  58

  42

  35

  Grampian

  70

  57

  48

  52

  Highland

  20

  18

  31

  18

  Lothian

  76

  78

  90

  64

  Argyll and Clyde

  75

  47

  56

  53

  Ayrshire and Arran

  60

  60

  46

  36

  Greater Glasgow

  122

  125

  114

  114

  Lanarkshire

  102

  66

  63

  76

  Tayside

  40

  31

  36

  38

  Orkney

  2

  3

  3

  —

  Shetland

  4

  5

  2

  1

  Western Isles

  —

  4

  2

  2

  (b) Neonatal deaths to Health Board Area, Scotland 1986–89

  Borders

  3

  2

  4

  3

  Central

  18

  17

  20

  24

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10

  7

  8

  12

  Fife

  24

  33

  24

  17

  Grampian

  42

  26

  22

  24

  Highland

  11

  13

  17

  8

  Lothian

  57

  49

  41

  39

  Argyll and Clyde

  40

  27

  33

  21

  Ayrshire and Arran

  27

  33

  27

  27

  Greater Glasgow

  53

  58

  58

  64

  Lanarkshire

  38

  30

  3 2

  39

  Tayside

  16

  13

  13

  21

  Orkney

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Shetland

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1 1989 figures are provisional.

  Community Education
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the volume of community-based adult education provided in each year since 1979; and whether he has made any assessment of changes in the quality of the education provided over the same period;

  (2) what steps he has taken to monitor the provision by education authorities in Scotland of community-based adult basic education and English as a second language services; and what criteria he has laid down for determining their adequacy in terms of (a) scale and (b) quality;

  (3) what are his priorities and objectives for the expansion of community-based (a) adult basic education and (b) English as a second language provision in Scotland; and what guidance he has issued to local education authorities on the development of this provision;

  (4) what plans he has to ensure that all those leaving long-stay institutions without essential skills in literacy and numeracy receive adult basic education;
  123
  (5) what steps he has taken to ensure the development of an educational dimension to care in the community;

  (6) if he has any plans to make additional earmarked funds available to local authorities to enable them to develop community-based educational provision for priority groups.

  Mr. Lang
  The provision of community education in Scotland, including adult education and English as a second language, is primarily the responsibility of education authorities. They determine the extent and means of provision in the light of local needs and with regard to their own priorities and the total resources available to them, including those resources provided by central Government.

  In 1990–91 revenue support grant of £2,479 million has been made available by central Government, representing an increase of 10·5 per cent. over the level of £2,244 million in 1989–90 and 23·5 per cent. over rate support grant of £2,007 million in 1988–89. There are no plans to make additional funds available in 1990–91 to local authorities specifically for community education purposes.

  No central record is held of the volume of community-based adult education in Scotland. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools make inspections of providers of adult education, report on the quality of provision and make recommendations.

  Detailed advice on service planning in the field of community care was issued in April 1985 to health boards and regional and district councils in respect of social work, education and health functions.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to provide funding for the professional training and accreditation of adult basic education practitioners in Scotland along the lines of the local education authority training grants scheme in England and Wales.

  Mr. Lang
  Professional training and accreditation for adult basic education practitioners in Scotland is being developed by the Scottish adult basic education forum together with the community education validation and endorsement (Scotland) group, both of which were set up by the Scottish Community Education Council. I would expect such new developments to qualify for support under the current scheme for in-service training of teachers and community education workers.

  Open Learning Centres
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to increase the funding provided by his Department for local open learning centres.

  Mr. Lang
  We would be prepared to consider funding additional adult learning provision run by the voluntary sector, provided it is of an innovative nature.

  Industrial Oil and Chemicals
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will immediately implement section 31A of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 as substituted by schedule 23 to the Water Act 1989 so as to regulate industrial oil and chemical storage on industrial sites.
  124
  Mr. Rifkind
  I am considering, with the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales, the preparation of regulations to control the storage of industrial oil and chemicals.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Strathclyde region on the need to place nursery school facilities on a statutory basis; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Lang
  No such representations have been received.

  Lead Contamination
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide details of the reported cases of illness, or high levels of lead in the blood, caused by lead in the water supply, lead pipes and lead water tanks, in each of the years between 1979 and 1990 inclusive, for(a) pregnant women, (b) babies, (c) young children and (d) the general population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available. The Government have always recognised the health implications of lead in water and have taken practical and positive steps to tackle them in the light of developing medical evidence and advice.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to privatise the Forestry Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have no plans to privatise the Forestry Commission.

  Sand-eel Fishing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to impose a moratorium on sand-eel fishing in Shetland waters.

  Mr. Lang
  Under arrangements already in place fishing for sand-eels in Shetland waters will close for this year on 15 June.

  GPs (Fund Holding)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended to reimburse the preparatory costs of those general practitioner practices preparing to submit formal applications for fund-holding status from April 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes. A preparatory allowance of up to £16,000 per practice will be available to practices which have reached agreement with their relevant health board to undertake preparatory work for fund holding. The allowance will be used to reimburse the costs of additional work which practices will need to complete in order to be in a position to take on fund-holding status from 1 April 1991. Parliamentary approval to this new service is being sought in the main estimate for hospital and community health services, family practitioner services (part) and other health services, Scotland—class XV, vote 27. Pending that approval and the enactment of
  125
  the National Health Service and Community Care Bill when formal applications for GP practice fund-holding status can be made, urgent expenditure estimated at £160,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Fish Poisoning
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of(a) Nuvan chemicals and (b) Aquagard chemicals in the poisoning of salmon and sea trout.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Aquagard, formerly known as Nuvan, is a licensed veterinary medicine which is used to treat sea lice infestation in farmed salmon.

  Responsibility for the assessment of the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines rests with the Veterinary Products Committee, which advises the Government in such matters. The committee considered the safety of Aquagard to both humans and animals, including fish, in its consideration of the application for a product licence under the Medicines Act 1968.

  On the advice of the Veterinary Products Committee a one-year product licence for Aquagard was issued in June 1989. A review of the product is currently being undertaken and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hopes to make a statement shortly.

  Fishing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has drawn from his study of the deep oceanic intake of waters into Loch Coruisk in the Isle of Skye and the surrounding area in relation to sea trout numbers in north-west Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Loch Coruisk is a freshwater loch. Sea water cannot enter the loch, but its outflow is directly into the sea. The long-term sea trout catch records for the lochs on the Strathaird estate, including Coruisk, show a sustained decline. Fishing effort over the same period has remained stable and there has been no change in land use in the catchment area. It could be inferred that the cause of the decline lies in the sea, but there is no evidence to confirm this.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he has made of the impact on fishing in Scottish rivers of summer tourists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: No special studies have been made on the effect of summer tourists, as opposed to fishermen generally, on fishing in Scottish rivers. It has been alleged that angling for immature sea trout by summer tourists may have contributed to the recent sharp decline in sea trout catches. But it is not possible to say how much, if any, of this increased mortality results from the activities of tourist anglers.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial provision he makes for the extra cost of working at night to carry out fishery research.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: This information is not available in the form requested. Total expenditure on overtime and allowances at the
  126
  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland marine and freshwater fisheries laboratories in 1989–90 was around £375,000.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his co-operation in fisheries research with experts in the west of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Scientists of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland keep in close touch with scientists and fishery managers from the Salmon Research Trust of Ireland at Burrishoole and the Department of Marine in Dublin about their respective research programmes. There is also frequent contact with counterparts from the Republic of Ireland in various working groups of the International Council for Exploration of the Sea or meetings of other international organisations.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he is making of habitat erosion and fish spawning.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Some of the effects of habitat erosion on fish spawning are well understood. For example, bankside erosion is known to cause loss of cover for parr and adults, loss of terrestial food organisms from bankside vegetation and silting up of spawning gravel downstream.

  These effects may result from over-graving, intensive bankside activity by anglers and changes in flow regime. The latter can have several causes including land use changes or exceptional rainfall in catchments or changes in drainage, planting or clear-felling in forestry. Research has shown that such changes can be minimised by adopting good management practices.

  A study of the effects on salmonid fishes of changes in drainage patterns following afforestation is currently being undertaken by scientists from the freshwater fisheries laboratory at Pitlochry in co-operation with the Forestry Commission, the Institute of Freshwater Ecology and the Atlantic Salmon Trust. A study of the effects of clear-felling on salmonid fishes is also in progress with Forestry Commission help.

  Extensive surveys of the distribution of juvenile salmonid fishes have recently been undertaken by freshwater fisheries laboratory staff. These surveys give an important indication of the success of salmon spawning in different areas of Scotland.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are taken to ensure adequate enforcement of legislation providing that if a trawler catches more than 10 per cent. of its catch in the form of protected species, the skipper loses his licence.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: The by-catch restrictions vary according to the target species and are all vigorously enforced by the fisheries department. The penalty provided for by legislation for exceeding by-catch limits is a fine not exceeding £5,000 plus a fine not exceeding the value of the fish in respect of which the offence was committed or actual forfeiture of the fish. In addition, any person guilty of such an offence is liable to forfeiture of the net or other fishing gear used in committing the offence. This penalty applies rather than licence revocation.
  127
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he is making of the impact of seals round the mouths of fishing rivers in dry summers on sea trout entering the rivers to spawn.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: There has been no specific study of the impact of seals at the mouths of fishing rivers although some work has been done on the diet of seals in the Moray Firth. A series of papers has been produced as a result of this and other research on seals commissioned by DAFS and the results will be published over the course of the next 18 months.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he is making on Loch Eriboll of the inter-breeding between wild and farmed salmon; and if he will make a statement on the results.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: In February 1989, a large number of growing salmon escaped from fish farm sea cages into Loch Eriboll in northern Scotland as the result of a single accident. By August it had become clear that escaped farmed fish were entering the nearby River Polla with the native run of wild fish. Scientists from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland supported by the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the university of Stirling and the Scottish Salmon Growers Association, studied the spawning of wild and farmed fish in the river.

  The movements of radiotagged fish were monitored and it was established that wild fish and farmed escapees could be distinguished by appearance and by pigment analysis of samples of muscle taken from fish of both types. All the fish entering the river were sexually mature and farmed fish of both sexes were observed to spawn. All the females captured towards the end of the year had become spent. Farmed and wild fish were observed to cross. Wild fish were distributed throughout the river's length at spawning but the distribution of farmed fish was more restricted. Farmed fish of both sexes tended to spawn especially in the lower reaches of the river. This tendency was particularly marked in the case of females. The difference in the distributions of farmed and wild fish at spawning was confirmed, in the case of females, by pigment analysis of eggs sampled from redds located throughout the river's length. Farmed females tended to spawn later than wild ones. Farmed females cut redds on areas of spawning gravel on which redds had previously been constructed by wild fish.

  The results of the study were presented at an international symposium in Norway in April 1990 to consider "Interactions between Cultured and Wild Atlantic Salmon". Full details of the study have been submitted for publication in the scientific literature.

  Study of the River Polla will be continued this year to determine whether farmed salmon enter the River Polla again and, if they do so, whether last year's findings may be generalised between years at the same site. Further studies are being performed to establish whether escaped farmed females spawned in the Rivers Hope—Strathmore —and Dionard which flank the River Polla to the east and west, respectively. Pigment analyses will be performed on eggs and alevins sampled recently from both rivers. In addition, with the Queen's university of Belfast, it is intended to test whether observations of the crossing of farmed and wild fish can be confirmed using genetic "fingerprinting" techniques to establish the parentage of juveniles.
  128
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give his salmon advisory committee a remit to concern itself with sea trout.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: We have no plans to do so. The salmon advisory committee already has a very substantial programme of work to complete on Atlantic salmon.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he is making of fish-bearing pathogens.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Scientists at the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's marine laboratory investigate the causes of pathological conditions in wild and farmed fish in Scotland and carry out research on the detection of pathogens and the diagnosis and prevention of infectious diseases in fish.

  This research provides the basis for advice to my right hon. and learned Friend on the use of his powers under the diseases of fish legislation and to district salmon fishery boards, fish farmers and fishermen to help them prevent or minimise the effects of diseases in farmed fish.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research is being undertaken on the marine phase of sea trout life cycles.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Research has been undertaken by the Scottish Marine Biological Association on the movements and feeding behaviour of sea trout in sea lochs in Argyll. This will be followed up by a coastal sampling programme in north-west Scotland to obtain additional information on seasonal diets, insights into the distribution of the sea trout and material for parasitological and microbiological examination.

  The work will be undertaken by scientists from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's marine and freshwater fisheries laboratories, in cooperation with local fishermen.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research is being undertaken on the relationship between marine temperatures and the growth of sea lice on fish.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: The Fisheries Departments have commissioned a study on the biology of sea lice at the Institute of Aquaculture, university of Stirling. This study, which is still in progress, has shown that the life cycle of the louse—lepeophtheirus salmonis —is temperature dependent. The following information has been gained from the project so far.

  Sea temperature

  Time to complete cycle (weeks)

  6–9°C (Scottish west coast winter temperature)

  8–9

  10–12°C

  7–8

  13·5–14°C (Scottish west coast summer temperature)

  7

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conveniently available figures he has for the costs of ship time in all weathers for the study of rare migratory fish, such as sea trout.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: The daily cost of operating inshore launches to conduct research is

  129
  between £200–£250. In the open sea the daily cost of the departmental research vessels is £2,450 for the smaller Clupea and £8,150 for the Scotia. These figures do not include the salaries and related costs of scientists on board ship.

  Government Buildings (Security)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to award any further contracts to private security companies to provide security services in respect of Government buildings in Edinburgh in the years 1990 to 1993.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer II June 1990]: The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will shortly invite tenders for security services at one of its scientific establishments. I have no other proposals under consideration, but I shall review the position when the existing contract for services at four offices expires in 1992.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what will be the nature of the contractual obligations placed upon local enterprise companies which will ensure that training is made available to people who have disabilities;

  (2) what safeguard over funding will be made to ensure that local enterprise companies are able to provide training opportunities for people who have disabilities;

  (3) what plans he has to ensure that training for employment for people who have disabilities will continue under Scottish Enterprise at the same or enhanced level.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Local enterprise companies will be provided with appropriate levels of resources and obliged by the terms of their contract to meet performance targets relating specifically to provision for trainees with special needs. In the unlikely event of an individual local enterprise company failing to meet its contractual obligations in this or any other respect, Scottish Enterprise will take immediate remedial action, which can ultimately, if the issue is sufficiently serious, take the form of cancellation of the contract and direct delivery of services by Scottish Enterprise itself until an alternative local enterprise company is established.

  The Government are determined that the creation of Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies should not result in a diminution of support for trainees with special needs of one sort or another.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives have been taken to ensure that adequate training for employment is available to meet the needs of people who have disabilities in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Youth training will ensure that adequate training is available to meet the needs of young people aged 16 to 18 years who have disabilities, by a strengthened guarantee of training to all young people under 18 offering a training opportunity suitable to the needs of every young person. Funding arrangements are set to ensure that available resources are concentrated on the most vulnerable groups of young people.

  Employment training will provide training for people with disabilities by special measures which include an
  130
  extension of the training period to up to two years for people with special training needs, communication services for the deaf, adaptation to premises and equipment, special aids to employment, such as tools and equipment, and a personal reader service for the blind. In addition, for people with disabilities, there is no numerical ceiling on entry applied, the normal eligibility criteria are waived and people with disabilities can enter employment training immediately provided they are unemployed.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve the level and quality of training for people who have disabilities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: I am satisfied that the new flexibilities introduced for youth training and employment training will make a significant contribution to improving the level and quality of training for people and unemployed people including those who have disabilities.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people whose principal handicap is a result of mental illness are employed under the sheltered placement scheme in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Of the 668 disabled people who were employed under the sheltered placement scheme in Scotland at 31 March 1990, a total of 32 had a mental illness as their principal disability.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sheltered employment services which are available to people who have mental health problems in Scotland, other than the sheltered placement scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: In addition to the sheltered placement scheme, sheltered employment opportunities for people with mental health problems are provided in Scotland in Remploy factories and sheltered workshops run by local authorities and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional sheltered placement scheme places will be made available to sponsors in the coming year in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: There will be no additional sheltered placement scheme places made available in Scotland this year. At current placement turnover rates, approximately 70 places will become available during the year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve the sheltered employment services available to people who have mental health problems in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Sheltered employment for people with severe disabilities, including those with mental health problems, is among the matters being considered in a review of employment and training for people with disabilities which my right hon. and

  131
  learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been undertaking. It is expected that a consultative document will be published shortly.

  Women's Refuges
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of refuges for battered women; and how many places they provide in each local authority in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Information is not available centrally on the total number of refuges or the number of places provided.

  Fife Social Services Department
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress made by Sheriff Kearney in reporting on the Fife regional social work department; and when he expects to receive the sheriff's report.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1990]: I understand that the chairman has sought evidence from the social work department of Fife regional council on matters of concern which he has identified. Once the department has prepared its list of witnesses, he hopes to be able to predict a timetable for completing the inquiry and submitting his report.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Boats
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give further consideration to introducing a decommissioning scheme for the British fishing industry along the lines operated by other European Economic Community states.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation he is offering to(a) fishermen and (b) processors affected by the ban on landings of shellfish and crustaceans.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations were held with(a) the catching industry, (b) the processing industry and (c) the EC Commission to help prohibition of shellfish and crustaceans of the coast of northern England.

  Mr. Curry
  The warning to consumers of shellfish from the north-east coast issued by the Department of Health on 26 May was first brought to the attention of representatives of the industry on that day.

  The EC Commission was also notified of this action at an early stage in accordance with agreed EC procedures for circulating information about food hazards.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has 132
  available on the effects of red algae bloom on (a) mussels, (b) shellfish and (c) crustaceans; and what regard the Commission has for imposing his prohibited code.

  Mr. Curry
  Scientists at the directorate of fisheries research routinely monitor molluscan shellfish, principally mussels, for the toxin which they can accumulate from certain algae. Monitoring of crustacea began this year in response to the very high levels of toxins observed in mussels, and associated research is under way to establish more precisely the consequences of algal blooms to crustacea, principally crabs.

  The European Commission's proposal for a Council regulation on shellfish hygiene (COM (89) 648 Final) includes a provision that molluscs should not contain more than 80 microgrammes of paralytic shellfish poisoning toxin per hundred grammes of flesh. This is the same criterion as that currently employed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement in respect of the emergency alert issued on 26 May by the Department of Health warning the public not to eat shellfish caught between the Humber and Montrose, north of Dundee, due to contamination by poisonous algae; how far he assesses this situation to have been brought about or aggravated by sewage pollution, farming and chemical waste; and what steps he proposes to deal with this situation.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is a naturally occurring and naturally variable algal problem believed to be dependent mainly on weather and sea conditions. The period of greatest risk is in the months of May and June, when large increases in populations of the algae concerned can occur. Since 1968 this Department has monitored weekly toxin levels in mussels from this area during the period from March to August. Results of toxin assays are passed to local environmental health authorities and the Department of Health.

  On 25 May very high toxin levels were recorded and, in addition to the warning which was sent to the environmental health authorities later that day, the Department of Health issued a public warning notice on the morning of 26 May advising against the consumption of any shellfish taken from the east coast between the Humber and Montrose. In the light of the results of further testing of shellfish samples the Department of Health was on 1 June able to lift its warning in respect of crustacean shellfish other than crabs and on 7 June was able to lift the warning in relation to crabs. We are continuing to monitor the situation closely and will lift the warning on molluscan shellfish as soon as it is safe to do so.

  There is no correlation between pollution and the occurrence of this algae off our north-east coast. This phenomenon occurs in many other parts of the world where the appropriate natural conditions occur such as in France, Spain, Japan and the east and west coasts of Canada. It should also be noted that, between 1814 and 1968, 40 major outbreaks of this algal bloom were recorded off the north-east coast, resulting in 146 cases of illness and about 14 deaths; 78 persons were ill as a consequence of the last major outbreak, in 1968.

  Functional Foods
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what labelling requirements apply to the sale of functional foods;

  (2) whether he intends to impose restrictions on the sale of functional foods.

  Mr. Maclean
  Food legislation already addresses the safety of all foodstuffs, their labelling and description and claims that can be made about them. We have no plans at present to make any specific rules about foods which are being described as "functional" but we shall, as is normal, watch developments and will act if the consumer requirement suggests such a need.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) of 17 May,Official Report, column 554, if he will list those interested parties to which he refers.

  Mr. Curry
  We shall be consulting more than 300 organisations representing trade, consumer, health and enforcement interests for their views on our proposals for legislation in this area. A full list will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Eggs
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was(a) the number and (b) the value of eggs imported into the United Kingdom in each month since January 1989 to the latest date available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number and value of eggs imported into the United Kingdom monthly during 1989 and up to April 1990 (inclusive) is set out in the table:

  '000 Eggs

  Value £

  1989

  January

  14,371

  454,818

  February

  7,553

  254,033

  March

  7,956

  275,402

  April

  40,073

  1,387,578

  May

  28,172

  895,365

  June

  25,961

  861,535

  July

  22,794

  729,146

  August

  35,120

  1,308,199

  September

  58,044

  2,532,210

  October

  38,285

  1,513,155

  November

  74,354

  3,401,470

  December

  53,882

  2,643,422

  Total

  406,565

  16,256,333

  1990

  January

  37,755

  1,670,107

  February

  34,982

  1,520,792

  March

  66,290

  3,226,961

  April

  54,212

  2,187,086

  Total

  193,239

  8,604,946

  Exports of Live Animals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what legal provisions the United Kingdom Government have banned the export of live animals for slaughter to Spain.
  134
  Mr. Maclean
  Licences are issued under the Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981 only for exports to those countries which have properly implemented EC directives on welfare during international transport and on pre-slaughter stunning. We await assurances from the Commission that these requirements are fully in force in Spain.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county for England and Wales(a) how many sheep and (b) how many farms still have restrictions in force because of the Chernobyl explosion.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is as follows (estimated maximum post-lambing figures):

  Holdings

  Sheep

  Cumbria

  150

  170,000

  Clwyd

  4

  2,500

  Gwynedd

  407

  282,500

  Powys

  5

  15,000

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to progress a decision on the United Kingdom application to extend the less-favoured areas which was lodged with the European Community in July 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  We have been pursuing this point with the European Commission and we expect to be able to announce the outcome shortly.

  Wylfa Power Station
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any results from the assessment of the effects of the radioactive discharges from the nuclear power station at Wylfa in Anglesey.

  Mr. Curry
  The effects of radioactive discharges from the nuclear power station at Wylfa are continually being assessed by this Department's scientists on behalf of the Secretary of State for Wales. The results of environmental monitoring, together with the assessments made of doses to members of the public via both terrestrial and marine pathways, are published in reports produced by this Department, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The doses received by the most exposed members of the public continue to be well within the internationally recommended limits.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to act on the recommendations from the Tyrrell report with regard to holding a formal study of the health of species fed offal, including pigs and poultry, and of animals such as hounds fed fallen livestock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Studies are being conducted at the central veterinary laboratory involving the parenteral and
  135
  oral exposure of pigs and poultry to brain material from cattle confirmed as having BSE. An examination of hounds' brains is being planned.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the infective agent responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy cannot be transmitted through milk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Milk has never been shown to transmit any of the spongiform encephalopathies, and studies into scrapie have not found the agent in milk. Nevertheless, studies are taking place, using milk from BSE cattle, to confirm these findings. In addition, as a precautionary measure, milk from animals suspected of having BSE is banned from human and animal consumption.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive a copy of the longer report from Dr. Tyrrell referred to in the Official Report on 21 May, column 85.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has asked the Tyrrell committee to provide the report as soon as possible.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals for the payment of compensation for losses incurred by United Kingdom farmers and dealers incurred as a result of bans on imports by European Community Governments in the light of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreak; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: No sir. Community market support continued throughout the period covered by the French, German and Italian import bans. It would not be possible to isolate the market impact of these bans.

  Of course individuals would be able to obtain legal advice as to whether they could seek damages in the country concerned for specific effects of the disruption.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances histopathological examination is undertaken of bovines born since August 1988; and how many such examinations have been carried out.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 June 1990]: The brains of all animals suspected of being affected by BSE are examined by histopathology. To date, four such examinations have been conducted on bovines born since August 1988; all were negative for BSE.

  Animal Feedstuffs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to end the practice of feeding chicken manure and litter to beef cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so. Anyone who ensiles poultry manure or litter for use as animal feed is subject to the requirements of the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989 which inter alia requires registration with the Department and microbiological testing. Regular checks on the ensiling process are carried out by representatives of the state veterinary service.

ENERGY

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 409, (a) who estimated that 5·5 TWh of electricity could be saved, (b) whether this estimate has been published, (c) which insulation measures were included and (d) what other estimates made during the last two years on potential savings from better insulation are known to his Department.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The estimate was derived from a publication by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) entitled "Energy Use in Buildings and Carbon Dioxide Emissions"—BR 170 HMSO ISBN 085125 4365, £25. It is estimated in table 11 at page 36 that cost-effective insulation measures applied to houses in the United Kingdom would save 23·3 PJ of electricity corresponding to 6·5 TWh. The figure has been scaled down to 5·5 TWh to cover England and Wales only.

  The recommended cost-effective insulation measures covered all existing houses and assumed that:

  (i)80 per cent. of all houses with cavity walls would be insulated.

  (ii) Lofts with less or equal to 25mm insulation would be insulated up to 150mm.

  (iii) All houses would be draughtproofed.

  (iv) All hot water tanks with less than 50mm insulation would be insulated up to 80mm.

  (v) All windows would be double-glazed when the existing window frames need to be replaced.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be writing to the hon. Member and will supply a list of publications, produced over the past two years, covering the potential for energy saving through better insulation of the housing stock.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the number of community insulation projects and the number of participant workers and trainees at end-year in 1987, 1988 and 1989 and at the latest available date for each region, Wales, Scotland and Great Britain as a whole.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The figures requested in respect of 1987 and 1989 are as follows:

  Number of draughtproofing jobs completed

  1987

  1989

  East Midlands

  10,236

  10,245

  London

  7,839

  1,353

  North East

  13,867

  9,983

  North West

  16,125

  22,230

  Scotland

  30,349

  37,154

  South East

  6,728

  4,942

  South West

  9,489

  4,368

  Wales

  15,017

  13,371

  West Midlands

  11,957

  12,051

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17,100

  15,186

  Total

  138,707

  130,883

  Neighbourhood Energy Action advises that equivalent information in respect of 1988 is not available, and that reliable information in respect of early months of 1990 for comparison with the same periods in previous years is not yet available.
  137
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the number of draughtproofing jobs completed so far in the current year and completed in the equivalent periods of 1987, 1988 and 1989 for each region, Wales, Scotland and Great Britain as a whole; and what were the full-year figures for 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Available information in respect of the last three complete years is as follows:

  Number of operating projects at period end

  1987

  1988

  1989

  East Midlands

  36

  25

  28

  London

  34

  8

  14

  North East

  25

  17

  18

  North West

  48

  41

  45

  Scotland

  66

  30

  77

  South East

  47

  21

  23

  South West

  34

  15

  16

  Wales

  47

  27

  36

  West Midlands

  50

  22

  26

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  34

  22

  24

  Total

  421

  228

  307

  Number of participating workers/trainees at period end

  1987

  1989

  East Midlands

  505

  271

  London

  617

  31

  North East

  493

  253

  North West

  1,051

  672

  Scotland

  978

  780

  South East

  566

  116

  South West

  534

  190

  Wales

  1,047

  335

  West Midlands

  775

  314

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  679

  353

  Total

  7,245

  3,315

  Neighbourhood Energy Action advises that information on numbers of participating workers/trainees at end 1988 is not available, and that reliable information in respect of the early months of 1990 for comparison with the same period in previous years is not yet available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what was the spending on the community insulation programme in each year from 1983–84 and including estimated spending in 1989–90 for(a) the London borough of Camden and (b) the London borough of Islington;

  (2) what was the number of community insulation projects and the number of participant workers and trainees at end-year 1987, 1988 and 1989 and at the latest available date for (a) the London borough of Camden and (b) the London borough of Islington.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are no community insulation projects currently operating in the London boroughs of Camden and Islington. Detailed information on projects under the community programme which served those areas prior to 1988 is not available.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the radioactive inventory, in terms of alpha and gamma/beta components, together with a listing 138
  of the principal fission products and acticides and the properties thereof, contained within a single vitrified high-level waste container for liquid wastes arising from the reprocessing of magnesium oxide uranium alloy irradiated fuel at 4 to 5 GWeday/tonne uranium burn-up for irradiated oxide fuel of advanced gas-cooled reactor 18 and 24 GWeday/tonne uranium burn-up and light water reactor fuel at 33 GWeday/tonne uranium burn-up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The detailed radioactive inventory for vitrified high-level waste containers is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc. This inventory has to be taken into account in preparing the safety case for the on-site storage of these canisters, which has to be agreed by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate before the plant can be operated.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements he is now making to allow independent scientists to scrutinise "An Evaluation of Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Measures to Ameliorate Them".

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  This document referred to was widely available within the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which is an open forum, from November 1989, and was published as energy paper 58 in January 1990. It was, and remains, open to any scrutiny.

DEFENCE

  Iraq (Missiles)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a table of the missiles Iraq is known to possess, together with their ranges.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The armed forces of Iraq deploy the following ballistic missiles:

  Scud B—300 km range

  Al Hussein—650 km range

  Iraq also possesses a variety of anti-tank guided weapons—ranges between 0·5 km and 4 km; air-to-surface missiles—ranges between 10 km and 400 km; surface-to-air missiles—ranges between 3 km and 50 km; and air-to-air missiles—ranges between 3 km and 30 km.

  HMS Warspite
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 94, if he will make a statement on what details he may release on the condition of HMS Warspite with respect to national security considerations, and if he will list (a) the date of entry into dock of HMS Warspite for refit, (b) the date, within the nearest four weeks, on which the Warspite was expected to finish her refit and (c) which British nuclear-powered submarines have so far been inspected following the report of defects in British nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Warspite's refit began in 1988 with a planned completion date towards the end of 1990. This date is currently under review. With regard to the nuclear submarine inspection programme I have nothing further to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 22 May 1990 at column 94.

  Devonshire Dock
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has ordered an inquiry into breaches of security by persons seeking access to the Devonshire dock, Barrow-in-Furness, on the advice of Messrs. Nicholas Labour Hire of Preston.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No such breaches of security at the Devonshire dock hall have been reported.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations are in force concerning the height to be maintained by military aircraft crossing the coast at low level in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  Pilots of military aircraft are advised to cross coastlines, as a general rule, at a minimum height of 500 ft above ground or sea level in order to reduce the risk of birdstrike.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the fitting of ground proximity warning systems to RAF aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence is sponsoring a trials programme to develop a ground proximity warning system. No decision about whether the equipment will be fitted to RAF aircraft will be made until the results of the trials are available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what height the specified weather minima for military aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low-flying system require pilots to remain vertically clear of cloud during low-level flight.

  Mr. Neubert
  When operating in the United Kingdom low-flying system, military pilots are required to remain a minimum of 500 ft vertically clear of cloud at indicated airspeeds in excess of 140 knots.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions have been taken to change or re-emphasise aspects of RAF aircrew training by syllabuses for low flying in the light of the findings of the board of inquiry into the accident to a Jaguar at St. Abb's Head on 13 April 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  None. As no deficiencies in the RAF's present low-level training syllabuses were revealed during the board of inquiry's investigation into this accident, no further action was considered necessary.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a survey has been conducted of the extent to which reheat is used by aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low-flying system; and what plans he has to carry out such a survey in future.

  Mr. Neubert
  Aircraft are instructed to use reheat as little as possible when flying overland at low level and use would be unusual unless required for flight safety reasons. This is confirmed by RAF police surveys which give no indication that reheat is regularly used in the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the changes made since 1984 in his Department's policy on exposure to 140
  aircraft noise levels in excess of 125 dB (A); and if he will list all Ministry of Defence commissioned research on the health effects of aircraft noise carried out since 1983 (a) within his Department, (b) by other Government Departments and (c) by non-governmental scientists upon which such changes in policy were based.

  Mr. Neubert
  There have been no changes since 1984 in MOD policy on exposure to aircraft noise levels in excess of 125 dB (A).

  No Ministry of Defence commissioned research into the health effects of aircraft noise has been carried out since 1983 within the Department or by another Government Department but, as I announced on 17 May at columns 517–18, a study to review available information is in progress.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review his policy of not indicating which of Her Majesty's ships are carrying nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been the invariable practice of successive British Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons in any particular ship at any particular time. There are no plans to change this policy.

  RAF Recruitment
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he anticipates any reduction in the annual officer recruitment targets for the RAF following the recent improvements in east-west relations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is too early to say whether there will be a reduction in RAF officer recruitment, but the changing international situation gives us hope that we shall be able to maintain our security and sustain our responsibilities overseas with lower force levels and less cost.

  RAF Biggin Hill
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current estimates for the building of the additional accommodation required at RAF Cranwell following the closure of the officer and aircrew selection centre at RAF Biggin Hill.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated cost of the new facilities required at RAF Cranwell amounts to some £7·5 million at current prices. This figure now allows for VAT and current levels of inflation in the construction industry.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current estimates for the likely level of capital receipts from the disposal of the site at present occupied by RAF Biggin Hill.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Estimates of expected receipts are commercially confidential, but we expect income from disposals at Biggin Hill to more than cover the cost of reproviding facilities for the officer and aircrew selection centre at RAF Cranwell.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the anticipated demand for officers'
  141
  married quarters in the Greater London area over the next five years; and whether accommodation is to be provided at RAF Biggin Hill to meet this demand.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Present plans envisage that the requirement for officers' married quarters in the Greater London area will, over the medium to long term, be reduced. It is our intention to dispose of all the officers' married quarters at RAF Biggin Hill when the station closes. Present plans anticipate that the various elements of the Biggin Hill site will become available for disposal towards the end of 1992, excluding the memorial chapel enclave which will be retained.

  Salerno Incident, 1943
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received in the last 12 months concerning the incident at Salerno on 20 September 1943 which resulted in the court martial of 91 soldiers of the 51 Highland Division and 50 Northumbrian Division; and if he proposes to take the steps necessary to obtain a free pardon for them.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Radar
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on developments in the detection by radar of missile attacks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Steady progress has been made in developing the ability of radar to detect missile attacks. Work continues on a number of fronts.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current backlog of unavoidable repairs to service accommodation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The backlog of maintenance for essential and unavoidable repairs to service accommodation at 1 April 1990 was estimated at £36 million.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the influence of the quality of rented service accommodation on the rate of premature voluntary release.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No single factor influences personnel to leave the services prematurely and the results of attitude surveys conducted among service personnel indicate that the quality of service accommodation is not a major factor in the decision to leave.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received from service personnel regarding the quality of service accommodation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No records are kept centrally of representations on behalf of service personnel regarding the quality of service accommodation, but we are aware of a small number of such representations over the last 12 months.

  Military Training
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what examination there has been of the options for changing the current requirements for military t raining in(a) the British Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy;

  (2) what plans there are to make adjustments to training programmes for the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future requirements and organisation for training are kept under review.

  Nuclear Accident, Greenwich
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans or studies have been made or commissioned by his Department to assess the measures that would have to be taken in the event of contamination by airborne plutonium resulting from a nuclear weapons accident aboard a Royal Navy ship docked at Greenwich.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Newham, North-West(Mr. Banks) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 8 June, Official Report. column 724.

  Standing Military Forces
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to alter the readiness and availability of British standing military forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The last ministerial session of the defence planning committee on 22 and 23 May decided to take steps to lower the readiness and availability of some of the alliance's standing forces. A copy of the communiqué is in the Library of the House. Work is in hand on the implications for British forces.

  Retraining
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what retraining opportunities are offered to those personnel of his Department whose services are no longer required.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Pre-release training to help in the preparation for civilian life is available to eligible personnel who are about to leave the services. Eligibility for this training is determined primarily by length of service and the circumstances of discharge. All civilian staff are given the opportunity of pre-retirement training, but no specific retraining is provided by the Department.

  NATO Military Review
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for British participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation review of military strategy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom will participate fully in the review of the alliance's military strategy to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed at last month's ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee. Ministers also agreed that this review would be based on the continuing validity of the principles of alliance security set out in the comprehensive concept of arms control and disarmament.

  Defence Review
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had with the defence industry regarding the economic and industrial consequences of the options for change study.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The work on options for change is addressing policy issues in the light of changing international circumstances. As such, it has yet to identify the full consequences of possible changes for the equipment programme.

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that no relevant equipment be moved out of the area of application of the proposed treaty on conventional forces in Europe before such a treaty comes into effect in order to(a) deploy the equipment elsewhere or (b) sell the equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom attaches great importance to the NATO proposal that reductions of equipment holdings during the implementation of the conventional forces in Europe treaty should be by means of destruction. Before the treaty comes into effect, there will obviously be no legal bar to the transfer or sale of equipment outside the area of application. However, any large-scale activity of this sort would be contrary to the

  (a) Perinatal mortality and (b) Neonatal mortality: numbers and rates by Regional Health Authority in England for the years 1986 to 1989

  Table (a) Perinatal mortality

  Area

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  England

  5,977

  9·5

  5,742

  8·9

  5,731

  8·7

  5,424

  8·3

  Regional Health Authority

  Northern

  408

  101

  344

  8·5

  362

  90

  362

  9·2

  Yorkshire

  499

  10·3

  469

  9·5

  460

  9·2

  423

  8·5

  Trent

  606

  10·2

  572

  9·3

  567

  9·2

  524

  8·5

  East Anglian

  191

  7·7

  206

  7·9

  180

  6·7

  174

  6·7

  North West Thames

  416

  8·6

  430

  8·6

  410

  8·1

  414

  8·3

  North East Thames

  513

  9·6

  525

  9·4

  516

  9·1

  468

  8·3

  South East Thames

  407

  8·5

  428

  8·5

  468

  9·1

  433

  8·4

  South West Thames

  302

  8·2

  288

  7·5

  310

  7·9

  274

  7·0

  Wessex

  317

  8·8

  331

  8·9

  331

  8·7

  317

  8·3

  Oxford

  297

  8·9

  279

  8·0

  247

  6·9

  258

  7·2

  South Western

  363

  9·5

  302

  7·5

  324

  7·9

  273

  6·7

  West Midlands

  776

  11·0

  725

  9·9

  752

  10·3

  712

  9·7

  Mersey

  302

  9·2

  296

  9·0

  249

  7·4

  270

  8·2

  North Western

  580

  10·4

  547

  9·6

  555

  9·6

  522

  9·2

  Table (b) Neonatal mortality

  Area

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  England

  3,270

  5·2

  3,240

  5·0

  3,220

  4·9

  3,077

  4·7

  Regional Health Authority

  Northern

  234

  5·8

  193

  4·8

  195

  4·9

  196

  5·0

  Yorkshire

  290

  6·0

  281

  5·7

  253

  5·1

  221

  4·5

  Trent

  351

  5·9

  325

  5·3

  327

  5·3

  293

  4·8

  East Anglian

  102

  4·1

  99

  3·8

  97

  3·6

  94

  3·6

  North West Thames

  233

  4·8

  232

  4·7

  240

  4·7

  222

  4·5

  North East Thames

  286

  5·4

  319

  5·8

  256

  4·5

  264

  4·7

  South East Thames

  194

  4·1

  255

  5·1

  233

  4·5

  246

  4·8

  South West Thames

  167

  4·5

  158

  4·1

  182

  4·6

  166

  4·3

  Wessex

  172

  4·8

  186

  5·0

  182

  4·8

  188

  5·0

  Oxford

  176

  5·3

  165

  4·8

  152

  4·3

  156

  4·4

  South Western

  176

  4·6

  181

  4·5

  204

  5·0

  158

  3·9

  West Midlands

  414

  5·9

  411

  5·7

  452

  6·2

  445

  6·1

  144
  spirit in which we entered into the negotiations, and the United Kingdom would avoid such activities itself and discourage them on the part of others.

  HEALTH

    Chiropractic Treatment
    Mr. Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce state recognition of registered members of the chiropractic profession and the availability of chiropractic treatment under the national health service in the light of the recent report of the Medical Research Council of the British Medical Association.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Statutory regulation of the chiropractic profession is a matter for the profession itself to pursue. All medical treatment provided under the national health service must, by law, be given or presented by a registered medical practitioner. There are no plans to change that long-established principle.

    Mortality Rates
    Mr. Alexander
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of(a) perinatal mortality and (b) neonatal mortality in each regional health authority area for England in each of the years 1986 to 1989.

    Mr. Dorrell
    The information is shown in the tables.
    145

    Area

    1986

    1987

    1988

    11989

    Number

    Rate

    Number

    Rate

    Number

    Rate

    Number

    Rate

    Mersey

    161

    4·9

    153

    4·7

    146

    4·4

    137

    4·2

    North Western

    314

    5·7

    282

    5·0

    301

    5·2

    291

    5·1

    Perinatal mortality: stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life. Rate per 1,000 live and still births.

    Neonatal mortality: deaths in the first 28 days of life. Rate per 1,000 live births.

    1 1989 figures provisional.

    Dentists
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing for each of the last three years the gross annual earnings of national health service dentists in brackets of £10,000 up to £200,000 and over £200,000; and what was the highest gross earnings figure.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    The table shows the gross annual earnings of dentists in England who are in contract with a family practitioner committee. Similar information for dentists working in the hospital and community health service is not available.

    Gross earnings of dentists providing general dental services in the NHS through contracts with family practitioner committees in England

    Earnings Bands (as at 31 March) £

    1988

    1989

    1990

    up to 10,000

    2,201

    2,061

    2,139

    10,001 to 20,000

    1,135

    955

    969

    20,001 to 30,000

    1,163

    993

    935

    30,001 to 40,000

    1,459

    1,150

    1,137

    40,001 to 50,000

    1,877

    1,412

    1,465

    50,001 to 60,000

    2,296

    1,810

    1,850

    60,001 to 70,000

    1,924

    2,028

    2,027

    70,001 to 80,000

    1,526

    1,708

    1,756

    80,001 to 90,000

    957

    1,368

    1,400

    90,001 to 100,000

    592

    947

    938

    100,001 to 110,000

    348

    638

    584

    110,001 to 120,000

    195

    404

    407

    120,001 to 130,000

    116

    233

    250

    130,001 to 140,000

    65

    141

    149

    140,001 to 150,000

    34

    88

    98

    150,001 to 160,000

    29

    58

    57

    160,001 to 170,000

    6

    35

    37

    170,001 to 180,000

    11

    24

    24

    180,001 to 190,000

    3

    16

    10

    190,001 to 200,000

    5

    13

    9

    over 200,000

    8

    18

    16

    Highest individual earnings

    £311,469

    £376,543

    £280,777

    Note:

    Earnings figures refer to the total paid in fees for NHS treatment scheduled for payment by the Dental Practice Board in the financial year quoted. Fees paid in respect of treatment carried out by assistants are included in the gross figures quoted for their employment dentist.

    NHS Trusts
    Ms. Harman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which national health service hospitals or other units have submitted draft business plans and draft applications for national health service trust status.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Draft applications have been submitted in confidence to the Department but no draft business plans have been received to date. Until Parliament approves the necessary legislation, formal applications from those units wishing to pursue trust 146
    status cannot be submitted. When the legislation has been passed, applications will be made available by the regions concerned to interested parties locally during the period of public consultation.

    Ms. Harman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish all advice of his Department to any national health service hospital or other unit which has expressed an interest in self-governing status.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    We intend to publish a compendium of guidance on national health service trusts in the autumn, which will update and bring together advice on the establishment and operation of NHS trusts which has been provided by the Department.

    Ms. Harman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish all draft business plans and draft applications for national health service trust status.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    All applications for NHS trust status will be publicly available documents. However, the supporting financial statements to be submitted by applicants for NHS trust status will include detailed information on their financial plans which it would not be appropriate to make publicly available.

    Hospitals (Resource Management)
    Mr. O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the criterion for selecting hospitals for inclusion in the resource management scheme;

    (2) whether the Normanton and Castleford district hospital in the Pontefract district health authority area can be included in the resource management scheme; and if he will make a statement;

    (3) if he will publish the rules and regulations governing hospitals being included in a resource management scheme.

    Mr. Dorrell
    The criteria for including a hospital in the resource management extension programme are set out in the Government's White Paper "Working for Patients".

    Since March 1989 a total of 14 of the larger acute hospitals in the Yorkshire regional health authority have been selected to join the programme. The Normanton and Castleford district hospital is not a large acute hospital and therefore does not meet the criteria for selection.

    District Health Authorities
    Mrs. Golding
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals there are to pay members to sit on district health authorities.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Subject to parliamentary approval, the National Health Service and Cornmunity Care Bill makes provision for non-officer members of district health authorities to receive remuneration as determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury.
    147
    Mrs. Golding
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals there are for the future membership composition of district health authorities.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Subject to parliamentary approval of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, it is proposed that the new style district health authorities shall comprise of a chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State, five non-officer members, appointed by the relevant regional health authority, and up to five officer members who must include the chief officer and the chief finance officer. "Teaching DHAs" will have to include a non-officer member from a university with a medical or dental school.

    Complaints Procedures
    Mr. Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to monitor and assess the operational procedure of district health authorities' complaints systems and publish their findings.

    Mr. Dorrell
    Directions on hospital complaints procedures made under section 17 of the National Health Service Act 1977 and issued to health authorities in June 1988, included a requirement for health authorities to monitor the arrangements made for dealing with complaints in the hospitals for which they are responsible. The directions also require quarterly reports to be made for use by the health authority to monitor progress on the procedure for dealing with complaints, for considering trends in complaints and for taking remedial action on complaints as approriate. There are no plans to amend these arrangements.

    Food Safety
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements the Government intend to introduce to strengthen microbiological surveillance of food as recommended in part I of the report of the committee on the microbiological safety of food.

    Mr. Kenneth Clarke
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have decided to establish a national microbiological food surveillance and assessment system. This will be based on a new, independent advisory committee on the microbiological safety of food and a new steering group on the microbiological safety of food. These arrangements will complement those which already exist for labelling, composition and chemical safety of food, which are within the remit of the present food advisory committee and steering group on food surveillance.

    The new steering group will manage surveillance and research and will present policy conclusions to Ministers. It will consist both of officials and of experts from outside Government. The advisory committee will bring outside expertise to bear on the interpretation of the results of surveillance and on the policy formation process. The committee will have an entirely independent membership and chairman, who will be chosen for their expertise and invited from relevant backgrounds, including consumer interests.

    These arrangements will give effect to the recommendation of the present committee on the microbiological safety of food that the Government should set up a system of microbiological surveillance and assessment. This committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Richmond, has
    148
    been invited to complete its work by the end of July. The Government plan to establish the new advisory committee in the autumn. The new steering group will be established as soon as possible before then as it can usefully begin preparatory work before the advisory committee first meets.

    The membership of the new advisory committee and steering group, and their formal terms of reference, will be announced as soon as possible. The food advisory committee and the steering group on food surveillance will continue to fulfil their present functions but some updating of their terms of reference also is envisaged, to underline the complementary roles of this committee and the new advisory committee.

    Mental Illness
    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to strengthen support within the community for sufferers of severe anxiety-related conditions, and in particular phobias and obsessional or compulsive disorders.

    Mr. Dorrell
    The Government have set out their proposals to strengthen support within the community for all sufferers of mental illness, including severe anxiety-related conditions, in the White Paper "Caring for People". Key elements will be the introduction of the care programme approach, and the specific grant to help increase the social care available for people with a mental illness, which we hope to introduce from April 1991. We are currently consulting with interested bodies on both these developments.

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is currently being spent to fund community-based initiatives offering support and education to families and sufferers of phobias and obsessional or compulsive disorders in the United Kingdom as a whole and by regional health authority.

    Mr. Dorrell
    The information requested is not held centrally by the Department.

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he has as to how many people in the United Kingdom currently suffer from severe phobias and obsessional or compulsive disorders, by sex, age, regional health authority and ethnic origin; and what is his estimate of the cost to the national health service.

    Mr. Dorrell
    This information is not available centrally. Most national health service provision for the treatment of these disorders is provided by general practitioners and out-patient clinics for which figures are not collected centrally.

    The latest available information on admissions to national health service mental illness hospitals in England during 1986 for treatment of these conditions is set out in the table. Information on admissions to mental illness hospitals in each regional health authority in England for treatment of some broad diagnosis groups is given in table A6 of "Mental Health Statistics for England 1986: Booklet 7", a copy of which is in the Library. Severe phobias and obsessional or compulsive disorders are part of the neurotic disorders group, which accounted for around 8 per cent. of all admissions. No information is available on the hospital cost of treating the conditions.
    149

    All admissions in England by age, by sex, by ICD code

    Age

    Phobic state (ICD 300.2)

    Obsessive-compulsive disorder (ICD 300.3)

    Males

    <15

    14

    4

    15

    6

    3

    16

    1

    3

    17

    0

    2

    18

    2

    8

    19

    1

    7

    20–24

    17

    39

    25–4

    41

    102

    45–64

    26

    67

    65–74

    8

    28

    75–84

    1

    5

    85+

    0

    1

    TOTAL

    117

    269

    Females

    <15

    11

    3

    15

    5

    0

    16

    0

    3

    17

    0

    4

    18

    1

    3

    19

    0

    2

    20–24

    12

    37

    25–44

    109

    156

    45–64

    96

    82

    65–74

    29

    20

    75–84

    4

    14

    85+

    0

    0

    Total

    267

    324

    The figures for Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland. The figures for Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    NHS Salaries
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he estimates would be added to the national health service wage bill if all national health service employees were paid at least two thirds of the national average wage in 1990–91.

    Mr. Dorrell
    This information is not available.

    Cook-chill Food
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which regional health authorities have adopted or intend to adopt a regional catering policy based on cook-chill.

    Mr. Dorrell
    None. It is a matter for health authorities to use the catering system that they consider meets their requirements of quality and resources available, but we would expect health authorities to consider cook-chill as one of the alternatives.

    Cancer Treatment
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list drugs for cancer treatment which have been through trials and been passed but which are not available on national health service prescriptions.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    All drugs licensed for use in the treatment of cancer are available for prescription 150
    under the NHS. However, some hospitals have drawn up formularies of preferred treatments for many conditions which the doctors involved would usually prescribe.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the drug ondansetron to be available on a national health service prescription.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Ondansetron has been launched on to the market by its manufacturer. The drug is now therefore available for prescription by doctors throughout the national health service for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for cancer.

    Diabetes and Glaucoma
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people he estimates were suffering from diabetes and glaucoma in(a) England, (b) each county in England during 1988–89 and 1989–90, respectively.

    Mr. Dorrell
    Precise information is not collected centrally. However, it has been estimated that there are about 1 million diabetics in the United Kingdom of whom about 200,000 inject insulin. The International Glaucoma Association estimates that glaucoma of some type is found in about 2 per cent. of the population over age 40.

    NHS Pay Bargaining
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the changes in his responsibilities in relation to national or local pay bargaining arising from the changes in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill;

    (2) what responsibilities he has with regard to decisions made by the head of personnel in the national health service in relation to the pay bargaining structure within the national health service.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    The Bill provides for NHS trusts to have freedom to determine the pay and conditions of their staff. No other decisions have been taken about pay determination machinery.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Exchange Rate Mechanism
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any assessment of the pound sterling's subsequent movement in the bands had the pound sterling entered the exchange rate mechanism at the exchange rate prevailing on 1 January 1988, 1 January 1989 and 1 January 1990.

    Mr. Major
    No.

    Government Expenditure
    Mr. Pawsey
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in tabular form the main areas of Government spending, expressed as a percentage.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    The most recent detailed summary information about Government expenditure was published in chapter 21 of the 1990 public expenditure White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans,
    151
    1990–91 to 1992–93". Table 21.2.12 of this publication gives a percentage distribution of general Government expenditure on services by function.

    Inflation
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the inflation rate average in the calendar years 1978 and 1980.

    Mr. Ryder
    The average rate of increase in the retail prices index, compared with 12 months earlier, was 8.3 per cent. for 1978 and 7.8 per cent. for 1989.

    Radioactive Material
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of radioactive material, during the last five years, that has been checked by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise that has been(a) imported and (b) exported through the ports of (i) Barrow, (ii) Dover, (iii) Felixstowe, (iv) Harwich, (v) Hull, Immingham, (vi) Liverpool, (vii) Portsmouth, (viii) Southampton and (ix) Workington.

    Mr. Ryder
    I regret that the information is not readily available and could be answered only at the cost of a disproportionate amount of time and effort.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Wilson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those items of sporting equipment which are exempt from value added tax.

    Mr. Ryder
    All sporting equipment bears VAT at the standard rate. However sporting apparel falling within the description"designed as clothing or footwear for young children and not suitable for older persons"
    may be zero-rated.

    Aggregate Taxable Income
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his latest estimates of the aggregate taxable income for each(a) county, (b) former metropolitan county, (c) the Greater London area, (d) metropolitan district and (e) London borough area.

    Mr. Lilley
    [holding answer 5 June 1990]: I regret that estimates below regional level are not presently available. As explained in "Inland Revenue Statistics, 1989" estimates for counties have been discontinued owing to the emergence of problems in attributing addresses containing a shire county name which properly fall within a metropolitan county. Further investigation, which is continuing, has cast further doubt on the reliability of information at this level of detail. The problems also affect the reliability of the information given to the hon. Member on 4 April 1989, Official Report, columns 9–10. Regional estimates for 1987–88, the latest available year, are as follows.

    Region

    Taxable income £ million

    Northern

    6,490

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    11,500

    North West

    15,000

    152

    Region

    Taxable income £ million

    East Midlands

    8,880

    West Midlands

    12,600

    East Anglia

    5,460

    South Eastern

    60,000

    South Western

    11,900

    Wales

    5,350

    Scotland

    11,800

    Northern Ireland

    2,800

    Community Charge
    Sir Ian Gilmour
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the rates of personal income tax could need to be increased if(a) the whole of the community charge were transferred to income tax and (b) the whole of the community charge less expenditure on social services and housing were transferred to income tax.

    Mr. Major
    [holding answer 6 June 1990]: Local authorities in Great Britain are forecast to raise £11·2 billion in community charge income. If the whole of this were to be raised from income tax, this would be equivalent to an increase of around 7½p in the basic rate of income tax.

    Local authorities' expenditure on social services and housing, excluding the housing revenue account, is budgeted to be around £ 5·3 billion. If the whole of the community charge income less this expenditure were to be raised from income tax, this would be equivalent to an increase of around 4p in the basic rate.

    Women
    Ms. Richardson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimated figures for the number of women in Britain, who have no regular income of their own from employment, investment or state benefits, excluding child benefit.

    Mr. Lilley
    [holding answer 11 June 19901]: Estimates of total numbers of such women are not available. However, results of the 1988 family expenditure survey indicate that less than 10 per cent. of women (aged over 16 and not in full-time education) who live in private households in Great Britain had no regular income.

  THE ARTS

    Natural History Museum
    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on the implications for scientific research of the proposed cuts in services and staff at the natural history museum.

    Miss Hoey
    To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on the implications for scientific research of the proposed cuts in services and staff at the natural history museum.

    Mr. Luce
    I have received many representations about the natural history museum's restructuring proposals, including some 40 letters from hon. Members. I understand that the museum's director has invited leading scientists and researchers to a special seminar on 15 June, to present the museum's plans to them in detail and to give an opportunity for discussion.

  TRANSPORT

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Hind
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new information he has on regional road accident statistics.

    Mr. Atkins
    I have today published a report "Road Accident Statistics English Regions". I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

    This information will be of particular value to local authorities in setting their own casualty reduction targets and in developing local road safety plans. It will also enable them to assess their own local performance against that of other areas.

    Concessionary Fares, London
    Mr. Bowis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of concessionary fare schemes in London.

    Mr. Freeman
    The cost of concessionary travel in London is borne by the London boroughs. It must be for them to decide what form of concessionary travel scheme they want. However, if the boroughs cannot agree amongst themselves the terms of such a scheme, the statutory reserve free travel scheme in sections 51 and 52 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 applies.

    Roads, Essex
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to increase the grants available to Essex county council for the building of new roads and bypasses in the next five financial years; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Atkins
    Transport supplementary grant of more than £6·6 million will be paid to Essex county council in the current financial year towards expenditure on new roads and bypasses. Grant support will continue to be provided in future years to enable major projects currently under construction to be completed. All local highway authorities have been invited to bid for grant for 1991–92 and beyond for new schemes. We shall be studying the relative merits of all the bids and announcing our decisions later in the year.

    Oil Tankers
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the review of tanker traffic in the deep water route west of the Hebrides and in the Minch; and if he intends to make a statement on this subject in the near future.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    I shall make a statement and put a copy of the review report in the Library as soon as our detailed consideration of the findings is complete.

    Marine Pollution
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those oil pollution incidents reported to his officials by HM coastguard since 1 January 1989, giving in each case details of what follow-up investigations were made, whether a prosecution resulted and what the results of any prosecution were.
    154
    Mr. McLoughlin
    Between 1 January 1989 and 1 June 1990, a total of 214 reports of possible oil pollution were passed on by HM coastguard to the marine pollution control unit.

    Only 79 of those reports named a ship which might or might not have been the possible source of the pollution. After port state inspections in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, five cases were referred to the flag states of the vessels concerned to investigate further a possible illegal operational discharge of oil; one of these has resulted in a prosecution and a fine of £675 by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

    Of the other 74 cases, three are still being investigated by the MPCU. Follow-up action in the remaining 71 has now been discontinued because either (a) after port state inspection where appropriate, there was insufficient evidence of a possible illegal discharge to justify further action; or (b) the pollution was not an illegal discharge, for example, it resulted from the sinking of a vessel or from damage to a ship or its equipment.

    Coaches
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the European Commission proposals to limit the speed of passenger coaches and the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of such proposals.

    Mr. Atkins
    [holding answer 8 June 1990]: The Government have for many years attached high importance to securing safe coach travel. The Commission's proposed uniform technical standard for speed limiters, which we support, draws heavily on the British standard operative since 1987. All new coaches used in Britain have to be fitted with speed limiters and I am glad to say that the Bus and Coach Council is urging its members to retrofit older vehicles well before the deadline we have set of next April.

    Exhaust Emissions
    Mr. Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers are available to the police and local authorities to curb excessive exhaust emissions from buses, lorries and cars; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Atkins
    [holding answer 11 June 1990]: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer on 20 December last year to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) at column 279.

    Since then, we have further tightened up emission controls through the regulations laid before the House on 5 June. These require vehicle users to keep the engine in tune and any emission control equipment, such as a catalyst, in good working order. Properly tuned engines not only benefit the community at large by cutting emissions but save fuel and thus cut running costs.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. Nellist
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail British aid to Sri Lanka in the current financial year, and for each of the following three years, giving dates of announcement of projects; if he will place copies of all associated press releases in the Library; and if he will make a statement.
    155
    Mrs. Chalker
    British aid disbursements to Sri Lanka in the current financial year are expected to amount to around £12 million on a number of on-going activities. These include reconstruction aid, following the civil disturbances, for roads, schools and the Jaffna hospital as well as support for community development projects, the power, natural resources and education sectors.

    It is not possible at this stage to indicate in detail what further projects will be supported from the aid programme in the next three years or when they will be announced. A number of possibilities are currently being appraised for possible eventual agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Sri Lanka. These include forestry and road rehabilitation.

    Copies of all press releases from the ODA are placed in the House of Commons Library.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Community Employment
    Mr. Stott
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of sponsors of the action for community employment scheme run by the new Training and Employment Agency for Northern Ireland with their addresses, number of ACE trainees allocated and areas of work covered.

    Mr. Needham
    In view of the large amount of material to be collated, I will write to the hon. Member and place copies of the information in the Library.

    Belfast Action Teams
    Mr. Stott
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of the names and addresses of groups which have received funding from the Belfast action teams since they were first set up and the corresponding amount given to each such group.

    Mr. Needham
    In view of the large amount of material to be collated, I will write to the hon. Member and place copies of the information in the Library.

    Health and Personal Social Services
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advisory and consultative machinery will be established to represent public and consumer interests on the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Needham
    It is intended, subject to the necessary legislation being made, that there should be four area councils, or health and social services councils as it is proposed they be known, one relating to each health and social services board. Councils will be able to set up sub-committees which may include co-opted members. Each council will appoint its own chairman and will operate within a budget set annually by the Department of Health and Social Services.

    The duties of a council will include keeping under review the operation of health and social services in its area, making recommendations for improving the services of the relevant board, and commenting on the board's plan, particularly in relation to substantial developments or variations in the provision of services.
    156
    The council which relates to the Eastern board will have 30 members, while those relating to the other three boards will have 24. Forty per cent. of the membership of each council will be reserved for district councillors. Each district council will have the right to nominate one member. Membership will also include individuals appointed by the Department of Health and Social Services after consultation with voluntary and community organisations and other interested bodies.

    I am confident that the new arrangements will give the public and consumers a strong voice in the provision and development of the health and personal social services.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Lakes (Acidity)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many lakes in England suffer from acidity problems; if he will list them and give some measure of how acidic they are; and if he will make a statement on what the Government are doing about the problem.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    The Government will continue to sponsor research totalling over £3 million over the next three years identifying susceptible lakes and ecosystems. Comprehensive monitoring networks are in place measuring acid deposition and lake chemistry, acidity and ecology in the most sensitive lakes and streams. However, natural lake acidity varies greatly with catchment geology and ecology in addition to the undoubted effect of acid rain. Consequently, the collection of data on the scale requested is not currently feasible.

    Data on the effects of acid rain are published in Department of the Environment scientific review group and other reports, "Acidity in United Kingdom Fresh Waters"—United Kingdom acid waters review group second report, "Acid Deposition in the United Kingdom" —United Kingdom review group on acid rain second report and "Lake Acidification in the United Kingdom" —paleoecology research unit, University college London. Monitoring data have also been published in the first report of the United Kingdom acid waters monitoring network. Copies of all these publications are in the Library of the House.

    The United Kingdom has agreed directives with our European partners which will reduce acid emissions significantly. Using 1980 as a baseline, the United Kingdom is committed to reducing emissions of SO2, by 60 per cent. by 1993 and NOx by 30 per cent. by 1998 from existing large combustion plants. A directive requiring the fitting of catelytic convertors to most new cars before 1993 will reduce emissions of NO2 by up to 90 per cent., and the United Kingdom is pressing for the strictest possible emission standards to be applied to diesel engines.

    Red Squirrels
    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environent what action his Department is taking to protect Britain's remaining red squirrels; what studies his Department is currently funding in this area; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Trippier
    The red squirrel is fully protected through its listing on schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside
    157
    Act 1981. I am advised that the NCC is considering mounting local surveys of red squirrels. The Forestry Commission carries out an annual survey of its own land holdings on a national basis for the presence of red and grey squirrels.

    Common Land
    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 116, to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), and 11 May, Official Report, column 244, whether he will now announce the Government's intentions on common land legislation; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for delay in making this announcement.

    Mr. Trippier
    I regret that my right hon. Friend has not yet been able to make the announcement referred to in the answers given on 27 March and 11 May. This has been due to the complexity of the issues involved and the need to consider the implications of the legal judgment given last month in the Hazeley heath case, and further representations received.

    Environmental Protection
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made during the Republic of Ireland presidency of the European Community with regard to the European draft directive on the protection of habitats, flora and fauna; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Trippier
    At the Environment Council on 7 June, I expressed regret at the lack of progress in negotiating a worthwhile European Community directive on the protection of habitats and flora and fauna, but acknowledged that the Irish presidency was absolved of blame for this. On funding for assisting member states to implement the directive, some progress has been made with the publication of a draft regulation on action by the Community relating to nature conservation (ACNAT).

    Otters, East Anglia
    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of otters in East Anglia; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Trippier
    I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that there is no definitive record of numbers of otters in East Anglia. Since 1986, reports of sightings suggest an improving population in the west of the region while in the east of the region releases of captive-bred otters have strengthened the population.

    Air Pollution
    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the relative effectiveness of large and small carbon canisters in reducing air pollution from volatile organic compounds from motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Trippier
    The means of controlling petrol evaporation from cars and its effects are studied within the Department's air pollution research programme. The "smaller" carbon canisters, which control emissions from 158
    cars in use, offer further reduction of secondary air pollutants like ozone beyond the major improvement expected from agreed new EC exhaust emission controls. The effectiveness of "larger" canisters, which additionally absorb emissions during refuelling, is still being evaluated in relation to the overall evaporative emissions that occur between production and delivery. Results from the research programme have been made available to the Commission of the European Communities' expert groups and we are awaiting their proposals.

    Waste Paper
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the drop in price for used newspapers; whether he has any plans to assist local authority and charity waste paper collection systems to be maintained during the present difficulties; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Trippier
    The main factor causing the drop in price of certain grades of waste paper appears to have been a simple matter of supply and demand: collection of waste paper by volunteers and the trade has increased more quickly than production capacity capable of using waste paper as a feedstock. There is no evidence of any substantial level of imports of waste paper. Government intervention to maintain the price of waste paper through subsidising collection costs or other means could be ineffective or damaging since paper is an internationally traded commodity and users could switch to imported supplies and there are therefore no plans to intervene. The priority must be to encourage the market for all types of recycled paper and expand industrial capacity to process waste paper. In that context I am delighted to note that Kimberley-Clarke recently announced the construction of a £37 million plant for the manufacture of tissues in Flint. My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are specifically examining the waste paper market to assess the economic and environmental benefits of waste paper recycling, the means of collecting waste paper, what new uses for waste paper might be promoted and how demand for recycled paper might be stimulated. Government Departments are also considering their own use of paper with a view to increasing the use of recycled products wherever feasible and economic.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take urgent steps to amend the arrangements relating to the standard community charge in cases where this charge is such as to equal or to approach either the value of the property itself or the value of the period of occupancy or ownership involved.

    Mr. Chope
    Charging authorities may set a standard charge of 0, ½,1,1½ or 2 times the personal community charge for their area. In addition to the classes of property which we have prescribed and in respect of which no charge or a lower charge than the maximum is payable, authorities may specify their own classes by reference to one of the factors set out in the legislation. These factors include the use to which properties are put or are intended to be put; the period for which they have been unoccupied; or the personal circumstances but not the financial circumstances of the individual who is subject to the standard charge. They do not, however, allow for
    159
    authorities to vary the amount of the standard charge by making reference to the value of a property, which would mean the return of rating or the creation of a capital value system.

    One World Week
    Mr. Harry Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department made any contribution to the BBC television's One World week of specialist programmes on the environment.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    The Department co-operated with briefing and offered participation, but the offers were not taken up.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money he estimates to have been saved by compulsory competitive tendering in areas for which his Department has responsibility in each of the last five years.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    Savings from competitive tendering in my Department, including the Property Services Agency, over the past five years were:

    £ million

    1985–86

    14·00

    1986–87

    27·25

    1987–88

    30·72

    1988–89

    23·41

    1989–90

    32·23

    Radioactive Sediment
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce precautions to reduce the harmful effects of radioactive sediment deposited on the shores of the British coastline.

    Mr. Trippier
    Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carry out an extensive programme of monitoring of the marine and coastal environment, including the collection of samples of sediment. The results, which are published annually, show that doses to members of the public resulting from the discharge of liquid radioactive waste are well within accepted limits. There is no need for any special precautions to be taken.

    Environment Council
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 7 and 8 June.

    Mr. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the EEC habitats directive is discussed at the Environment Council on 7 June; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Trippier
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.

    The Council agreed a directive amending the 1975 framework directive—75/442—on waste. The new directive calls on member states to encourage clean
    160
    technologies, waste minimisation and recovery methods. It also strengthens existing requirements concerning the licensing of waste disposal installations and the production of waste management plans. I particularly welcomed a new requirement for all member states to establish adequate networks of waste disposal installations so as to reduce the currently unacceptable level of transfrontier movements of waste.

    The Council agreed a directive on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances—mercury, cadmium and lead. The directive will encourage the recycling or controlled disposal of spent batteries. It will also require batteries, and in some cases the appliances into which they are built, to be labelled to indicate recyclability and heavy metal content, and to facilitate their separate collection. Certain batteries containing more than a specified amount of mercury will be banned from sale from 1 January 1993.

    Agreement was also reached on a directive to limit inputs of four dangerous substances to the aquatic environment. The directive sets limit values and quality objectives for significant discharges of trichlorobenzene 1, 2-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. Small discharges of these substances will be controlled through national programmes. These measures will apply from 1 January 1993.

    The Council agreed the final negotiating position of the Community for the second meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, to be held in London later this month. The Community, and the United Kingdom, will press for early and substantial reductions in CFCs, and their elimination before the year 2000, along with strong controls on halons, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. The Council also confirmed that assistance to developing countries, to meet their incremental costs in complying with a strengthened protocol, should be covered by additional funding. We are confident that with this position the Community will be able to play a key role in the finalisation at the London meeting of a strengthened protocol which many more countries will be able to join.

    There was a short, but wide-ranging discussion of climate change. The European Commission was urged to bring forward its work on specific measures which might be taken at Community level to control greenhouse gas emissions, so that the issue could be considered again at the October meeting of the Council, before the second world climate conference. The United Kingdom urged other member states to draw up their own strategies for the control of greenhouse gas emissions in good time for that conference, so that they would be in a position to commit themselves to sensible precautionary steps aimed at ensuring that climate change problems do not get any worse in the period between now and 2005, by when many of the remaining scientific uncertainties should have been resolved.

    Ministers endorsed the urgent need for a directive setting stringent new standards for motor vehicle emissions and regretted the fact that the absence of the European Parliament's opinion on the current proposal prevented immediate agreement. The Council instructed the presidency to write to the Parliament seeking its opinion as a matter of urgency so that the measure might be agreed at the next Council meeting. The United Kingdom also stressed the need for urgent action to limit

    161
    emissions from diesel engines in heavy vehicles, and regretted that the new Commission proposals in this area tell short of the stringent "US 1994" standard.

    The Council also held brief discussions on proposals for establishing a regulatory committee to review existing directives on water protection, and on the scope of the proposed directive on the protection of water from pollution by nitrate.

    The Commission gave progress reports on the preparation of a Community environmental labelling scheme, on discussions on a recent proposal concerning the treatment of municipal waste water, and on the proposed directive on the protection of natural and semi-natural habitats. On the latter the United Kingdom expressed concern at the lack of recent progress and pledged our assistance in helping to resolve outstanding issues.

    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the matters discussed at the meeting of Environment Ministers of the European Community on 7 June.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

    Specialist Inspectors
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on(a) the availability, (b) the qualifications required and (c) the cost of arrangements which he is making for an expanded corps of specialist inspectors to enforce new controls on gene release and related matters, envisaged in the Environmental Protection Bill.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Discussions are being held with the Health and Safety Executive on an agency agreement whereby its inspectors would enforce the provisions in part VI of the Environmental Protection Bill. If such an agency agreement is reached, then inspectors with appropriate qualifications and experience will be recruited and given training by the executive and guidance by my Department. The newly appointed inspectors would form a team with existing Health and Safety Executive inspectors responsible for the enforcement of human health and safety controls over genetically manipulated organisms. There would thus be a unified system of enforcement.

    The costs of such an agency agreement cannot be determined accurately at present but are likely to be of the order of £100,000 per annum at current prices.

    Westminster Abbey
    Mr. Bowis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants have been given to Westminster abbey to improve security; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Trippier
    [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Security at Westminster abbey is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Family Credit
    Ms. Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of family credit claimants in the south-west by each Department of Social Security area for the latest period, and the percentage change from the respective figure of 12 months ago.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The information requested is in the table:

    Social Security local offices in the South West.

    Number of families1

    Percentage change2

    Barnstaple

    762

    +3·8

    Bath

    598

    -8·7

    Bournemouth

    711

    +12·0

    Bridgewater

    559

    +4·1

    Bristol (Central)

    402

    -0·5

    Bristol (East)

    754

    -6·1

    Bristol (Horfield)

    412

    +0·2

    Bristol (South)

    688

    +5·0

    Bristol (West)

    324

    + 0·3

    Cheltenham

    675

    +8·9

    Chippenham

    449

    +0·2

    Devonport

    273

    +11·4

    Exeter

    1,747

    +5·8

    Gloucester

    860

    -1·0

    Launceston

    640

    -0·2

    Penzance

    835

    +5·3

    Plymouth

    1,490

    +7·3

    Poole

    679

    -2·6

    Salisbury

    557

    +13·2

    St. Austell

    957

    +3·0

    Stroud

    590

    +13·0

    Swindon

    611

    -0·5

    Taunton

    963

    0·0

    Torbay

    1,436

    +7·8

    Trowbridge

    401

    -0·7

    Truro

    1,204

    +9·8

    Weston-super-Mare

    461

    +0·9

    Weymouth

    770

    +7·1

    Yeovil

    605

    +14·6

    1Number of families in receipt of family credit on 1 June 1990 who at the time their award was made were living in the areas covered by each office.

    2 Percentage change compared with 3 April 1989 (the nearest comparable date in 1989 for which figures are available).

    Medical Appeal Tribunals
    Mr. Pawsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals are made each year to medical appeal tribunals; what is the average length of time taken for a case to reach a tribunal and what is the number of successful appeals expressed as a percentage of those made.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The details quoted in the table relate to appeals to medical appeal tribunals in respect of mobility allowance and industrial injuries disablement benefit for the years from 1985 to 1988, the last full year for which details are held. I regret that figures for appeals to medical appeal tribunals in respect of severe disablement allowance are not available for this period. However, the Department has started collecting these figures from 1 July 1989.

    1988

    1987

    1986

    1985

    Appeals heard

    17,661

    15,568

    13,190

    12,054

    Claimant successful

    7,395

    6,193

    4,946

    4,408

    163

    1988

    1987

    1986

    1985

    Percentage successful

    42

    40

    37

    37

    The Department has also recently begun compiling more detailed statistics relating to medical appeal tribunals, including information on the clearance time for such appeals. The latest statistics, for the three-monthly period ending 30 September 1989, show that the national average clearance time for appeals to medical appeal tribunals, from date of lodgement to hearing, is 17 weeks.

    Attendance Allowance
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents of disabled children in receipt of attendance allowance had benefit deducted from their allowance due to them or their child staying in(a) respite care, (b) hospital and (c) any other form of scheduled accommodation for more than 28 days for the benefit year 1989–90.

    Mr. Scott
    The information requested is not available.

    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to change the regulations governing the receipt of attendance allowance where the child stays in hospital for a period of more than 28 days.

    Mr. Scott
    There are no current plans to change the conditions for the receipt of attendance allowance when a child has been in hospital for more than 28 days.

    Disability Benefit
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost at 1990–91 prices to extend disability benefit to all persons with a disability assessed at 40 per cent. or more.

    Mr. Scott
    There is a range of benefits available to disabled people of which only war pensions and industrial injuries disablement benefits are assessed according to a percentage of disability. Qualification for severe disablement allowance at age 20 or over depends on both incapacity for work and assessment as 80 per cent. disabled. As part of our review of disability benefits we considered whether a comprehensive disability income based on the level of a person's disability could replace the present structure of benefits. We concluded that the same principles could more effectively be implemented by changes which establish a more coherent system of financial help by building on the existing benefits, as set out in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cmd. 917).

    Income Support
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for how many weeks a person who claims income support on becoming unemployed after a trial period of employment, and whose income support entitlement before that period included 100 per cent. of his or her mortgage interest, has to wait before again having the mortgage interest met in full.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    A person who claims income support on becoming unemployed after a period of 164
    employment which satisfies the conditions for employment on trial for unemployment benefit purposes, and whose income support before that period included 100 per cent. of mortgage interest, will have mortgage interest met in full from the outset of the claim.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average increase in incomes, excluding the state earnings-related pension, since 1979 for those pensioners who receive all of their income from state benefits.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The information is not available in the form requested.

    Severe Disablement Allowance
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost to uprate the severe disablement allowance to the full basic invalidity rate at 1990–91 prices.

    Mr. Scott
    We estimate that the gross cost of increasing the basic rate of severe disablement allowance to the basic rate of invalidity pension would be about £250 million a year; the net cost would be about £110 million a year.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he estimates has been saved by compulsory competitive tendering in areas for which his Department has responsibility in each of the last five years.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    No separate records are kept of savings resulting from competitive tendering. In the financial year 1989–90 total purchasing savings (for the Departments of Health and Social Security combined) amounted to £79 million (9·7 per cent. of spend). This figure includes on-going savings from years prior to 1989–90. New savings in 1989–90 amounted to £30 million (3·7 per cent). These were achieved through a variety of methods including competitive tendering, post tender negotiation and changing suppliers.

    Benefits Agency
    Mr. Terry Fields
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the role and responsibilities of the benefits agency which will be coming into being next April; how its establishment will affect current functions and staff of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The social security benefits agency, to be established in April 1991, will provide for the cost-effective administration of social security benefits, and other services including the handling of claims reviews and appeals, and arranging payment.

    The agency will bring together under a single line management structure the (currently separately organized) central offices and regional organisation. In addition a number of support functions currently carried out within headquarters will pass to the agency.

    The principal aim of introducing agencies within the Department is to improve services to all customers of the Department. Part of this aim will be to streamline management structures to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

    Benefits
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates are currently eligible for family credit and/or income support in each county in England; and what is the percentage take-up in each case.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    This information is not available.

    Information about the total number of families eligible for family credit or income support can be obtained only for Great Britain, and only retrospectively, from family expenditure survey data.

    Benefit Claimants
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of unemployed claiming income support but not unemployment benefit whose claims were (i) disallowed, (ii) allowed and (iii) awaiting adjudication by his Department's adjudication officers following doubts about(a) actively seeking work, (b) restricted availability and (c) refusal of employment for each month since October 1989; and what was the number that corresponded and the number that did not correspond to the opinion given by Department of Employment adjudication officers.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The information requested is not available.

    Fishermen, North-east England
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has made arrangements to assist onshore fishermen in the north-east of England unable to work because of the current restrictions on the sale of shellfish.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Under normal arrangements, share fishermen who pay a special rate of class 2(self-employed) contributions are entitled to claim unemployment benefit when they are unable to work and can demonstrate that it is impossible for catches to be sold.

    Retirement Pensions
    Mrs. Beckett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retirement pensions were awarded to women aged 60 and men aged 65 years, including married women's pensions on their husbands' insurance, in each month of the latest year for which information is available.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Information is not available in the precise form requested.

    The latest figures are for 1988–89. These show that in the six-month period ending September 1988 retirement pensions were awarded to 102,970 men aged 65 and 68,010 women aged 60. The awards to women included 20,960 married women's pensions based partially or wholly on their husbands' contributions and 420 retirement pension awards to widows based on their late husbands' contributions.

    In the following six-month period, ending March 1989, 96,680 awards were made to men aged 65 and 66,020 to women aged 60. These included 20,320 married women's pensions and 520 retirement pensions awarded to widows based on their late husbands' contributions.

    Departmental Savings
    Mr. Rooker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The Department of Social Security uses a number of mechanisms to assist in the identification of value-for-money savings. These include a management services operation, internal audit and a directorate of purchasing and supply. The Department undertakes a number of efficiency scrutinies of discrete parts of its operations each year and also has an active staff suggestions scheme. Monitoring of progress in securing the identified savings is undertaken by a central unit.

    Mr. Rooker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The savings resulting from specific value-for-money activities are estimated to total £181 million over the period for the Departments of Health and of Social Security, but it is not possible to apportion identified savings between them. In addition, all managers are required to make a contribution to the Department's efficiency saving target of a minimum of 1·5 per cent. per annum from running costs as set by Her Majesty's Treasury and to contribute to other departmental value-for-money initiatives. As not all the results of other value-for-money activities are collected centrally this savings figure represents only a proportion of the total value-for-money savings achieved.

    Disallowed Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide figures updating those contained in his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) of 4 April,Official Report, column 684, on disallowed unemployment benefit for the period 1 January 1990 to date.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answer 6 June 1990]: The information for the quarter ending 31 March 1990, the latest available, is in the table:

    Decisions of adjudication officers on doubtful claims for unemployment benefit, period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1990

    Fresh or renewal claims disallowed

    Reviewed claims revised adversely to claimant

    Capability

    604

    36

    Employment not terminated

    12

    10

    Engaged in employment

    3,919

    1,733

    Employed to full normal extent

    1,322

    72

    Normal idle day

    146

    16

    Payment in lieu of notice or wages etc.

    31,067

    5,694

    Recognised or customary holiday

    709

    93

    Whether unemployed

    7,720

    1,500

    Share fishermen:

    167

    Fresh or renewal claims disallowed

    Reviewed claims revised adversely to claimant

    Work as

    32

    18

    No work available

    24

    1

    Dependant's benefit:

    Child

    39

    21

    Adult

    279

    119

    Delayed claim

    22,584

    117

    Failure to attend for interview (including restart)

    97

    1

    Failure to keep to signing time

    13

    2

    Occupational pensioners

    69

    191

    Availability

    6,617

    478

    Restricted availability

    2,323

    618

    Share fishermen—neglect to avail

    31

    1

    Trade dispute

    74

    2

    Actively seeking work

    297

    26

    Leaving voluntarily

    42,831

    201

    Misconduct

    13,889

    84

    Employment:

    Neglect to avail

    469

    7

    Refusal of

    644

    2

    Refusal or premature termination of training

    191

    39

    Refusal to carry out written recommendations

    11

    5

    Weekly earnings rule

    22,147

    730

    Other questions

    9,274

    6,901

    All questions

    167,434

    18,718

    Note: The special entitlement conditions for seasonal workers were abolished from October 1989.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Education Authorities (Expenditure)
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the five education authorities in England which spent the most per secondary pupil in 1988, together with their position in the examination league table.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Data on examination results are not yet available for 1988–89. Nor are some significant data on spending. In 1987–88, the five authorities spending the most per secondary pupil, and their position in an examination ranking based on school leavers with five or more good GCSEs over the past three years, were as follows:

    in the exam ranking

    ILEA

    88th

    Waltham Forest

    95th

    Brent

    75th

    Newham

    93rd

    Croydon

    57th

    Teacher Vacancies
    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his most recent estimate of the number of unfilled teacher vacancies in London; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Abbott
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his most recent estimate of the number of unfilled teacher vacancies in London; and if he will make a statement.
    168
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his most recent estimate of the number of unfilled teacher vacancies in London; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    I refer the hon. Members to the earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).

    In January 1989 there were 2,124 full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in Greater London, equivalent to about 4.3 per cent. of teachers in post. Of these, 1,305 were in nursery or primary schools and 819 in secondary schools.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications there have been for undergraduate degree courses beginning in September 1990 and September 1991; and how many there were in the same period last year for degree courses beginning September 1989 and September 1990.

    Mr. Hague
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many young people have applied for places on undergraduate degree courses at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom beginning in September 1990 and September 1991.

    Mr. Jackson
    By March 1990, the Universities Central Council on Admissions had received 851,693 applications from United Kingdom domiciled students for admission to United Kingdom universities at undergraduate level in autumn 1990. Applications for 1989 entry on 31 March 1989 numbered 774,469. By the same dates, the Polytechnics Central Admissions System had received 539,622 applications for 1990 admission to undergraduate degree courses at polytechnics and colleges in England and Wales compared with 480,568 for 1989 entry. Information on 1991 applications is not yet available.

    Mr. Doran
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of quality assurance in higher education.

    Mr. Jackson
    Quality assurance is of increasing importance as higher education develops. The HE institutions, the validating bodies, and both the higher education funding councils are very conscious of their responsibilities in this regard. In addition, my right hon. Friend is seeking comments on the recommendations in the recently published review of the Council for National Academic Awards.

    Mr. Martlew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the participation of 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education.

    Mr. Mowlam
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the participation of 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education.

    Mr. Jackson
    The Government have achieved a very substantial increase in full-time participation in post-compulsory education. For 16-year-olds, it has increased by 25 per cent., from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1988–89. And for 16 to 17-year-olds taken together, it has increased from 34 per cent. to 42 per cent. These figures do not include YTS trainees who attend
    169
    college full-time. Our examination reforms and the Education Reform Act will raise standards in schools, giving more young people the qualifications and motivation to stay on.

    Mr. Jim Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for qualifications for post-16-year-olds; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend is determined to ensure that A-level and AS courses and vocational courses together provide young people beyond 16 with a coherent spectrum of opportunities and a chance to develop their potential. He has asked the School Examinations and Assessment Council to advise him by July on the practicability of building core skills into A and AS syllabuses and on the credit transfer possibilities between A/AS and vocational qualifications. Once he has this advice he will be able to consider what further steps are needed in improving the nature and structure of the qualifications available.

    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much he estimates it costs to provide education for 16 to 18-year-olds at current prices; and how many individuals aged between 16 and 18 years are in(a) full-time and (b) part-time education.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    The education component of the 1990–91 grant settlement allows for education authorities in England to spend over £1,600 million on providing for 16 to 18-year-olds in secondary schools and further education colleges. This is net of further education tuition fees, and allows for the higher costs of 16 to 18-year-olds relative to other pupils in the secondary sector. The projected student numbers for the academic year 1990–91 consistent with that total assume 543,000 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time secondary or further education, and 295,000 in part-time further education.

    AS-Levels
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment has been made of the success of AS-levels.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    There were 37,000 AS examination entries in summer 1989, the first year of the new examination. A total of 61 per cent. gained grades A to E. The School Examinations and Assessment Council has been asked to provide guidance to schools on A/AS combinations and to lay down principles governing A/AS syllabuses. Both measures should help to raise achievement in AS examinations.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Bill Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations from teachers regarding local management of schools.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations from teachers regarding local management of schools.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend continues to receive representations from individual teachers and from 170
    teacher associations. Many of these support the principles of delegated budget management and welcome the opportunities which this will give them.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of local management of schools.

    Mr. Ian Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made by local education authorities in implementing local management of schools.

    Mr. John Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of local management of schools.

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of local management of schools.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) on 8 May 1990,Official Report, column 8.

    Mr. David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to take action against those local authorities that hold back too high a proportion of a school's budget under the new system of local management.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    All those schemes for the local management of schools which were approved by my right hon. Friend for introduction in April 1990, were approved with the requirement that certain discretionary exceptions totalled less than 10 per cent. of the general schools budget. As with all aspects of LMS, we will be monitoring and reviewing the policy in the light of experience and in the light of LEAs' budget statements made under section 42 of the Education Reform Act.

    Mr. Patchett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his plans to introduce greater flexibility into the local management of schools.

    Mr. Callaghan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his plans to introduce greater flexibility into the local management of schools.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 8 May 1990,Official Report, column 11.

    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet school governors regarding the local management of schools.

    Mr. Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet school governors regarding the local management of schools.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

    Mr. Franks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what level of support is being given to Cumbria education authority for local management of schools in the present financial year.
    171
    Mrs. Rumbold
    Of the £41·1 million of expenditure supported under the education support grant programme for the implementation of local management of schools, including governor training, and the £10·9 million supported through the LEA training grants programme, Cumbria education authority's share is £650,000.

    Mr. Barry Porter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what level of grant is being given to Wirral education authority for local management of schools in the current financial year.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    Of the £41·1 million of expenditure supported in 1990–91 under the education support grant programme for the implementation of local management of schools, including governor training, and the £10·9 million supported through the LEA training grants programme, Wirral education authority's share is £356,400.

    Mr. Watts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the total amount of funding being held back by each local authority in England and Wales under the new system of local management.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 5 February 1990,Official Report, column 451.

    General Teaching Council
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to establish a general teaching council.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    The establishment of a general teaching council was one of the recommendations made by the Education, Science and Arts Committee in its report on teacher supply. My right hon. Friend is currently considering the report and will respond as soon as possible.

    School Buildings
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his most recent information regarding the condition of school buildings; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    The Department published the survey of school buildings in November 1987. Information is also received annually from local education authorities in their capital expenditure plans, from Her Majesty's inspectorate, and from representations by the local education authorities made from time to time. The maintenance of the buildings is a matter for the local education authorities and governors.

    Mr. Caborn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities regarding the repair of school buildings.

    Mr. John P. Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities regarding the repair of school buildings.
    172
    Mr. Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities regarding the repair of school buildings.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor).

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money has been allocated for the current financial year to each education authority for the specific purpose of repairing school buildings; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Current funding for the repair of school buildings is not separately identified in the Government's revenue support grant allocations to individual authorities. Provision for such spending is included within the total grant settlement, which in 1990–91 allows for local authorities in England to spend nearly £15 billion on education. But it is for each local authority to decide how much to spend on repairing school buildings from the current resources available to it. Annual capital guidelines for local education authorities for 1990–91 were announced on 20 December 1989,Official Report, columns 254–58; again, it is for each local authority to decide its priorities for capital spending in the light of local needs and circumstances.

    Education Expenditure, London
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for education spending in inner London after 1992.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    The Government will continue to provide a financial framework within which the 13 inner London local education authorities can provide an effective education service.

    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with London borough councils concerning the adequacy of his assessment of necessary expenditure on education in the current financial year.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend and I have meetings from time to time with London borough councils, both individually and in representative groups. These cover a range of financial and other issues. These issues are also the subject of correspondence with Ministers.

    History Teaching
    Mr. Janner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to announce details of the national curriculum on history.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend published the final report of the history working group on 3 April. That document is currently the subject of consultation which ends on 15 June. After this and in the light of the responses received my right hon. Friend will make his proposals. These will then be published by the National Curriculum Council and subject to consultation in England required by the Education Reform Act.

    School-business Links
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have links with local businesses.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    This information is not collected for all schools in England. However, a recent DES survey of 500 secondary and 500 primary schools, the findings of which will shortly be published in a DES statistical bulletin, found that 90 per cent. of secondary and over 50 per cent. of primary schools had links with local businesses.

    National Curriculum, Northumberland
    Mr. Amos
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the operation of the national curriculum in Northumberland.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    It is for the Northumberland education authority in the first instance to monitor the operation of the national curriculum in the schools it maintains. Evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate shows that in general schools across the country are making satisfactory progress in introducing the new requirements.

    Higher Education (Capital Investment)
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the capital investment needs of higher educational institutions.

    Mr. John Garrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the capital investment needs of higher educational institutions.

    Mr. Jackson
    Responsibility for identifying such needs lies with the funding councils concerned in discussion with institutions. The Government's current expenditure plans provide for an increase in higher education capital funding of £90 million over three years from 1990–91.

    EC Scholarships
    Mr. Dykes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will initiate discussions with his European Community counterparts on the development of a fully Community-wide scholarships system for further education applicants.

    Mr. Jackson
    My right hon. Friend has no plans to initiate any such discussions, but further education students already benefit from a number of existing EC programmes.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage of three and four-year-old children in state-run nursery schools in the United Kingdom; and what are the equivalent figures for West Germany, Sweden and Denmark.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    The readily available information is as follows:174

    Percentage of 3 to 4 age group in education and day-care, 1987

    Education

    Day-care

    Country

    Public

    Private

    Public

    Private

    United Kingdom

    42

    3

    38

    3

    West Germany

    40

    116

    n/a

    n/a

    Sweden

    240

    n/a

    221

    n/a

    Denmark

    —

    —

    n/a

    n/a

    1 1982; private sector provision subsidised by public funds.

    2 1988, includes private sector.

    — = nil or negligible.

    n/a = not available.

    Source:

    Statistical Bulletin 13/89: International Statistical Comparisons of the Participation in Education and Day-care of three to six-year-olds.

    Teacher Recruitment
    Mr. Gerald Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to improve teacher recruitment and retention in London and in the south-east.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    On 11 April my right hon. Friend announced a 7 per cent. increase by 1993 in the number of places available for initial training courses in England and Wales. Within that increase, he has asked the funding councils to take account of the recruitment difficulties faced by primary schools in the south-east of England and to increase the number of places available in that area.

    My right hon. Friend has accepted the recommendations of the interim advisory committee which will allow substantial pay increases for teachers, an 8·8 per cent. increase in the London weighting allowance with a discretionary supplement of £750 for inner London and give LEAs and governing bodies greater flexibility on pay. He is providing funds through education support grant and the local education authority training grants scheme to encourage local education authorities, as the employers of teachers, to introduce flexible and innovative recruitment and retention packages.

    We have already announced an increase in the bursary paid to students on initial training courses in shortage subjects; in March we provided £182,000 for a London recruitment campaign and we recently launched a national advertising campaign. We will continue to support and extend the measures we have taken since 1986 to combat teacher shortage.

    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received since the launch of the "Teaching Brings Out the Best in People" campaign; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Favell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made since the launch of the "Teaching Brings Out the Best in People" campaign.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what impact so far has been made by the "Teaching Brings Out the Best in People" campaign; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    Since the teacher recruitment advertising campaign was launched on 16 May, over 13,000 requests have been received from people seeking information about teaching as a career in response to the advertisements.
    175
    Mr. Rogers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to recruit more graduates into the teaching profession.

    Mr. Eastham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to recruit more graduates into the teaching profession.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    On 12 March my right hon. Friend announced an extension of the bursary scheme for students on initial teacher training courses in shortage subjects to modern foreign languages; the bursary will be increased to £1,500 for students on courses in maths, CDT and technology, chemistry and modern foreign languages and to £2,000 for students on physics courses. The changes apply from September 1990.

    In addition, my right hon. Friend is matching generous industrial sponsorship with £40,000 funding to support a paid work experience scheme for undergraduates run by the teaching as a career unit.

    It is proposed that the first of the graduates taking part in the pilot for the articled teacher route into teaching will begin training in September.

    We shall continue to support teacher taster courses for mature people, including graduates, who wish to switch careers.

    City Technology Colleges
    Ms. Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the city technology college programme.

    Mr. McWilliam
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the city technology college programme.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    The city technology college programme continues to make excellent progress. Three colleges are up and running and a further nine are due to open in September 1990 and 1991.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last visited a city technology college; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend visited the Djanogly CTC (Nottingham) on 29 September 1989, when he attended the official opening, performed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    Opting Out
    Mr. David Shaw
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the geographical spread of schools in England and Wales that have applied to opt out of local authority control; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    Of the 54 proposals for grant-maintained status that have so far reached my right hon. Friend for decision, he has approved 41 and is minded to approve a further school subject to agreement with the governing body about minor technical adjustments to the proposals.

    The 42 schools which he has approved or is minded to approve for grant-maintained status are drawn from 31 LEAs. The geographical breakdown is as follows:
    176

    Geographical breakdown for each school approved for GM status

    Region and School

    LEA

    Northern

    Castle Hall GM School

    Kirklees

    Heckmondwike Grammar School

    Kirklees

    North West

    Audenshaw High School

    Tameside

    Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

    Lancashire

    Bankfield High School

    Cheshire

    Lancaster Royal Grammar School

    Lancashire

    St. Francis Xavier's College

    Liverpool

    St. James's CE School

    Bolton

    Midlands

    Adams' Grammar School

    Shropshire

    Baverstock GM School

    Birmingham

    Netherthorpe School

    Derbyshire

    Old Swinford Hospital School

    Dudley

    Small Heath School

    Birmingham

    Southfield School for Girls

    Northamptonshire

    Wolverhampton Girls High School

    Wolverhampton

    Eastern

    The King's School

    Lincolnshire

    Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

    Lincolnshire

    Skegness Grammar School

    Lincolnshire

    Carre's Grammar School

    Lincolnshire

    Long Field High School

    Leicestershire

    London North and Home Counties

    Bishopshalt School

    Hillingdon

    Claremont High School

    Brent

    Hendon School

    Barnet

    Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys

    Barnet

    Queensbury School

    Bedfordshire

    Rickmansworth School

    Hertfordshire

    Watford Grammar School for Boys

    Hertfordshire

    Inner London

    Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

    Kensington and Chelsea

    London Nautical School

    Southwark

    London Oratory School

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    South East

    The Grammar School for Girls, Wilmington

    Kent

    Guildford County School

    Surrey

    Wilson's School

    Sutton

    South West

    Beechen Cliff School

    Avon

    Brindley Hall School

    Buckinghamshire

    Bridgewater Hall School

    Buckinghamshire

    Colyton Grammar School

    Devon

    Marling School

    Gloucestershire

    Ribston Hall High School

    Gloucestershire

    Southlands School

    Berkshire

    Stroud Girls High School

    Gloucestershire

    Bournemouth Grammar School1

    Dorset

    1 Denotes minded to approve subject to agreement with the governing body about minor technical adjustments to the proposals.

    Mr. William Powell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications he has received from schools wishing to opt out of local authority control; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    A total of 64 proposals for grant-maintained status have been published following parental ballots. Of these, 54 have so far reached my right hon. Friend for decision: he has approved 41, is minded to approve one and has rejected 12.

    Mr. Allan Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has
    177
    received from parents about the conduct of local authorities towards schools that wish to opt out of local authority control; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    Concern has been expressed from time to time by governors and parents about the actions of some local authorities towards schools seeking grant-maintained status. My right hon. Friend has said repeatedly that it is important that parents, governors and staff at such schools should have an informed debate about the options available to them; and that LEAs should not obstruct that debate in any way.

    Mr. Page
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the consequences for schools of opting out of local authority control; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    Grant-maintained schools have many advantages: they are run by local people who know the schools; their governing bodies have considerable autonomy, including the freedom to choose how to spend most effectively their share of LEA expenditure on central services; and they are proving popular with parents; and attracting teachers to work in them.

    Teachers' Pay and Conditions
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of teacher salaries.

    Mr. Fisher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of teacher salaries.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of teacher salaries.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend announced on 5 April that he had decided to accept the recommendations contained in the third report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions, subject to some minor modifications. They will be implemented in full by 1 January 1991.

    Mr. Evennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what meetings he is having with the teaching unions over the new pay machinery proposals; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend has recently completed a series of meetings with the teacher unions to discuss his proposals for new permanent pay negotiating machinery.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Robert. B. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the level of funding available for grant-maintained schools.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    The Government's policy is that each grant-maintained school should be funded at the level its former local education authority would have spent on it. This includes provision for services previously provided centrally, which amounted on average to about 15 per cent. of the direct costs of the schools in 1989–90.
    178
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had from teachers at grant-maintained schools about the new system of grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend has not received any such formal representations. Grant-maintained status has been welcomed by teachers as well as by governors and parents. For example, in a recent report to the governing body the head teacher of Bankfield school in Widnes said the new freedom of action as a grant-maintained school had helped raise morale among the school community. He said:"Morale amongst staff is exceptionally high—and this has had a beneficial effect on our pupils. The school is totally united, staff, pupils, parents as never before".

    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils attend grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    We have recent information on the numbers of pupils in 41 of the 42 schools which my right hon. Friend has so far approved or is minded to approve for grant-maintained status. In January 1990 there were 29,200 pupils in those schools.

    Mr. Pawsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is planning to take to make it easier for schools to achieve grant-maintained status.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    It is open to all LEA-maintained secondary schools, and LEA-maintained primary schools with 300 or more pupils, to consider the option of seeking grant-maintained status. It is for parents and governors to decide whether to put a proposal for grant-maintained status to my right hon. Friend. The statutory procedure requires that each proposal for grant-maintained status together with any statutory objections is considered carefully by my right hon. Friend.

    Modern Languages
    Mr. McAvoy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities on modern language learning and teacher supply.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    The report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities on European schools and language learning in United Kingdom schools was published on 15 May. My right hon. Friend will be studying the report carefully before responding. In doing so, he will wish to take account of the forthcoming final report of the national curriculum working group on modern foreign languages, which is expected to be completed by the end of July and will be published later in the summer.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the effect of the poll tax caps on the education service in the former Inner London education authority boroughs proposed for capping.
    179
    Mrs. Rumbold
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering appeals from the relevant inner London boroughs about the level of their caps, including representations made by the boroughs about likely service implications.

    Dr. Kim Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will meet representatives of those local education authorities which have been charge-capped to discuss the implications for education.

    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will meet representatives of those local education authorities which have been charge-capped to discuss the implications for education.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

    Student Loans
    Mr. Watson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the administration of the student loans scheme.

    Mr. Jackson
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).

    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much he estimates will be raised in total from student loans in the first full year of their operation.

    Mr. Jackson
    If 80 per cent. of students take up their maximum entitlement to loans, £178 million will be made available in the academic year 1990–91. Borrowers will not be liable to repay their loans until the April after they leave their course. The first graduates are therefore not expected to start repaying until April 1992. Estimates of the long-term cost and savings were announced on 18 December 1989,Official Report, columns 36–40.

    School Discipline
    Mr. David Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received following the announcement of his intention to implement a number of the recommendations contained in the Elton report on school discipline.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Since my right hon. Friend made his announcement on 13 March 1989, a total of 25 representations have been received about the report.

    Computers
    Mr. Arbuthnot
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many computers there are in schools currently.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    There is an average of three microcomputers per maintained primary school and 30 per maintained secondary school being used for educational purposes.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he is having with education authorities to allow young people from central and eastern Europe to visit and study at schools in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    The Department is not directly involved in developing school visits and exchange programmes. It does however fund the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges to undertake activities of this kind. Additional resources have been made available to the bureau in the 1990–91 financial year to expand its programme of educational visits and exchanges, including those with eastern Europe.

    Humberside College
    Mr. Cran
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make an announcement as to whether Humberside college of higher education is to be granted polytechnic status.

    Mr. Jackson
    My right hon. Friend is awaiting further advice from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council after the council meeting today. He hopes to respond to that advice shortly after it is received.

    University Studies
    Mr. Macdonald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage the participation of United Kingdom institutions in the trans-European mobility scheme for university studies.

    Mr. Jackson
    I wrote on 14 May to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals inviting their members to participate fully in the TEMPUS programme.

    Teacher Supply
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to respond to the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee report on teacher supply; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to respond to the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee report on teacher supply; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to respond to the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee report on teacher supply; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    My right hon. Friend is currently considering the report of the Education, Science and Arts Committee on teacher supply. He will respond as soon as possible.

    Capital Allocations
    Mr. Bright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the system of capital allocations for(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) local authority-maintained schools.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    Each year grant-maintained schools are invited to submit bids for capital allocations for the next financial year. My right hon. Friend assesses these across the sector as a whole taking account of each school's needs relative to other GM schools. For further details I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) on 26 January 1990,Official Report, columns 899–902.

    Within the LEA-maintained sector, my right hon. Friend sets an annual capital guideline for each local education authority and makes capital allocations for governors' expenditure at voluntary aided and special agreement schools following his assessment of local education authority capital expenditure plans. For further
    182
    details I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 20 December 1989, Official Report, columns 254–58.

    Cathedral Choirs
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will visit the choir schools at Salisbury and York to discuss proposals to establish girls' choirs in English cathedrals.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

    Deaf Students
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether deaf students will be counted as disabled students for the purpose of loan repayments.

    Mr. Jackson
    Subject to Parliament's approval, the Education (Student Loans) Regulations provide that, in determining a borrower's income for the purpose of deferment, no account shall be taken of specific disability-related benefits. While there is no separate provision for deaf borrowers, those who do receive these disability-related benefits will have them disregarded in the assessment of their income. Eligible deaf students will benefit while they are studying from the new disabled students' allowance announced on 19 March.

    Under-fives
    Ms. Armstrong
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the committee on policies for the under-fives will report; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    The committee of inquiry set up by my right hon. Friend's predecessor under my chairmanship is considering the quality of the educational experience of three and four-year-olds across various institutional settings. I expect to submit its report to my right hon. Friend during the summer.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money he estimates to have been saved by compulsory competitive tendering in education in each of the last five years.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    No such estimates have been made for education, since the money saved by compulsory competitive tendering, and the scope for further savings, will vary between local education authorities depending on their circumstances.

    Haberdashers' Aske's Schools, Deptford
    Ms. Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will take steps to ensure that during periods when the schools are in session, any visits by his officials or other persons instructed by his Department to the Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Deptford, for purposes of conducting surveys or other works in connection with the establishment of a city technology college, will take place only at times expressly agreed by the head teacher of each school;
    183
    (2) what were the dates and purposes of the visits by his officials, or other persons instructed by his Department, to the Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Deptford; and whether they were conducted at times agreed with the local education authority and head teacher of each school.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    This Department has agreed to provide advice to the Haberdashers' Company in relation to the establishment of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college. It is for the project director employed by the Haberdashers' Company to make the appropriate arrangements, in consultation with the local education authority and the head teachers of both schools, for any necessary visits to the schools. The most recent visits made by officials, on 18 and 24 May, were arranged in this way.

    Lorne Felgate
    Mr. Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received the appeal in respect of Lorne Felgate of Gunners road, Shoeburyness, Essex in relation to the educational provision for his dyslexic condition; when he hopes to come to a decision; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    My right hon. Friend received the appeal on 22 May 1989. He hopes to be in a position to make a decision shortly.

    Assisted Places
    Mr. Day
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to improve publicity for the assisted places scheme.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Schools participating in the scheme take the lead in publicising its benefits and the availability of places locally, but my right hon. Friend's recent announcement of an expansion of the scheme, in areas of lower provision, has heightened considerably public awareness of assistance available.

    Special Educational Needs
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make regulations under section 13 of the Education Act 1981 relating to the approval of independent schools to admit pupils with statements of special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    The Department has today issued for consultation draft regulations and a related circular which would lay down requirements in this respect. A copy has been placed in the Library.

    Teacher Vetting
    Mr. Pawsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many outstanding applications there are for vetting teachers; and how many there were six months ago;
    184
    (2) what is the total number of teacher vetting requests his Department has received since the inception of the scheme;

    (3) what is the longest period a local education authority has waited for the results of a teacher vetting application.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    The Department does not handle vetting requests on behalf of local education authorities. The checks are made by local authorities directly with their local police force.

    Departmental Savings
    Mr. Rooker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations;

    (2) 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.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The Department constantly monitors expenditure on its administration to ensure that value for money is achieved. To this end, the Department makes use of a range of formal and informal mechanisms including surveys, policy reviews, organisation and methods studies, staffing reviews and other monitoring arrangements. The improvements resulting from all such inquiries and studies are taken into account in the setting of annual budgets and internal targets. Audit arrangements are concerned principally with securing adequate financial controls, but wherever audit work has shown opportunities for securing value-for-money savings the relevant recommendations have been implemented. The results are not collected centrally within the Department.

    Meningitis
    Mr. Knapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what public resources were committed through the Medical Research Council for research into meningitis in 1988–89; and what is the figure for 1990–91.

    Mr. Jackson
    [holding answer 11 June 1990]: Expenditure on research into meningitis during the 1988–89 financial year was £161,000. The Medical Research Council is always prepared to consider soundly based proposals for research and the figure for 1990–91 will depend on the number of successful applications submitted.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Baron Soulsby of Swaffham Prior
Ernest Jackson Lawson Soulsby, Esquire, having been created Baron Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, of Swaffham Prior in the County of Cambridgeshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Kimball and the Baroness Blatch.

European Community: Fraud
2.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the resources at present available to detect and prosecute EC fraud affecting the United Kingdom.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, yes, but the situation is of course kept under review. The Government are particularly conscious of the need to ensure that, in allocating scarce resources, high priority is given to combating fraud and irregularities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Will the recent report from the European Court of Auditors help? That drew attention to particular incidents. Is it possible to ensure that prosecutions are not started without supporting evidence so that they do not collapse like the case last month at Winchester?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, we welcome the report of the Court of Auditors on export refunds. We will look at it carefully. We have already taken some action to cover the deficiencies that were identified with regard to the United Kingdom.
On the second point that my noble friend raises, it is of course a fact that there might be a lot of evidence, but at the end of the day it is a question for the judge and jury on the weight of the evidence.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that this is a matter of the utmost gravity? Will he say what response he received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he approached him after I last raised the matter in the House on 30th April? Is not a White Paper giving the country and Parliament some idea of the range of the problem and the steps being taken by Her Majesty's Government to deal with it now very necessary as we approach 1992 and all the problems involved in that?
Can the noble Earl say whether the Government have in mind to set up a supra-national agency to
148
deal with this, as was indicated some months ago by Mr. Peter Brooke when he held his previous office?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition on the importance of the subject. I discussed the possibility of a White Paper with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are still considering the matter and a decision has not been taken. However, there is a great deal of evidence in front of everybody at the moment. It is important to remember that this problem cannot be solved by the United Kingdom alone; it is a matter not only for all other member states but also for every country in the world that benefits from trade.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the funding for the special fraud unit is now almost double the funding for the Court of Auditors? Is it not rather a matter of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted? Would not the right answer be to give increased funding and powers to the Court of Auditors?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a question which the noble Baroness has asked me before. If I remember rightly, it is something that we might consider if there is a second IGC, which has still yet to be decided at the forthcoming meeting of foreign affairs Ministers.
Lord Boyd-Carptenter: My Lords, can my noble friend quantify the loss to the United Kingdom over the last year or two as a result of these frauds?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. It is extremely difficult not only to assess the level of fraud but also the amount of the loss. In 1989 13,206 cases were dealt with by the intervention board and Customs.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I must apologise for being absent while the noble Earl gave his initial Answer. Have his replies taken into account the devastating report produced by the National Audit Office and published last Thursday? It stated:
"Failure of an element of the Board's accounting systems temporarily prevented effective debt management and the UK currently faces a potential disallowance of £1.3 million in respect of uncollected and aged debts".
Will the Minister say whether this report as a whole has been taken into account and whether action will be taken upon it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the report to which the noble Lord refers has been taken into account. We shall study it very closely.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the auditors' report has been discussed in the European Council?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. As a result of an initiative by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the report was put on

149
the agenda for discussion at ECOFIN yesterday. It was duly discussed and some useful presidency conclusions were agreed by everyone. It was agreed that a working party under the heads of representatives in Brussels should be set up to report both to the Agriculture Council and to ECOFIN ministers as soon as possible in view of the urgent nature of the report. I shall be at Strasbourg tomorrow to continue the good work of the United Kingdom's initiative.
Lord Benson: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the past 16 months there have been no less than three reports? There was the Select Committee report of 21st February 1989, the Court of Auditors report of 5th April 1990 and the report of the National Audit Office issued last week on 5th June. All the reports draw attention to numerous examples of failure to detect and prosecute fraud in the United Kingdom. Will the noble Earl be good enough to tell the House what machinery is in post or is proposed to clear up these deficiencies in administration?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there have been three reports in the recent past. I am sure the noble Lord agrees with me that there has never been such an intensive effort on this matter within Europe as has occurred during the past 12 months. We agree that that is not enough, however. We know that every country has a lot to do, and we know that the Commission has a lot to do to put its house in order. However, we have taken action and we shall continue to study the reports. Where there is a need to take further action we shall do so.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions
2.55 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, carbon dioxide emissions are directly related to fuel consumption. The Government already encourage motorists to keep fuel economy in mind and we are considering whether further measures are appropriate. We are also awaiting proposals from the European Commission.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have two questions for the noble Viscount. First, is he aware that on 30th April the Secretary of State for Transport declared to a conference held by the Worldwide Fund for Nature that no substantial reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles could be expected over the next 20 years? Does that not suggest a conflict in policy between the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment? Secondly, will the noble Viscount tell the House why the British Government have chosen the year 2005 as a target for stabilising emissions whereas the rest of Europe, except for Spain, has chosen the year 2000?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I was not at the conference to which the noble Lord refers. However, if that is the estimate of my right honourable friend I have no reason to quarrel with him or to differ from him. As regards the second part of the question, the Government are taking a realistic view of what is achievable by the year 2005.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does not the first Answer of my noble friend clearly indicate that the amount of carbon dioxide produced by any vehicle driven by oil or petrol depends on how it is driven? Will the Government consider including within the Highway Code advice on minimising the production of CO2 if I send them some suggestions?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I look forward to hearing the suggestions of my noble friend. We have urged the Commission to look into ways of reducing CO2 emissions from vehicles and it is now committed to doing so. Meanwhile CO2 emissions can be minimised by improving fuel consumption. We urge motorists to keep fuel economy in mind. Smooth, careful driving and good regular vehicle maintenance are the key.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles could be minimised by diverting more passengers to public transport with its larger carrying capacity? Does he further agree that that should be part of government policy?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I look forward to hearing the noble Lord advise me how I can divert people from private cars to public transport.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, are the Government still involved in the development of the lean burn engine as well as the catalytic converter? The Minister will be aware that perhaps the best way of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from internal combustion engines is a combination of the two. Have the Government made any effort to discuss with governments of other countries ways of encouraging the production of smaller cars? One feels that large cars which mostly carry single individuals must be wasteful.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government recognise that the lean burn engine is one of several technologies that can show improved fuel efficiency and thus lower CO2 emissions. We are keeping a close eye on efforts in the motor industry to develop lean burn engines that would also be able to meet the emission standards for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen that have been set for the European Community. As regards small cars, the Government are looking at that matter, at the moment.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government recommend the tuning of engines for maximum efficiency? Will he also confirm that, most regrettably, catalytic converters and "green" petrol provide fewer miles to the gallon and, therefore, greater discharges of

151
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for any given distance?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not the scientist that my noble friend is, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport disclosed in an interview in the Independent of 8th June some of the ideas he is considering for controlling CO2 emissions from road transport. One of those, the MOT testing of vehicle emissions, has already been agreed with the Prime Minister and other colleagues.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that one measure which is certain not to persuade more people to use public transport is the building of more and larger roads? Is he aware that county councils up and down the country and his own department propose huge capital expenditure on roads which will simply attract more private traffic? Would it not be better if that money was spent on providing a proper infrastructure for public transport, both in town and elsewhere?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that goes rather wide of the Question. If all road-building were to stop, congestion would continue to increase and accidents and pollution would increase with it. One cannot just wish a problem away. The department would be overwhelmed by people who have been waiting years for bypasses and now see their hopes dashed. I cannot agree with the noble Lord.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, when the noble Viscount said that the Government are keeping a close eye on the development of lean burn engines, what exactly did he mean? Are they offering inducements for the development of such engines or is there some other way of keeping a close eye on the matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is only one way of keeping a close eye on it, and that is keeping a close eye on it. I said that we were keeping a close eye on developments.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would it be possible for the Government at least to consider having talks with the larger district councils, the metropolitan boroughs and the London boroughs to see what can be done to improve standards of public transport and so make a contribution to easing the problem?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question, but it is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that animals such as cattle produce one-third of the total carbon dioxide emissions within the global system and that it would be rather more difficult to cope with that problem than with the motor car?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think that I can answer that question.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Viscount says that the British Government have asked the European Commission to look at the matter. Is it not a fact that the environment commissioner has stated that the year 2000 is the very latest by which carbon dioxide emissions should be stabilised and that the British Government have disagreed with him? If the noble Viscount is looking for means of improving public transport, will he consider transferring the £2·8 billion subsidy allocated to company cars each year to improving public transport facilities?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I believe that that last question amounts almost to a record for being wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is wide of the Question. The Government are committed to applying strict European Community standards. We understand that the Commission has now proposed a consolidated directive on emissions of the regulated pollutants but we still await the final text. The directive will require catalysts for all types of cars from 1992. It will set standards for evaporative emissions and will introduce an extra urban driving cycle into the test procedure. I have already answered the point about the difference between the year 2005 and the year 2000 by saying that the Government are taking a realistic view of what is achievable.

Inflation: Policy
3.04 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will achieve their declared intention of zero inflation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government remain firmly committed to the defeat of inflation. Tight monetary and fiscal policies will ensure that inflation falls from its current level.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister accept that we on this side of the House appreciate that the Government have reduced inflation? They have reduced it from 10.3 per cent. in 1979 to 9.4 per cent. in May 1990. It has taken only 11 years to reduce it by 0.9 per cent.! As high interest rates have now been in operation since 1988 and are affecting inflation at the same rapid rate, will the Government stop talking nonsense about zero inflation and look at the way in which other countries are successfully tackling inflation without relying solely on high interest rates?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will be keen to know that for much of the 1980s the UK inflation rate was below that of

153
the Community average. The noble Lord will also be pleased to know that at ECOFIN yesterday everybody said that tight monetary policy—meaning high interest rates—to counteract inflation and a tight fiscal policy were the two ways of improving the stuation.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, would it not help if, by way of example, some of those who are exceedingly well paid stopped taking enormous increases in salary every year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is indeed a link between unearned wage costs and inflation. However, there is a much greater and longer link between unemployment and higher wage costs.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, did the noble Earl imply that some of the increases which chairmen and directors of public companies have awarded themselves are unearned?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I did not imply that at all, as the noble Lord knows full well.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware of, or if he is not will he promise to read, the recent publication by Kleinwort Benson Securities, one of the Government's most loyal supporters in the City, which shows that the largest single element producing an increase in inflation in the past year—a third of the total—is induced by the Government's own actions in raising prices? Will he tell the House how he reconciles the Government's actions in raising prices with their rhetoric about reducing inflation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have not read the docuent to which the noble Lord referred. Therefore it is difficult for me to answer the question because it was rather general. However, I shall be happy to try to do so when I have a moment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it lies in the Government's own hands to bring a substantial and immediate reduction in the annual rate of inflation, at least to the extent of 3.2 per cent. which is by no means negligible? Is he aware that they could do so if they decided to reduce value added tax from its current 15 per cent. to the rate of 8 per cent. which applied when they took office?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be possible to reduce inflation by the means that the noble Lord suggested. It is the first time that I have heard anybody on those Benches suggest a tax cut.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl should be aware that this subject was dealt with by the Minister for the Department of Trade and Industry on 9th June 1988 when he confirmed the reduction of the figure by 3·2 per cent. Does the Minister agree that that is not negligible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have never said that it was negligible. As the noble Lord's party
154
is, always has been and will continue to be intent on raising taxes and therefore raising inflation—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Caithness:—it is interesting to hear the noble Lord put forward a proposition for reducing it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, bearing in mind the last question which came from the Front Bench opposite, does my noble friend understand that the official policy of the Opposition now is to reduce VAT from 15 per cent. to 8 per cent.? Ought he not to ask them to explain how they will make up the leeway to finance all the other measures that have been promised?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend certainly has a very valid point and some very valid questions if one is to believe that that is the policy of noble Lords opposite. I do not believe that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if the noble Earl wishes to carry that logic to its extreme, is he aware that we on this side of the House would be happy to replace him on that side of the House in order that Questions may be put to us?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is clear from the way that the Labour Party presents its policies that it will do anything to try to sit on this side of the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, far from reducing taxation for the many, the Government have increased taxation for the many while reducing it for the few?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong on those figures. Taxation has been dramatically reduced under this Government. The one factor that he does not take into account is the consequences of the high borrowing which the noble Lord's party instigated.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when the noble Earl and his noble friends turn to this side of the House and ask about our policy, is it not the case, and will he not face up to the fact, that we have the worst inflation of all our competitors in Europe, the highest interest rates, the lowest growth rate and the largest trade deficit? When will the noble Earl and his noble friends get out of cloud-cuckoo-land and deal wih those problems properly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the first four questions of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is, no. I believe his figures to be wrong and not justified by those that were given to me by the Commission yesterday at ECOFIN. With regard to the fifth question, the situation is being remedied by a tight monetary and fiscal policy.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that, over 10 years ago, they were elected on a promise of cutting taxes and that the average

155
person in this country currently pays more in taxation now through income tax, VAT, poll tax and national insurance than he paid 11 years ago? When will the Government fulfil their promise of over 11 years ago?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong. He includes various assumptions which are not taxes. They are not and have not been classified as such. We have dramatically reduced the tax burden for people in this country because, what we have paid for, we have paid for out of taxes, not by high borrowing.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is some danger of the next general election campaign peaking too early?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to bring us back to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is at least considerable evidence that the high interest rate policy is not working as satisfactorily as the Government think it is? In those circumstances, will he give the House an assurance that the Government are at least thinking about the possibility of other ways of restraining inflation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we use a tight monetary policy to reduce inflation. That has been the proven way and the way accepted by everyone in the Community. That is backed by a tight fiscal policy which buttresses a tight monetary policy.

NHS Costs of Treatment of EC Nationals
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that money refunded by EC member states to the United Kingdom in respect of medical treatment received is returned to the district health authorities concerned.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, following consultations and as part of the implementation of the National Health Service review, the Government have decided that from 1st April 1991 providers of hospital care in Great Britain will be reimbursed for the actual cost of the treatment of EC nationals as in-patients or at out-patient clinics. That is facilitated by the new contractual system.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. Is she aware that it has been discouraging for staff at some of our expert units, such as liver units, when they have not seen the rewards of their work and that they need every encouragement and money to support their much needed units?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, although the cost of treating patients from European Community member states is met by the health authorities and any moneys received in respect of that treatment from those states is retained in central funds and the health authorities are not therefore currently reimbursed for the treatment that they provide for overseas visitors, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that neither are they charged for treatment provided overseas for UK nationals from their catchment areas.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much we on this side of the House welcome the Minister's announcement. Will she tell us roughly the size of the sum involved and why it has taken all this time to move away from a system that was disadvantageous to the district health authorities?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said in my original response, those arrangements have been the subject of consultation which has had to take place with the territorial health departments as well as with the National Health Service. The service will be consulted further on the detailed working arrangements. Because of the current system, the number of treatments and the costs of treatment are not known precisely, so exact figures are difficult to provide. Our best estimate is that about £9 million per annum will be required in all.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is excellent that we have some of the best specialising services which we can offer to other EC countries and that they want to come to us?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. We are fortunate in that other countries wish to refer their patients to this country for specialised treatment. I should add that not only does that happen under special arrangements and on the National Health Service, but that referrals are sometimes made for specific payment.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Minister advise the House what proportion of EC nationals treated in the National Health Service come here specifically for that treatment and what proportion receive treatment under the NHS because they are here for other reasons; for example, if they are on holiday or on business?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said earlier, it is difficult to give precise figures because of the nature of the current system. Clearly, that is particularly true of accident and emergency cases, which form part of the system. With the further costs of ward admissions, out-patient clinics and general practitioners, it is estimated that on balance the cost of treatment received by UK nationals overseas is slightly higher than the cost of treatment of EC nationals treated over here, so the balance is in our favour.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Committee stage of the Government Trading Bill will be taken.

Penzance South Pier Extension Bill
3.16 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [Petition for Bill]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I should give a brief explanation of the Motion. Under private business Standing Order No. 25, promoters of a Private Bill authorising the construction of a tramway must obtain the consent of the local authority of each area through which the tramway is to run. The promoters of the present Bill were unable to obtain the consent of Bristol City Council before they appeared in the usual way before the Examiner of Private Bills. For that reason the Examiner certified non-compliance with Standing Order No. 25 and the petition for the Bill was accordingly referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
The standing order, however, sets no time limit by which local authority consent must be obtained and a certificate has been deposited to the effect that the city council has now given its consent to the proposed Bill. The promoters are therefore now in a position to prove compliance with Standing Order No. 25 before the Examiner and, if your Lordships agree to this Motion, the proposed Bill will be duly referred back to the Examiners.
Moved, That the reference of the Examiner's Certificate to the Standing Orders Committee of 18th December last be discharged and that the Petition for the Bill be referred again to the Examiners.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there was resistance to this because local authorities in general are becoming increasingly angry it organisations by-passing the local planning authorities by promoting Private Bills in the other place is well as in your Lordships'. House? When shall we end this situation in which the local people literally have no say in such matters?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is a rather different question, which raises the whole position with regard to Private Bills. The fact of the matter in this case is that Bristol City Council have now agreed to this Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate, 20th June
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Viscount Caldecote set down for 20th June shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, that the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 6 [Transfer of staff to NHS trusts]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 7, line 18, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 72, 85 and 86. Our proposed arrangements for the transfer of staff from health authority to National Health Service trust employment are designed to ensure that staff interests are protected and that the transfer takes place with the minimum disruption for the staff concerned. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for staff to transfer to National Health Service trust employment with their terms and conditions of service intact and make various other protective measures.
These clauses deal with the vast majority of staff who transfer on the trust's operational date—that is, the date on which the trust takes on its full range of functions. However, a small number of key staff may need to transfer to trust employment earlier than that; that is, between a trust's establishment date and the operational date. Such staff will typically include the future chief officer of the trust and a few senior staff who are needed to carry out important preparatory work; for instance, negotiating National Health Service contracts and preparing for the transfer of staff and the ownership by the trust of its own assets.
Clauses 6 and 7 do not extend to staff who transfer to trust employment before the operational date. The purpose of these amendments is therefore to ensure that such staff receive the same protection as all other National Health Service trust staff will enjoy on transfer. We believe that these amendments will provide a very reassuring measure of statutory protection to the small number of people concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals:My Lords, I welcome these amendments as far as they go but they do not really go very far. As Amendments Nos. 74, 75 and 79 seek to tackle the problems touched on by the Government's amendments, I think it will be best to leave the arguments until those amendments are proposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 7, line 42, at end insert:
("(4A) In any case where—

(a) an order under section 5(1) above provides for the establishment of an NHS trust with effect from a date earlier than the operational date of the trust. and

(b) on or after that earlier date but before its operational date the NHS trust makes an offer of employment by the trust to a person who at that time is employed by a health authority to work solely at, or for the purposes of, the hospital or other establishment or facility which is to become the responsibility of the trust, and

(c) as a result of the acceptance of the offer, the person to whom it was made becomes an employee of the NHS trust, subsections (3) and (4) above shall have effect in relation to that person's contract of employment as if any reference in those subsections to the operational date of the trust were a reference to the date on which he takes up employment with the trust.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No 74:
Leave out Clause 6 and insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of employees from Health Authorities to NHS trusts

.—(1) In connection with arrangements relating to NHS trusts made by virtue of this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the transfer to employment by an NHS trust of persons previously employed by a Health Authority.

(2) Regulations made under this section may also make provision with respect to the return to employment by a Health Authority of a person to whom the regulations previously applied on his transfer (whether from that or another Health Authority) to employment by a NHS trust.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2) above, regulations under this section may make provision as to—

(a) the terms on which a person is to be employed by an NHS trust;

(b) the period and continuity of a person's employment for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;

(c) superannuation benefits;

(d) the circumstances in which, when a person ceases to be employed by a Health Authority or NHS trust, he is not to be regarded as entitled to benefits in connection with redundancy.

(4) In this section —

(a) "Health Authority" means a Regional, District or Special Health Authority; and

(b) "NHS trust" has the same meaning as in section 5 above.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston—for this purpose he and I are the same person—and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Robson of Kiddington and Lady Cox. This is an extremely important amendment, as is shown by the
160
breadth of its sponsorship. Because it is so important, it will inevitably take a little time to present the case.
The new clause is concerned with the terms and conditions of employment of those staff transferred to self-governing trusts. The clause mirrors almost exactly Clause 50, which the Government inserted into the Bill during the Committee stage. The new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the transfer of staff and also allows him to make regulations as to the terms and conditions under which they might be employed. Clause 50 already makes identical provision for the transfer of staff between health authorities and local authorities.
If the Government do not accept this new clause, they will be leaving an inexplicable anomaly in the Bill whereby some staff transferred from health authorities have statutory protection whereas others do not, dependent on where they are being transferred. That is a very unsatisfactory situation. It simply will not do.
The new clause is a very modest one. In a sense it is far too modest for the liking of those who have their names attached to it. It does not guarantee the maintenance of a system of national pay and conditions for staff in a National Health Service trust. We want to do that but we want to have an amendment that the Government will accept. The clause gives the Secretary of State reserve powers to regulate trust employment if necessary. It would allow but not require the Secretary of State to instruct trusts to follow the recommendations of the pay review bodies, for example, or the Whitley Council. At the very least the new clause would provide a safety net for trust employees to prevent any bad employment practices.
Under the Bill staff working for a hospital or other unit which becomes self-governing will automatically have their terms of employment transferred to the new trust. Although such staff will be transferred with their existing terms and conditions of employment, there will be no duty on the trust to maintain such conditions. As things now stand it would be perfectly possible for a trust to terminate all contracts and replace them with new ones, negotiated either individually or collectively with their staff. That is grossly unsatisfactory.
As part of the new contracts, trusts would be entirely free to set aside previous arrangements such as clinical grading for nursing staff. Indeed, a whole range of employment conditions in relation to nursing staff might be subject to change by trusts. For instance, the system of clinical grading for nursing staff was introduced in April 1988. The introduction of the system remains one of the Government's most notable contributions towards the development of nursing and was warmly welcomed at the time by the Royal College of Nursing. For the first time nurses have pay scales aimed at rewarding clinical expertise and responsibility. It has been a great step forward.
Against that background it seems all the more unusual that the Government should jeopardise clinical grading at the very time that the storm

161
surrounding its implementation may be subsiding and the Government at long last are able to reap its rewards. Are the Government prepared to see their initiative on clinical grading undermined and conceivably made redundant by self-governing trusts which decide to set aside these arrangements? Trusts may wish to depart from the clinical grading arrangements possibly for use of the new education grades and will probably want to exclude managers from the scope of collective bargaining. A more casual approach to grading arrangements could also lead to a dilution of the skill mix.
So far as concerns pay rates, nursing staff pay is at present determined by an independent review body. The body was established in 1983 and makes recommendations with regard to nurses, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine. A further review body makes recommendations with respect to doctors and dentists. As I said, the establishment of the review body for nursing was warmly welcomed by the RCN as a very positive step. It is a fair system to determine fair rates of pay. More important, such a system avoids the kind of destructive conflict which can often plague direct confrontational pay negotiations. It was a great step forward.
The trusts will not be required to adopt pay rates as recommended by the review body. Indeed, any significant move away from NHS grading would make it difficult for them to do so. We discussed this matter briefly last Thursday on the first day of Report. Certainly it can only undermine the role of the review body, with the danger that nursing will be plunged into the same kind of chaos as was recently experienced within the ambulance service.
The arguments apply across many other important issues: leave and allowances, sick pay, maternity pay, premature retirement benefits and other Whitley Council agreements as well as representational rights. In short, without going into detail, by allowing self-governing trusts completely to disregard adjusting arrangements for nursing pay and conditions, the Government would undermine many of their own positive initiatives in this field, often introduced at great cost to themselves politically and financially.
On staff mobility, a departure by trusts from NHS pay arrangements will render it more difficult for staff to move between trust and health authority employment. They will be very reluctant to do so. Currently staff mobility within the NHS and the nursing profession is high and brings a variety of benefits. The flow of qualified, skilled nurses, as with consultants, has been altered over the past few decades to ensure an availability of those skills throughout the country. If a series of élite centres of excellence emerge under the guise of self-governing hospital trusts, and if those are able to set their own pay and conditions, it is likely that they will draw towards them a great deal of the talent and excellence which is currently more evenly dispersed around the country.
In consequence high quality staff are drawn away from other hospitals and the National Health Service suffers. Variation in wages would make it less likely that a nurse, having benefited from the experience
162
of a centre of excellence, would feel inclined to return to other parts of the service to spread that knowledge and experience. If the labour flows are towards the self-governing hospitals, it would mean a return to pre-1948 problems. Straying from nationally agreed pay scales would lead to serious distortions in the NHS labour market where trusts top up or, more likely, undercut salaries. To allow self-governing trusts to determine their own pay and conditions would undermine the Government's aim of introducing competition into the health service. Trusts that were able to determine their own rates of pay completely would have an unfair advantage over their DHA-managed neighbours who abide by national agreements.
By squeezing staff benefits, a self-governing trust would be able to undercut a directly managed unit which maintains fair remuneration for staff. Even if it so wished, a directly managed unit would be unable to respond. The competition would be unfair and, I believe, damaging to the service.
The new clause would minimise such unfair competition. By allowing the Secretary of State powers to regulate terms and conditions offered by trusts, a level playing field would be maintained. That would be to the long-term benefit of management, staff and patients.
It will be no surprise to the Government that the amendment has been drafted following close consultation with the principal professions working in the National Health Service. It is a matter that they have considered very deeply for many months since the government proposal came forward. In view of the fact that the Government accepted this same principle when they introduced it at Committee stage—Clause 50—I hope that they will decide to take the same attitude on this proposal which so closely resembles it. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I rise to indicate how strongly I support the amendment. I shall not repeat the arguments put so comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals: perhaps, however, I may highlight some of the implications of the situation for the nursing profession of which I have most personal experience. I do not believe the examples to be inappropriate. I am not undertaking special pleading but I believe that in so far as nurses represent the largest group of employees in the National Health Service, the implications for the profession and in particular for the provision of high quality care throughout the National Health Service are extremely serious.
I shall highlight two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. The effects of clinical grading are potentially very serious. One of the most constructive contributions that the Government have made to the morale, the standing and the effective operation of the nursing profession has been the introduction and agreement of a clinical grading structure. It has been widely welcomed. Its significance is that it enables qualified, experienced nurses to stay, at the patient's bedside, or in clinical care in the community, in clinical positions. Prior

163
to the clinical grading structure and its associated pay scales, nurses used to reach a ceiling, in terms of clinical posts, which was very low indeed. One could meet experienced nurses in charge of intensive care units or in the community who had been in post for many years and who had been stuck at a senior salary which was outrageously low taking into account their experience and responsibilities.
The clinical grading structure has allowed nurses to be paid in a way commensurate with their experience, responsibilities and contribution. No longer do they have to move out of the clinical field into either education or management if they wish to enjoy a salary increase. Any provision that jeopardises that important principle and profoundly important development in the nursing profession is a serious matter. I oppose very strongly and passionately on principle any possible danger to the clinical grading structure.
I shall not amplify the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. He has mentioned the significance of pay review bodies. That is another contribution made by the Government in recent years and warmly welcomed by the profession. It would be very sad indeed if the principle of the pay review body were to be in any way jeopardised.
I wish finally to touch on the problems involved in the provision of a comprehensive system of high quality health care throughout the National Health Service. The commitment to the National Health Service by so many people is related to the principle of that service; namely, ensuring that high quality health care, free at the point of need on a comprehensive basis, is universally available throughout the country. In so far as the implications of the Government's proposal might jeopardise that commitment, they are very serious.
One consideration is the freedom of the trusts to offer different pay scales which might well attract staff from related hospitals in the district. Those hospitals might be left very short of staff in areas where there are already acute staff shortages such as intensive care units, special care baby units and some areas of care for the elderly. The amendment is designed to provide a fallback, a safeguard. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, the proposal is modest. It does not interfere with the freedom of trusts to establish their own working arrangements unless they do so in a way that will be detrimental to staff and/or to the operation of the National Health Service. In those circumstances there must surely be provision for safeguards. The amendment allows those to be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It could not be more minimal. It is essential if the staff working for the NHS are to be reassured and the fundamental principles of the National Health Service are to be protected.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly in support of the amendment which also stands in my name. Let me assure your Lordships that it is not another attempt to try to require the Government to impose nationally agreed salary scales for all grades of staff within self-governing hospital trusts. That is a matter to which my
164
profession, in its majority view, has attached great importance.
However, when the matter was considered in Committee and at an earlier stage on Report, it was quite clear that the Government had a very strong view. We did not press the point to a Division last Thursday.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, the new clause is much more modest in its aims and objectives. It does not guarantee the maintenance of a system of national pay and conditions of staff in NHS trusts but simply gives the Secretary of State reserve powers to regulate such trust employment if that is thought to be necessary. It would allow, but not require, the Secretary of State to instruct trusts to follow the recommendations of pay review bodies and of the Whitley Council. Therefore, it allows a greater degree of flexibility but gives a substantial degree of protection to individuals working in the National Health Service in all professions who will transfer from NHS employment to the employment of self-governing trusts. For that reason I warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I too warmly support the amendment. I shall not speak for more than one minute because the case was more than adequately put by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Walton. One of the most important functions of the amendment is that it will help to keep the mobility of labour within the service. Inevitably National Health Service trusts will be dealing with the acute section of the service. It will be increasingly difficult to staff the caring services such as community nursing. It is essential that such a provision is inserted in the Bill.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I wish to take a contrary view and explain why I oppose the amendment. I give as an illustration a certain district health authority which had more than 200 people employed in its finance department. To be fair to those people, not one had a financial qualification and not one was paid adequately. That was probably why the finances of that health authority were in such a mess.
If 40 people had been employed in the finance department, each of whom was paid four times as much, the right calibre of people would have been obtained. Furthermore, there would have been a saving of £400,000. It is essential that local pay should be locally determined. It is also essential that we break free of national agreements and set up a service which is better orientated to serve the patients. I believe that the amendment should be rejected.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that, although the amendment may have been presented as being modest, it is unnecessary. Provision is already made in the Bill to ensure that staff who transfer from health authority to National Health Service trust employment do so with all their contractual rights intact. Similarly, statutory continuity of service which governs redundancy and

165
unfair dismissal rights and compensation, will also be preserved. That means that their service with their present employer and the trust will be continuous. Any trust will think twice before terminating all contracts in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Any changes to existing contractual arrangements must be negotiated.
Your Lordships will know that the terms and conditions of employment for the majority of NHS staff are negotiated in the national Whitley Councils. The Whitley agreements provide for the service of staff who move between health authorities without a break to count for various contractual benefits such as annual and sick leave and redundancy pay. Any necessary changes to Whitley agreements to give that effect will be for the managements of the Whitley Councils to propose and I expect that some will do so. However, that is entirely a matter for them.
An important part of the greater freedom of NHS trusts—and it is a matter that we have consistently argued—will be the power to determine the terms and conditions of service for their staff, including pay, and to introduce changes in contracts of employment. The effect of the proposed new clause will undesirably restrict those freedoms.
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in discussing the general freedom of National Health Service trusts to set their own pay and conditions. Noble Lords have already agreed that in principle by endorsing Schedule 2 of the Bill. However, the amendment does not bite on those issues; indeed it achieves no more than is already provided in Clauses 6 and 7.
It will also be open for trusts to follow review body recommendations on the pay of nursing staff; the example particularly quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. However, it is right for trusts to have the freedom to design their pay systems to meet their needs. That flexibility will help and not hinder the development of the staff needed to provide high-quality care. As regards nursing and clinical grading, I believe that other arrangements will not be affected by the transfer.
If a National Health Service trust pays over the odds for staff it will soon find that it is unable to win contracts and so fund its staff. Therefore, in my view there is no danger of trusts "sucking staff—an expression used by my noble friend Lady Cox—into employment to the detriment of the directly-managed sector.
Existing staff who transfer to National Health Service trusts will be able to remain in the National Health Service superannuation scheme and new staff will be eligible for scheme membership. Staff not wishing to join will be free to make their own arrangements.
I hope that I have made the case that the provisions in the Bill before your Lordships already contain sufficient safeguards to protect staff. At the same time they provide the freedoms which are the essence of the future of the National Health Service trusts. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. She said that the new clause is
166
unnecessary and that those being transferred will be transferred with all their contactual rights. Surely she accepts that any trust can terminate such agreements instantly. Therefore, the rights that employees are taking with them can instantly be removed. I do not understand how she can say that the clause is unneccessary to protect the rights of those being transferred.
Secondly, the Government must have had that thought in mind when in Committee they introduced Clause 50. That established the same principles for those transferred between health and local authorities. Why did the Government believe that it was right to do so between those authorities but not right to do so between the two authorities mentioned in the new clauses?
Thirdly, the Minister said that we shall not enter into an argument about whether it is good that NHS trusts should be totally free to scrap any national agreements reached by Whitley Councils, review bodies for nurses, doctors and dentists or whatever. What consultation was there between the Government and the medical profession, the Government and the RCN, and the Government and the professions allied to medicine? All those bodies were involved in the statement which was introduced and collectively published about three months ago. What consultation was there? Can the Minister tell me whether any of the principal professions affected by the Government's decision agreed with her? What makes her think that any of them agreed with her? What makes her think that in relation to pay levels for those professionals the Government know better than them? Can the Minister answer those questions?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord asked, why Clause 50 and not his amendment? Clause 50 is necessary because the provisions of Clauses 6 and 7, which cover the position foreseen by the noble Lord's amendment, do not apply to the transfer covered by them.
As regards consultation, the noble Lord knows very well the history of the matter and the fact that the Government's proposals which were originally made in the White Paper have been welcomed on some although not on all fronts.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it was this particular front about which I was asking.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is one of the many fronts on which there have been considerable discussion and frequent meetings with representatives of the medical profession. I believe that even in your Lordships' House there are members of the medical profession who welcome this aspect of our proposals.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. One of her supporters is the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who gave an example of quite extraordinary incompetence by a health authority which seemed to me to be quite irrelevant to the new clause which we are seeking to persuade the Government to accept. None of us in his right

167
mind would justify the sort of nonsense described by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in which there is a grossly inflated financial department. He knows that one of our fears about this Bill is that it will require health authorities to have grossly inflated finance departments and teams of accountants which they do not have at present and which we do not wish them to have. That is the basis of some of our criticism.
The Minister has said nothing to satisfy the movers of this amendment and I wish to test the feeling of the House.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 132.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Alport, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Marsh, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cox, B.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hampton, L.

Somers, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stallard, L.

Hayter, L.

Stedman, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Varley, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kearton, L.

Willis, L.

Kennet, L.

Winstanley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

168

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Kimball, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Allerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Layton, L.

Annaly, L.

Lindsay, E.

Arran, E.

Liverpool, E.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Luke, L.

Beloff, L.

Lurgan, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blake, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Manton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Moyne, L.

Chelmer, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Onslow, E.

Cross, V.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Shannon, E.

Elton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Slim, V.

Foley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fortescue, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stafford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathspey, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Terrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Havers, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hood, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 75.
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
(" . No provision in this Act relating to NHS trusts shall prevent a person's employment being deemed to be continuous within the NHS for contractual purposes so long as that person

169
pursues uninterrupted employment by any health service body as defined under section 4(2) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have just debated and voted on Amendment No. 74. I have the pleasure of moving Amendment No. 75. It is quite different in context from the previous amendment, which dealt with issues laid down in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Amendment No. 75 deals with the contract arrangements within the NHS that do not have the same statutory powers as those discussed under Amendment No. 74.
The new clause will ensure that NHS staff transferring to trusts retain continuity of employment should they subsequently seek employment elsewhere in the NHS. Although NHS staff transferring between different health authorities at present are not deemed to be continuously employed by the NHS for statutory purposes, such continuity is granted for NHS contractual purposes. That means that if an employee has been working for one health authority for three, four or five years, and then moves across to another health authority for a further three, four or five years, those years are taken together as being continuous employment within the NHS. That gives the employee specific entitlements in respect of maternity, sickness and other benefits.
I understand—I stand to be corrected—that under the Bill any members of staff transferred to a trust who subsequently seek employment back in the NHS will lose their continuity of service. A nurse or any other employee may work for a number of years in the NHS, transfer to a trust and work for a number of years there—let us say 10 years—and then wish to transfer back into the NHS; all that long service will be discounted. I find that situation difficult to understand in view of the fact that the Government insist that NHS trusts are still part of the NHS.
Once a hospital or other unit has been granted trust status the majority of staff in that hospital will be automatically transferred into the NHS trust with little say regarding whether or not they wish to be transferred. If they leave, their long service will be discontinued. Bearing in mind that in many cases they may not have had the chance to be consulted regarding the change of their employer, it is wrong that they should not have the right of continuity of employment when they desire to move back into the general run of the NHS. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment both because of the problems that it adcresses and also the anxieties that those problems are already causing among National Health Service staff. Those anxieties are entirely understandable and are not part of the so-called scare-ongering which some Members of your Lordships' House sometimes suggest are fostered for political reasons.
I shall not repeat the fundamental arguments so cogently stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, but I will highlight for a moment some of the problems associated with involuntary change in conditions of service. One of the most acute of those problems relates to the mobility of staff.
170
Mobility of staff is important, if not essential, for professional carers. For example, junior hospital doctors have to change their jobs as frequently as every six months. It is highly desirable for nurses to gain experience through post-registration courses in different specialities; very often those courses are offered in different parts of the country. Nurses may have to move in order to obtain experience and qualifications in post-qualification areas; for example, in relation to special care baby unit nursing, intensive care or coronary care nursing. Nurses may also need to move from hospital to community settings in order to obtain a broader base of clinical experience.
The problems arising from lack of continuity of service will also exacerbate the already, in many places, desperately acute problems of recruitment and retention, particularly of nursing staff. The number of new recruits to nursing has fallen dramatically in some places. For example, a number of London teaching hospitals in recent years had to cancel entire intakes for some of their programmes because of a shortfall of suitably qualified applicants. Figures on vacancies show that in 1989 there were over 21,000 nursing posts unfilled, with nearly 11,500 unfilled for more than three months. Accounts of ward and unit closures due to shortages of nursing staff reflect the seriousness of those problems.
One of the ways of tackling the shortage of staff not only in nursing but in other areas in the National Health Service is to encourage staff who have left to return to the service. It is calculated that around 30,000 nurses leave the NHS every year. The Royal College of Nursing estimates that there is a pool of around 85,000 qualified nurses in the United Kingdom who are currently out of nursing. It is hoped to encourage many of those to return to practise, given favourable employment conditions.
The preservation of contractual employment continuity is clearly a matter of great importance in that context. Some reassurance by the Government on that important issue is needed as a matter of considerble urgency. I therefore wish to support the amendment in the strongest possible terms.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I support the amendment, which also carries my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Robson and Lady Cox, because they have put forward reasons that can hardly be refuted. When the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, speaks, she speaks from the depths of experience of a profession in the National Health Service, an experience that most of us do not possess.
I wish to consider two issues mentioned by the noble Baroness; the first is mobility. Mobility among nurses—it also applies to other professions—is very important in the gaining of wider experience. There have been great difficulties in encouraging an increasing number of nurses to move from hospital to community settings. That is important when considering continuity of service in the Bill.
The establishment of self-governing trusts without contractual continuity is likely to make it more difficult to encourage nurses to spread their skills throughout the health service or to gain broad-based

171
skills, especially those arising from care in the community. The inevitable emphasis on the acute sector within self-governing trusts will distort career patterns, it will shift the commitment of many nurses back to a medical and curative model and away from the more broad-based policy objectives adopted by nursing and health organisations in the past decade.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to skill shortages. At this stage and in the immediate future shortage of nursing skills sets the NHS an enormous challenge particularly with the problem of the reducing numbers in the generation from which nurses will be recruited. In order to recruit and retain sufficient nursing staff throughout the decade the National Health Service will need to prove itself a flexible and amenable employer. Breaking contractual continuity would seem to be heading in the wrong direction.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. My suspicion is that she will disagree with it, say that it is not necessary, or both. If that is the case, the Government are building up for themselves such resentment, such concerns and anxiety among the professions on whom the National Health Service depends for its success that they may live to rue the day. In fact, they certainly will rue the day. It is extremely unwise for the Government to continue on issue after issue to fly in the face of the professional skills and knowledge which are available in the country and especially in this House. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recognise the importance of mobility of service and that is why the Bill has made provision to protect staffs who move or intend to move in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
The effect of the amendment would be twofold, as has been said. First, trusts would be required to recognise service with health authorities for contractual purposes such as the calculation of annual sick leave. On that, I can only repeat my assurance that Clauses 6 and 7 provide for the transfer of staffs to NHS trusts with all their contractual rights intact. In that context, therefore, the amendment adds nothing because it means that service with a health authority will count towards contractual benefits.
It is important to draw a distinction between statutory continuity of employment, which governs rights such as appeal to industrial tribunals, and recognition of service for purposes such as the calculation of leave entitlement. There is no statutory continuity of employment between health authorities, nor will there be between authorities and trusts. However, the recognition of NHS service is laid down in Whitley Council handbooks. If amendments to those agreements and handbooks are needed to recognise service with a trust when an employee moves back to a health authority, that will be a matter for negotiation in the Whitley forum.
As I said on the previous amendment, an important part of the greater freedom of the proposed NHS trusts to conduct their own affairs
172
will be this power to determine the terms and conditions of service for their staffs. If a trust judges it necessary, it will therefore be free to negotiate changes to the relevant terms of the existing contracts at any time after transfer. Of course, any termination of a contract which has been suggested will be subject to redundancy and unfair dismissal rights. Nevertheless, once negotiations are completed and agreement is reached, if the staff continue in employment the question of recognition by NHS trusts of service with other NHS bodies will then be entirely a matter for the employing trust.
I have been dealing with the transfer from health authorities to NHS trusts but I now refer to where an employee chooses to move back to direct employment by health authorities. The amendment provides that health authorities would then be required to recognise service with trusts for similar purposes. Again, I must return to the point I made during our previous debate. Any necessary changes to Whitley agreements to give this effect will be not for us on this Bill but for the management sides of the Whitley councils to propose. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a matter for negotiation in the proper forum. On that basis I hope your Lordships will agree that this amendment is not necessary, and perhaps the noble Baroness will consider not pressing it.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply but I regret to say that it is not at all satisfactory. I cannot see why, according to the reply we have just been given, trusts will take account of service with the NHS prior to transfer to the trust, subject to any new agreements made with the staff, but where an employee leaves the trust and goes back into the NHS the same contractual security does not exist.
That contractual security has always existed between health authorities, and according to the Government an NHS trust is just another health authority. I should have thought that the same transfer of continuity of service should apply both ways. I am afraid that I am not happy with the Minister's reply and I must ask for the decision of the House.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 75) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 141.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Airedale, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Alport, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carter, L.

Birk, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blackstone, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Bottomley, L.

David, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Diamond, L.

173

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton. B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L

Monkswell, L.

Falkender, B.

Monson, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Moyne, L.

Foot, L

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Oram, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Halsbury, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Porritt, L.

Hanworth, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rea, L.

Hayter, L.

Richard, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Jacques, L.

Serota, B.

Jay, L.

Somers, L.

Jeger. .

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stedman, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kearton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennet L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Leatherland, L.

Varley, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Walpole, L.

Walston, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Lockwood, B.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Willis, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Allerton, L.

Elibank, L.

Ampthi, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Annaly, L.

Elles, B.

Arran, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Balfour, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Elton, L.

Beloff, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bessborough, E.

Foley, L.

Blake, L.

Fortescue, E.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boardman, L.

Gainford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brentford, V.

Gisborough, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Greenway, L.

Brooke orough, V.

Gridley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Caithness, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Havers, L.

Carnock, L.

Henley, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hesketh, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hives, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hood, V.

Cockfield, L.

Hooper, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cross, V.

Ingrow, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Derwen, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Kitchener, E.

Eccles, V.

Lauderdale, E.

174

Layton, L.

Quinton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Liverpool, E.

Reay, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Renton, L.

Long, V.

st. John of Fawsley, L.

Luke, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lyell, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sharpies, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mancroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Manton, L.

Slim, V.

Margadale, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stafford, L.

Mersey, V.

Strange, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathspey, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swinton, E.

Munster, E.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Norrie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Onslow, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Orkney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

wise, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wynford, L.

Pender, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.24 p.m.
Clause 9 [Originating capital debt of and other financial provisions relating to NHS trusts]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 9, line 39, after ("representing") insert ("subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 87 and 88. We have consistently made clear, both in published documents and in Committee debate on this Bill in another place, that it is the Government's intention that when assets which have been donated to the National Health Service since 1948 are transferred to a trust they should not be included in the calculation of the trust's originating capital debt and trusts should not be obliged to make a financial return on them. Rather, trusts and directly managed units should be able to use donated assets to benefit either specific groups of people, or NHS patients more widely, in line with the wishes of the donors.
These amendments will ensure that where such assets are transferred to an NHS trust the Secretary of State will be able to exclude them from the calculation of the originating capital debt. These amendments would put trusts on a similar footing to NHS units which remain under health authority management in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining what the amendments mean. I have been puzzling over them. I believe I am right in saying that she referred only to assets donated to the hospitals. I have the obvious question: why does the amendment not use the actual words "assets

175
donated"? When I read the amendments my concern was that Amendment No. 78 states:
"there shall be left out of account such assets … as are … determined for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State".
The amendment does not state what assets. My own notes in the margin ask "What assets and why?"
The noble Baroness has told us what assets and why, but the Bill does not say so. Though what she has said makes perfectly good sense, am I not right in saying that the amendment tabled will enable the Secretary of State to take any assets out of the original valuation? That is a power that the Secretary of State should not have because it is very important that, since the NHS trusts will be competing in the supply of contracts with other hospitals, their costings should be made on what is called a level playing field. All the accounts and costings should be done in exactly the same way.
I can see nothing here to prevent the Secretary of State, if he so wishes, from biasing the capital structure of the NHS trusts in their favour or against them. I emphasise that I am not opposed at all to what the noble Baroness has said. It is not clear to me that this amendment says what she wants it to say. Obviously, I will not divide the House on what is a technical amendment. However, it may be that the noble Baroness wishes to take the amendment away and reflect on it and then return with an amendment that actually says what she has just told your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I confirm that the noble Lord is correct in his assumption that this amendment does not specify donated assets. He is right to say that the reserve power could be used, if it were deemed sensible and if the particular circumstances were appropriate, to exclude other assets or liabilities.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Baroness explained what is meant by assets in this amendment, but she has not explained what is meant by liabilities. Can she give an example of a liability that will be disregarded?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can readily think of donated assets but I cannot think of a liability at the moment. Therefore, if there is confusion on that point we shall wait for a very quick example which may come from the Box, but, if not, I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that the noble Baroness has changed her answer, which was most cogent and acceptable. She now agrees that the amendment gives the Secretary of State much wider powers. The Minister said that the amendment was for a particular purpose and she did not say it was for any other. Does she insist on her broader answer? That is a matter of much greater seriousness when we come to study the operations of the trusts. In principle, and purely theoretically, once a provision
176
is in a Bill it can be used in practice. That could undermine the whole basis for the NHS trusts and non-trusts in the health service.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I say that I have not changed my answer but expanded it as a result of the question. I confirmed that the assumption made by the noble Lord was that there was a general power there which allowed the Secretary of State, in one-off cases and if particular circumstances were appropriate, to exclude other assets or liabilities. As a rule, they will be used only for donated assets.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 77 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 9, line 42, at end insert:
("(1A) In determining the originating capital debt of an NHS trust, there shall be left out of account such assets or, as the case may be, liabilities as are, or arc of a class, determined for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 79:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Transitional Period: special provisions

.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that this Act (or any part of it) is brought into force in a manner which is best calculated to promote economy and efficiency.

(2) Section 4 shall not be brought into force if—

(a) the Secretary of State has received representations from a significant number of health service bodies as defined under section 4 above against the principle of that section; and

(b) such an action would not promote economy and efficiency.

(3) Subsection (2) above shall cease to have effect after 31st March 1992.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the establishment of NHS trust and fund holding practices within the meaning of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the new clause standing in my name on the Marshalled List. There is at present a very great deal of confusion in the National Health Service about what will happen on 1st April 1991. When we discussed this earlier the Minister said that it would not be a big bang. However, I think that it will be quite a big bang. There will be very great difficulties and I have said this time and time again. I have said that the DHA managers will not be ready; that new communication procedures, together with service cuts, will create chaos; that maybe the Secretary of State is beginning to realise this because there is a great deal of very concerned evidence.
I do not know whether the Minister saw the leader in the Health Service Journal on 10th May. It reads:
"In an organisation as complex as the NHS there are many management styles and theories. The macho authoritarian school is doomed. Any scheme of change which does not carry the support of staff and public will not succeed."
Here is a case where the staff and the public have by no means been carried by the Government. Attitudes

177
have not moved one iota towards the Government in the past 15 months; in fact, just the opposite has occurred. Clearly the NHS reforms do not have the confidence of management, public or staff. Consequently managers must doubt their ability to deliver. Any who dismiss the public's concerns and say that they are ill-informed, and who resolutely believe that managers know best, should ask themselves whether they are not coming perilously close to fulfilling Bernard Shaw's description of a profession as a conspiracy against the laity. Managers exist to serve the public, not their own ends.
A lot of strange things have been happening. We have seen a very important general manager, Dr. Elaine Murphy, resign. She was general manager of the Lewisham and North Southwark authority in South London which includes Guy's Hospital. Though she broadly supports the Government's proposals, she resigned only two or three weeks ago in protest against the way in which changes were being made.
I saw in a report recently in the press that health service managers were told last weekend to put aside any idea of making big changes when the Government's health proposals take effect. Peter Griffiths, the deputy chief executive of the National Health Service, told managers to concentrate on simple changes, to produce small but demonstrable improvements in the quality of patient care. His comments at the annual conference of the Institute of Health Service Management in Torquay showed the extent to which official expectations of the changes had been scaled down.
Someone said that the reappraisal reflected a more sensible view of what could realistically be achieved in the next 40 weeks. Apparently, Mr. Griffiths said that the NHS management board was not expecting radical changes in the way in which patients were referred for treatment; nor was it looking for highly sophisticated contracts between the purchasing health districts and providing hospitals. Managers were simply being asked to break the mould—a phrase which is quite well-known in this House and within the field of politics. You break the mould and what happens a few years later? That is what he said, that it would break the mould in terms of quality to write into basic care contracts some provision to reduce waiting times etc.
It seems to me, with all the evidence that has come forward, that it would be helpful if the NHS had power not to be required to do everything all at once on 1st April 1991. As I said, evidence is emerging that the pace of change in respect of contracting is simply too fast.
The Department of Health's own timetable document Developing Skills admits that some of the staff arid skills needed for contracting, particularly in the finance field, are in "short supply". Some of the research work into the new role of DHAs will not be ready before health authorities need to finish preparations for the first round of contracts.
In another place, the Public Accounts Committee's report on financial management in the NHS, published on 24th May, told a similar story. The
178
committee found many parts of the financial management of the NHS already in turmoil and expressed concern at the shortage of skilled finance staff. Perhaps some could be borrowed from the district health authority, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Perhaps he would offer 50 or 60 finance officers to help with the rest of the service. The committee expressed concern at the shortage of skilled finance staff. In this context, how can health authorities effectively implement contracts?
The purpose of this amendment is to create efficiency, and if a significant number of representations were made from health service units, the Secretary of State would be empowered to postpone the introduction. This period of transition would last only until 1992 and after that the contracting process could be brought in at any time.
The Government's answer to the mounting evidence that the changes are coming too fast is to say that contracts will be simple to begin with and will reflect existing referral patterns. But in that case why not wait till the information systems are available to allow a contract system to be tried out on a less superficial level? What point is there in going through a great reorganisation and then on 1st April just having a little nudge of a change? If this is to be a major change, let the authorities be ready.
More importantly, there is a great danger that simple, crude contracts could be inefficient. Without adequate information systems to ensure that prices charged adequately reflect costs incurred, a contract system could easily lead to the misallocation of resources. Without adequate information, the provider may easily over-charge so that a purchaser gets less value for money, or under-charge creating deficits for itself. Without adequate information, a contract system would be wasteful and have inefficiency built into it. Would it not be more efficient simply to phase in these new changes, if changes must be introduced? That is what this new clause is about.
Your Lordships will remember that during the Committee stage we made attempts to establish an evaluation of the plan. All those ideas were rejected. So, not looking at NHS trusts or GP budgets and putting them aside, and simply looking at the contract system, it seems that the Secretary of State would be wiser if he were to phase it in slowly, steadily and efficiently, rather than coming in in a way that will not and cannot represent the new changes that are envisaged in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I support fully my noble friend's amendment. I have only one question about the amendment in relation to subsection (3), which states that subsection (2) shall cease to have effect after 31st March 1992. In other words, the measures embodied in the amendment will cease to apply after that date.
I cannot honestly see why the resource management costing and accounting systems, which my noble friend described as probably not being in place throughout the country by April 1991, should be in place by April 1992. I should have thought that the clause would be better without subsection (3). It should continue to apply until the Secretary of State

179
is satisfied that the economy and efficiency which is desired can be obtained, and there should not be a time limit on it. Nevertheless I support the amendment as it is at the moment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the usual funereal dirge of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about all the disasters that are going to occur next year. I should like to quote this passage from certain sections of my own profession.
"The ills within the NHS are serious and, by threatening standards, threaten the health and wellbeing of the community. There is a real danger of standards deteriorating to a point from which recovery will be impossible within a foreseeable term".
Lord Ennals: Hear, hear!
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, says "Hear, hear", but I need to tell him the date of this funereal dirge. It is 1974. We have had these statements for the last 40 years. My advice to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is to cheer up a bit.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the noble Lord say from what he is quoting and to what it relates?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, it was said in October 1974, and is a statement by the deans and presidents of the Royal Colleges.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my question was to what they were referring when they made that statement.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the problem is that if ever you feel that you are short of money, the only way to get money, or seem to be able to obtain more money, is to bring out these funereal dirges about how terrible everything is, that everything is about to collapse, and that the great ship of state, the NHS, is about to sink. It has been "sinking" for a long time, but it seems very much afloat to me.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it was well before I became Secretary of State for Social Services, but I thought that in the interests of my predecessor I ought to find out.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, to intervene most briefly, the statement that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, read relates to a totally different situation. The problem at the moment is that the authorities and the various bodies within the National Health Service are faced with new problems, one of which is how to cost various procedures. We have contracts that will come into force on 1st April 1991. I do not see how we can have a contract unless we know the prices. There is great doubt as to whether all the different authorities will in fact be able to calculate accurately and effectively the actual cost of the things they are either selling or buying.
That was the point made very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, in a recent debate. It did not refer at all to the problems way back in 1974 or even 1964, or however long the noble Lord wants to go
180
back. There have always been problems. I welcome an attempt now to remedy some of those problems. I hope that the measures contained in this Bill will do that; I think that some will do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said in his speech on the same subject, we now have a downward pressure on costs. Where there is very heavy downward pressure on costs I think there is a danger of errors if new arrangements are made too rapidly.
I think that is the point. It is not that it has taken X-years to arrive at the point where we are having a reform of the National Health Service, but that we now have to start making entirely new calculations on a basis that has never been used before. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, knows as well as I do how difficult it is to cost different procedures bearing in mind that different patients and different hospitals have different costs for necessary and proper reasons. That is the business that is going to take time. If these new arrangements are introduced before all that has been satisfactorily concluded, then we shall be in trouble.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, one of the main aims underlying the entire Bill before us is, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has just pointed out, to improve the quality of care and the delivery of care in the National Health Service, and to do this we certainly need to promote economy and efficiency. But by putting stress on this I would not wish in any way to relegate what is perhaps the most important of the triumvirate of "Es", and that is "effectiveness". And I mean by that not just cost-effectiveness but effectiveness in the widest sense, including clinical effectiveness.
As I have said on many occasions now, the firm intent of the Government is to introduce the provisions of this Bill in a way which enables the benefits to patients and staff to flow, certainly, but at the same time does not in any way lead either to patient or staff uncertainty or to disruption of services. That will be the position on 1st April next year. The new framework will be in place, benefits will flow, but there will be room to build upon them in subsequent years, and that is entirely consistent with our evolutionary approach.
The health service is working to a challenging but, we believe, feasible timetable, because unless we maintain a determined pace then the momentum and enthusiasm which has developed within the health service could falter. I would draw to your Lordships' attention that a great deal of work has already been done on the contracting principle, and it would be quite a blow to those people who are carrying things forward if delay were introduced in any way.
So while I welcome the spirit of the amendment and its references to implementation in a manner calculated to promote economy and efficiency, I would say that that is the approach that has characterised our preparations for implementation. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, as I sincerely hope it will very soon, that approach will be fully reflected in all work instituted by my right

181
honourable friend the Secretary of State and indeed the National Health Service Management Executive.
However, I would point out that if we were to introduce the concept of this amendment into the Bill as it is proposed, it would, or could, at some stage be a matter for the courts to interpret what we meant by that. This is always the problem with general statements. They would seek to interpret what special meaning or purpose we had in introducing this specific provision into the Bill when it was not thought necessary in any other Act of Parliament.
In making this point with reference to the introduction of the words "economy and efficiency" I would also point out that the guidance issued by the department on the contracting system places great emphasis on the need to develop quality measures and to ensure that contracts are as much about quality as about cost. We have of course already discussed this in your Lordships' House in some detail, and I believe that it is the key principle for the introduction of National Health Service contracts. It is one that the Government intend to continue to stress. Implementation of the provisions of the Bill, and in particular those in Clause 4, would not be assisted by any countervailing emphasis solely on economy and efficiency. Though intended to be a statement of the obvious, the new clause may well give the wrong emphasis and could even potentially militate against an emphasis on quality. I am quite sure that that is not what the noble Lord had in mind in proposing the amendment.
I want to make two final points. The first concerns the transitional provision for contracting in subsection (2) of the new clause. I must say that I find it most unlikely that a significant number of health service bodies, as defined in Clause 4, would object to the principles of National Health Service contracts. On the contrary, most health authorities are very supportive. It is most certainly not the Government's view that wholesale delay of the implementation of Clause 4 would promote economy and efficiency. Quite the reverse.
However, I repeat what I said at Committee stage; many of the contracts introduced in April 1991 will be in relatively simple block form, and there will be little difference from existing patterns of service. They will be the starting point, and the process will develop and evolve from there. There will be—and again I repeat this, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also mentioned it—no big bang, no overnight change, and no disruption of services. Nor shall we push, or even allow, health authorities to go faster than they have the competence to do. We shall proceed only at a pace that we are satisfied health authorities can handle. The degree of competence, the ability to make progress, could differ from region to region and district to district. A single nationally prescribed deadline will not be helpful in that respect.
Finally, the new clause purports not to prejudice the establishment of NHS trusts and fund-holding practices' but both will be dependent upon the existence of such contracts: trusts for their income, and fund-holders to enable their referral decisions to be funded. It would be impossible for any trusts to
182
be established and any fund-holding practices to operate in the year 1991–92 if the amendment were passed, despite the words of the last subsection of the new clause. There is therefore a contradiction between the clause's apparent intention and its probable effect. It could never be implemented as drafted.
I have said that we should avoid generalisations in legislation. Equally, we should try to avoid contradiction and impracticality. I hope that with that somewhat lengthy response, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. Failing that, I hope that the House will reject it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for replying. The amendment was designed to help and not to be obstructive. I believe that the Minister sensed that. She referred to wholesale delays. I have to deal with wholesale delays on one side and on the opposite side my noble friend who says that the delay is not long enough. I believed that the proposal to introduce a year's delay was reasonable. I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted that proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, seemed to have the impression that the doom and gloom that comes from me originated with me. It does not. I only reflect the doom and gloom that I hear from people within the health service. That does not come only from the professions. At the conference of the Institute of Health Service Management last weekend, I quoted Peter Griffiths, the Deputy Chief Executive of the NHS. He also said, although I did not quote it, that managers were in for a difficult time during the three-month consultation period of hospitals seeking to opt out of district control. I leave that aside for a moment.
Mr. Griffiths advised the conference not to talk about business plans, not to talk about marketing, not to talk about market share and segmentation and not to talk in the kind of commercial language that switches off every member of staff. Presumably he also meant that one should not talk about how to calculate costs. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, put his finger on the point. One cannot calculate costs if one does not have the information or the technology to do so. What does one do? Does one make a guess and say, "Well, the nearest figure that we can think of is this"? That is a recipe for incompetence and inefficiency.
No serious management consultant would say to the department at this stage in the process that it is better to do something even if it is not what one plans to do. That can lead only to inefficiency. The Minister said that there was no precedent in legislation for such delay. It might have been helpful had there been such a precedent. I suspect that if there had been a provision in the Bill that introduced the poll tox, or the community charge, that if there was a worry as to whether we were ready to implement it it could be introduced a year later, the Government might have jumped at the opportunity of escaping from a desperate situation from which they may never recover politically.
There are sometimes advantages in precedents. There may not be a precedent, but let us create one

183
so that the NHS is not plunged into a situation of the Minister's making. Nothing that the Minister said convinced me. We must once again take the view of the House.
4.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 79) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 129.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kearton, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Leatherland, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davies, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Ezra, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Foot, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Stedman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Varley, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Willis, L.

Hughes, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jacques, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Borthwick, L.

Aldington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Allerton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Alport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Annaly, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Balfour, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bellwin, L.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Belstead, L.

Chelmer, L.

Bessborough, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blake, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blatch, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Blyth, L.

Cross, V.

184

Cumberlege, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Monson, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Derwent, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Donoughmore, E.

Mottistone, L.

Eccles, V.

Mountevans, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elibank, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Foley, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Porritt, L.

Gisborough, L.

Quinton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reay, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Havers, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Henley, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Hives, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hood, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Sharpies, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Slim, V.

Ingrow, L.

Strange, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Kitchener, E.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Layton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lindsay, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Liverpool, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lurgan, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Lyell, L.

Wedgwood, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wise, L.

Manton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Margadale, L.

Wynford, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Young, B.

Merrivale, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Mersey, V

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.3 p.m.
Clause 30 [National Health Service trusts]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 88:
Page 31, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),").
Page 31, line 41, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for such consultation as may be so prescribed to be carried out by a Health Board or the Agency, before he makes an order under subsection (1).").
Page 31, line 47, after ("who") insert (", subject to subsection (4),").
Page 32, line 15, at end insert ("or may be suspended from performing the functions of the office").
Page 32, line 20, 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 as a non-executive director;").
Page 33, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A),").
Page 33, line 34, at end insert:
("(4A) In any case where—

(a) an order under section 12A(1) provides for the establishment of an NHS trust with effect from a date earlier than the operational date of the trust; and

(b) on or after that earlier date but before its operational date e NHS trust makes an offer of employment by the trust to a person who at that time is employed by a Health Board of the Agency to work solely at, or for the purposes of, the hospital or other establishment or facility which is to become the responsibility of the trust; and

(c) as a result of the acceptance of the offer, the person to whom it was made becomes an employee of the NHS trust,

subsections (3) and (4) shall have effect in relation to that person's contract of employment as if any reference in those subsections to the operational date of the trust were a reference to the Sate on which he takes up employment with the trust.").
Page 35, line 48, after ("representing") insert (", subject to subsection (1A),").
Page 36,line 4, at end insert:
("(1A) In determining the originating capital debt of an NHS trust, there shall be left out of account such assets or, as the case may be, such liabilities as are, or are of a class, determined for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 80 has already been spoken to, as have Amendments Nos. 8 to 88. I beg to move them en bloc.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, with the leave of the House, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak to any of the amendments, I shall put Amendments Nos. 80 to 88 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Schedules to be inserted after Schedule 7 to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 85, line 20, leave out ("whether") and insert ("where").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 85, line 21, leave out ("and, if so").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 93:
Page 85, line 23, leave out first ("or") and insert ("with").
Page 85, line 28, at end insert:
("(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(d), 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 85, line 32, leave out ("or medical or dental school").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 93.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak to them, I propose to take these amendments together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 86, line 50, leave out ("accounts and annual report") and insert ("audited accounts, its annual report, and such other documents as may be prescribed,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment makes a slight adjustment to the documents which must be submitted to the annual public meeting of a National Health Service trust. The present wording specifies that the accounts and annual report must be submitted to the meeting. The amendment makes it clear that it is the audited accounts which are to be submitted. It adds a requirement for the submission of,
"such other documents as may be prescribed".
This is intended to cover any reports which may have been made by the auditor. A similar amendment was made in Committee to the English and Welsh provisions in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2.
The position in Scotland is a little more difficult because the Bill allows for two audit regimes. First, the Bill extends the present statutory audit arrangements, involving auditors appointed by the Secretary of State, to cover National Health Service trusts as well as health boards and the like. But Clause 35 and Schedule 7 also allow the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland to assume responsibility for National Health Service statutory audit in Scotland. It would therefore have been quite complex to specify in the Bill which auditor's report was to be submitted to the National Health Service trust's annual meeting. The amendment leaves this to be specified in the regulations, which are in any case required to prescribe the time of the public meetings. Initially these regulations will refer to the reports by auditors under the present regime. If and when the accounts commission assumes responsibility for National Health Service statutory audit in Scotland, the regulations will be altered to refer to reports by the new set of auditors. In that way, the amendment achieves the same as the equivalent English provision which already appears in the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 94.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not wish to delay your Lordships. I hope that this is a technical matter. Can the noble Lord confirm that the effect of the amendment is to leave the position in Scotland no less open and accountable than that in England? I take it that that is exactly what he is saying.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, yes, I can answer that in the affirmative.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister what are the "other documents". I have just gone to an annual meeting of a trade association. Obviously the accounts referred to in the Companies Act are audited accounts. I do not quite know why one has to specify "such other documents". What

187
could be the documents that they have to be mentioned in an Act of Parliament?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I cannot specify what those documents may be. However, there may be a special report which the auditors wish to bring before an open meeting which indicates something that the auditors feel may need to be attended to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 88, line 13, at end insert:
("16A. 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), the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to—

(a) the transfer to employment by a local authority of staff employed by an NHS trust; and

(b) the transfer to employment by a National Health Service body of staff transferred to employment by a local authority by virtue of this paragraph, and for the purposes of this paragraph "National Health Service body" means an NHS trust, a Health Board or the Agency.

16B. Regulations made under paragraph 16A may make such incidental and consequential provision in relation to staff transferred by virtue of that paragraph as may be made in relation to officers and servants of a Health Board transferred by virtue of regulations made under paragraph 8A of Schedule 1.
16C. Before making regulations under paragraph 16A, the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies and organisations as appear to him to be concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 97 which was spoken to with Amendment No. 23.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Functions of Family Health Services Authorities]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 13, line 36, at end insert:
("(6) It shall be the duty of a Family Health Service Authority to ensure that any document published by any general medical practitioner within the boundary of the Authority for the purpose of promoting general medical services provided in accordance with section 29 of the principal Act shall not include any reference designed to promote any goods or services offered by any person for financial gain.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment refers to what are called "GP practice leaflets". This about the first time on which we have had a chance to say anything about them, for obvious reasons. Until this moment they have not been specified, actually or potentially, on the face of the Bill. In introducing the amendment I should say right away that I am not opposed to GP practice leaflets. On the contrary, I believe that a leaflet of a practical nature containing factual information about the services that the GP is providing, opening hours and other such matters is wholly desirable. I am not at all opposed to GP practice leaflets.
I shall now deal with a matter which gets me closer to what I am concerned about: I do not believe it is a bad thing if GP practice leaflets also contain information about various clinics that may exist in the area of the practice—I am now wearing my pharmacy hat—and information about the names and addresses and opening hours of local pharmacies. That all seems to me to be perfectly satisfactory and not a problem. However, I have tabled the amendment because I am concerned about advertising. I should like some Government comment on this matter.
One hesitates to raise the whole question of ethics and medicine at this stage. However, I believe I have noticed the General Medical Council trying to come to grips in the past couple of weeks with the question of advertising in medicine. As someone who takes the traditional ethics of the professions seriously, I should say that I worry a trifle about the direction in which we are going in respect to advertising and other such matters. I shall say no more about the GMC but merely utter those words of worry.
Nonetheless, within the GP practice leaflets there are other advertising concerns that we should interest ourselves in. One such matter concerns pharmacies. I have already said that I see no objection to any of the local pharmacies taking space in the GP practice leaflets to state their address and when they open full stop. However, the question that arises in the case of pharmacies is whether they should be able to include advertisements of a more active nature or of a more "come to our pharmacy" nature. This is a difficult question as regards the ethics of the pharmacy profession. Speaking as a member of the council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, I am aware that the council is looking at ethical aspects of the problem. However, the matter goes further because it is part of our system of medicine in this country that we have tried hard to avoid conflicts of interest between general practitioners on the one hand and pharmacists on the other.
Although there are controversial aspects of this matter, essentially the basic theory is that a general practitioner prescribes according to his professional judgment—we shall have one or two amendments on that matter in due course—and the patient goes to whichever pharmacy seems to him to be appropriate. However, one worry that I have concerns any suggestion that might appear in a practice leaflet that there are specific pharmacies which a general practitioner recommends or attaches to himself. I believe that genuine ethical issues would arise within the practice of medicine if that situation were to occur.
Let me add that I am aware that pharmacies are also thinking of entering the leaflet business. In connection with the ethics of a pharmacy leaflet, I would raise the matter of whether pharmacies should take advertisements from general practitioners which implied that some general practitioners were favoured. Without overdoing this matter I merely state that I would worry about the ethical side of the matter.
However, there are three or four other points which I wish to raise. One concerns whether

189
pharmaceutical companies would be regarded as appropriate bodies to take advertising space within G.P. practice leaflets. Noble Lords will know that I am not an opponent of pharmaceutical companies. Indeed I much appreciate the contribution that they have made to the improvement of medical care in this country. I should also say, wearing my economics hat, that I appreciate the contribution they make to the balance of payments and general economic growth. Therefore I am not opposed to the pharmaceutical companies although I occasionally look askance at their advertising and sales methods. However, it is again not obvious to me that a GP practice leaflet is the correct place for major pharmaceutical companies to advertise. G.P. practice leaflets will cost money and I do not believe that we should wish to see a state of affairs in which, essentially, pharmaceutical companies are financing the leaflets.
There are many other points that could be raised and, as with all matters of ethics, one could go on for a long time. I know that academics like myself have to be restrained from speaking of our concern on ethical matters. However, there is another point which I wish to raise. I should like the Government to comment on whether they would regard it as appropriate that the general practice should itself make money from advertising in its practice leaflet. I ask that question because, ethically, it worries me a little that the G.P. practice leaflet might essentially become an advertising medium from which the practice gained money.
Those are the worries I have. The only way I can raise them is within the context of an amendment to the Bill because there is no other path into these matters. I would welcome a statement from the Government as regards their views on these matters and on whether there will be regulations and/or guidelines on the leaflets. I never speak on this subject with any degree of expertise and for all I know there already exist guidelines and regulations. However, those are the kinds of topic I wish to raise. I look forward to hearing the Government's response to then'. I beg to move.
5.15 p.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I wish to comment on this amendment not from my present experience but from my experience until February of last year as president of the General Medical Council. During my presidency we relaxed the advice given to the medical profession about the dissemination of factual information to the public by agreeing that it was proper and appropriate that general practices should prepare informative leaflets giving information about the range and nature of the services that they provided. We agreed that these leaflets could be placed in centres of public information such as public libraries and other similar places.
During my presidency the General Medical Council was referred by the Office of Fair Trading for a hearing before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As noble Lords will be aware, the commission recommended that the rules or the guidance for the profession should be relaxed further
190
to allow general practitioners to advertise within certain terms. It is my understanding that only some three weeks ago the General Medical Council promulgated its new advice to the profession. That new advice will allow, within certain restrictions, advertising by general practitioners although not by specialists. Specialists will not be able to advertise directly to the public, so as to preserve the gatekeeper function through which patients in this country arc normally referred to specialists by general practitioners. However, GPs will be allowed to advertise and will be able to produce more informative practice leaflets provided the information in the advertisements and in the leaflets is legal, honest, decent and truthful in the terms of the Advertising Standards Authority. It is specifically provided that the material which is so promulgated and included in advertisements does not in any way seek to promote the services offered by those general practitioners and that it does not seek specifically financial gain. It should not in any way include material which makes invidious comparisons between the services offered by those respective practitioners and other colleagues. It must not in any way disparage the services given by other colleagues. I believe that the General Medical Council is capable of policing this matter appropriately. For that reason I must say that I personally feel this amendment to be unnecessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I appreciate that the amendment is probably just a probing amendment. However, I should say that I think it goes slightly further than I expect the noble Lord intends, in that, as he receives payment for those services, it would, as worded, have the undesirable effect of preventing a doctor using his practice leaflet to promote several of the services he provides to his own patients under the National Health Service, such as health promotion clinics and other services. I am sure that was not the intention of the noble Lord but I thought it would be worth pointing that out in replying to the amendment.
Practice leaflets form part of our package of measures introduced with the new GP's contract—which is why they are not in the Bill—to inform and empower the consumer of general medical services. Other elements of the package include local directories of family doctors, consumer surveys and simpler arrangements for changing doctors. Under the new terms of service each practice has to produce a practice leaflet. It will represent the public face of the practice. Prospective patients will use it as a guide to the practice's services and, I am sure, to its individual style. Doctors will therefore be anxious to present a good image and will therefore, I believe, use their freedom to accept advertising sensibly.
As a result we do not accept that doctors taking advertising in their leaflets will do any harm. On the contrary, we believe that there could be benefits in sponsorship and advertising. Money received, for example, would be available to improve the services provided to patients. I know that the noble Lord has ethical worries on the matter but I cannot share them.

191
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, spoke about the General Medical Council and its recently reissued general medical and pharmaceutical regulations which govern practice leaflets. The noble Lord quite rightly said that it would no longer be a breach of conduct for doctors to take advertising in this way. He also said that he felt that the General Medical Council was the appopriate body to police the matter. I can only agree with the noble Lord. I hope that the noble Lord Lord Peston, will accept that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has done much of my job for me in explaining that particular matter.
To pick up one other point, the noble Lord was worried that a doctor or practice taking advertising from a particular pharmacist might be seen as giving an endorsement of that pharmacist. Everyone is familiar with advertising and can distinguish advertising from an editorial. I do not see that this will cause any problems. With that in mind I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and also the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I apologise to the Minister for not saying at the outset that this was a probing amendment.
I was somewhat reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, except when he referred to sponsorship. That worried me. I would not wish to see a GP practice leaflet sponsored, particularly if the sponsors turned out to be the type of companies, for example tobacco and drinks companies, which sponsor so many other things. However, perhaps that is excessive anxiety on my part.
I was reassured by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, the noble Lord had done his job in answering the question. He emphasised that these are informative leaflets and that leaflets seeking to promote a practice would not be acceptable within the normal ethical standards of the medical profession.
Perhaps I may say en passant in connection with the OFT and the professions that I hope that we shall debate the subject again in the near future. Although I am a strong supporter of the OFT and of professional competition I believe that its onslaught on the professions is beginning to go too far.
I am encouraged that the GMC will continue to have a policing role. I regard that as highly protective of the standards that we want, just as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's policing role regarding pharmacists will also provide a great deal of reassurance.
The questions that I had in mind have been answered. However, I believe that we should keep an eye on the matter. Who knows, in a year or two at Question Time someone may brandish an unattractive GP practice leaflet and we shall discuss the matter. I thank the noble Lord for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 13, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) No Family Health Services Authority shall be exempt from their duty under section 29 of the principal Act to arrange for the provision of general medical services to all persons in their locality solely on the ground that the treatment of any person is likely to be expensive.
( ) The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe a procedure for appeals against—

(a) refusals, on any ground, to admit any person to the list of a general medical practitioner; and

(b) removal of any person from the list of a general medical practitioner.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendment as there is no doubt that our very valuable National Health Service is being considerably changed. When there is change there is a certain amount of insecurity, and the most insecure are the very people who need support.
I am sure that most noble Lords will agree that at times relationships between all kinds of people break down. The amendment has nothing to do with the problem of relationships which break down when doctors and patients fall out. The amendment deals with the matter of patients who may have serious handicaps or conditions which may need expensive treatment or just take more time. There are some patients who are difficult to understand and others who may take time because they are mentally ill, physically disabled or elderly. Extra time could mean that they are expensive, in the same way as those who need extra visits or drugs.
In 1981 I was very pleased to accept the honour of being made a Fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners. I am pleased to be patron of the Yorkshire Faculty of General Practitioners. Most doctors are caring people who will try to do the best for their patients. However, there are some who may not be so tolerant and understanding. A mother who has a severely disabled child can be very anxious. An elderly, frail person can feel lonely and isolated. A drug addict or an alcoholic, or someone who is mentally ill, may not be easy at times. Some doctors have already had their practices overloaded with certain types of patient because they have been sympathetic. That means that other doctors have not given the help needed. Word soon gets around among groups of patients.
The amendment gives patients a right of appeal, once a procedure has been worked out by the Secretary of State. Doctors have a right of appeal. Why should patients not also have a right of appeal? We do not have to legislate for good practice. It is for the rare cases of injustice and bad practice that we need some safeguards. We also have to stop any escalation of the practice of removing patients from doctors' panels because they are expensive or inconvenient. I once heard a doctor say: "Good patients are the ones we never see". I have always hoped that he was joking, but I was not sure.
As the emphasis of the Bill is on marketing there is real fear. I am not scaremongering. Several patients have said to me that patients with long-term disabilities or who are elderly may have difficulty in being accepted on a doctor's list if they move to

193
another part of the country. We need to give patients a feeling of security.
If Patients First and Working for Patients mean more than just words this amendment could help. It is not clear how much previous legislation will be removed when the Bill takes over. I have not been given any reassurance that unexpected problems will not arise. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendment because I believe that there is a very real problem at the moment, particularly as regards the matters referred to in the first part of the amendment. I do not feel at all the same way about the second part of the amendment, which deals with appeals.
I have heard within the last month of several cases of geriatric patients about to be discharged from central London hospitals. When the house officer has phoned the patient's GP the GP has given a very curt reply and been put out that the patient is being released from hospital, saying that he will have to remove the patient from his list. That is quite alarming. I seek confirmation from the Minister that the same system exists which has always existed in the past; namely, that if people cannot get onto a certain list they are placed on a list. In small country areas, there were many patients who were extremely difficult. No doctor wanted them and they had to be moved from doctor to doctor every few months so that everyone got a fair share of them.
That is probably the ideal answer, but it is wrong that people should be able to reject patients simply because they will mean more work. The health service has always worked on the basis of swings and roundabouts. If you had a difficult patient, you also ha d an easy one; if you had a time-consuming patient, you also had a quick one. It all worked out so that you could cope. If a doctor already has a full list of patients, will the local health authority still be able to put such a person on his list and thus make him take his fair share, or will the list remain full so that he cannot take a turn?
On the appeal issue, I think quite the reverse. It is totally useless. If the relationship between a doctor and a patient has broken down to the extent to which a person would go to appeal, what would be the answer if he or she won the appeal? It would be rather like an industrial tribunal where people ask for reinstatement. It never works because such bad feeling has developed between the two parties. An appeal in this case would have the same effect. How would you like to be reinstated on the list of someone who did not want you and did not like you? You would never feel confident of receiving satisfactory treatment.
I cannot support the amendment, particularly the appeal section, wholeheartedly, but I am concerned about the first point and I hope that we shall receive a satisfactory answer on that.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I too am sympathetic to the amendment for the clear reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has
194
explained—there are grave difficulties—and for the reasons which have been underlined and illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. However, at the same time, I am a little uneasy about the amendment, partly for the same reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has expressed.
There is a problem here and there is at present machinery to deal with it. We have written into our practice over the years an assumption that a patient should have a free choice of doctor. I believe that he should have such a choice. In practice, the choice is not often as real as it should be, but, if there is to be free choice of doctor by patient, up to a point there must also be free choice of patient by doctor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said that the purpose of the amendment was not to deal with the problems when a relationship had broken down. Such relationships often break down. There is nothing to be gained by compelling to remain together a patient and a doctor who hate the sight of each other. Many patients do not care for their doctors and the same is true the other way round. When the author, Dr. Richard Gordon, whom many noble Lords will remember, was asked on television why he had given up medicine, he replied that he liked medicine very much but that he could not stand the patients.
As a doctor, I must admit that many of my patients were not all that keen on me. There was a certain kind of patient who came into your surgery every week. The moment he came in, your heart sank and, groping at the bottom of the barrel of human compassion, you reached for his notes, looked up and asked, "How are you this week, Mr. Smith?" Slowly his face would crack into the inevitable smile with the word, "Worse". That is the kind of patient who remains faithful to you till death do us part—your death, not his.
The amendment is not designed to meet that kind of situation. It is designed to meet a practical situation. Why do doctors sometimes refuse to take a patient onto a list? Often, it is merely because the list is full. That is particularly so in urban areas where a doctor has to say, "I'm sorry. My list is already full". When she replies, the noble Baroness will explain that many doctors' lists contain in excess of the permitted number of patients. That situation is changing. It may change further later, but that has been the case in the past.
There is a procedure whereby a patient who cannot get onto the list of a certain doctor is allocated by the family practitioner committee to another doctor's list on which there is room. It is not a satisfactory procedure, but that is the procedure at present. Can we devise a better procedure?
What about appeals? The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe a procedure for appeals".
If every patient who is refused the right to go on a certain doctor's list is allowed an appeal, that could go on for ever. Similarly, if every patient who is removed from a doctor's list is allowed an appeal, that too could go on for ever. However, I agree that it would be highly regrettable and objectionable if it was discovered that a doctor refused to accept a

195
patient on his list merely because he thought that the patient might happen to be ill at some time and need medical care. The purpose of going on a list is to be looked after. There is a risk and a danger that, unless matters are looked after properly, doctors will tend to seek out healthy patients and perhaps not accept patients who will lead to a great deal of work and expense and be an extra burden for the practice. We must consider and monitor that matter continuously. However, frankly, I doubt whether it can be monitored by a succession of appeals on an ad hoc basis relating to a number of different and unrelated cases.
I await the Government's reply to the amendment. I am not sure whether the existing machinery is entirely satisfactory, although it must certainly be kept in order until there is something else in its place. I shall look forward to hearing the Government's proposals. There should be some way of dealing with a situation in which it becomes apparent that a patient with a certain condition—perhaps a psychiatric illness—who moves from one district to another finds it impossible to get on a GP's list. That is offensive and objectionable and should be dealt with. It is doubtful whether it can be dealt with by a system of individual ad hoc appeals. I shall await the Government's reply. The noble Baroness has done us a service by raising the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies she will either accept the amendment or give a sympathetic reception and an indication of what the Government propose in lieu, for it deals with a matter on which there is a good deal of anxiety.
With the introduction of the system of budgeting, it is natural that a medical practitioner might be a little nervous about taking on a patient whose treatment will be highly expensive. One of the obvious examples that leaps to mind is the case of a patient who requires treatment with a series of highly expensive modern drugs over a considerable length of time, or, as was suggested earlier, who requires constant attention, perhaps even in the middle of the night. There is some anxiety about the matter which I hope my noble friend will be able to relieve.
I note what the noble Baroness said about the second part of the amendment—the appeals procedure. There is obvious force in what she said about the difficult relationship between a doctor and a patient where the patient has succeeded in appealing against the doctor. On the other hand, if noble Lords look at the first half of the amendment on the basis that there is no second part, one is left with a highly respectable statement of principle, but without any apparent sanction behind it.
I suspect that, if you leave the appeal procedure in—as on the whole, subject to what my noble friend says, I am inclined to agree that one should—it would rarely be invoked, but its very existence would have a salutary effect on a doctor where the would-be patient showed signs of objecting to being excluded. On the whole, therefore, whether the appeal procedure as drafted is particularly good is perhaps
196
a more open question, but simply to leave the suggestions of the amendment in the first paragraph would be to leave a splendid declaration of principle, but without any teeth to it. This is a matter on which there is very real anxiety outside. It is not in any sense a political point. It is in fact one's own experience. It comes from having spoken to various people. I think that it is up to Her Majesty's Government to relieve that anxiety either, as I said, by legislation or by some other means. I wait to hear what is proposed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too should like strongly to support the whole sense of this amendment. To mention briefly the matter of appeals, I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put his finger on the point. To take up the point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner, there is nothing to say that if someone appeals he automatically is put back to the same doctor. Part of the procedure would be that they would have to find some way of solving the problem. It is essential that there should be an appeal measure to this amendment to go with the first part of it.
As noble Lords will know, I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. It is for schizophrenics that I particularly welcome this kind of amendment. At the moment there is nothing in the Bill to fill the gap. Schizophrenics, poor people, probably experience more difficulty in getting access to a GP's list than most other types of people. In a sense one can understand the doctor's point of view. GPs deal with a wide range of people and are not all that familiar with how to deal with the mentally ill. It is very difficult to know at any one time when someone who is mentally ill is actually ill or not ill. It is confusing for doctors. It is much more difficult for them than with the average run of patient.
So these people have a particular difficulty and for their sake alone we certainly need to have something along the lines of this amendment in this Bill. I too hope most desperately that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to offer us some encouraging remarks which are strong enough to show that some such measure will go into the Bill before it leaves Parliament.
It is absolutely essential that there should be some way of making sure that people have a doctor. I understood all the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised so amusingly. It must be very difficult for doctors. But it is difficult for other people also. It is difficult for barristers and we are told that it will be difficult for solicitors because they will be treated in the same way. It is difficult for all sorts of people who have to do a difficult job. There are lots of activities in life where there is difficulty. For example, an engineer who is trying to mend the engines of a ship which is rolling at sea when he is feeling very seasick has just as much of a problem as a doctor who has to deal with a schizophrenic whom he does not like as a person let alone not liking him as a patient.
Therefore I do not think that it is a good argument to say that the doctors must somehow be allowed to leave people alone. I also think that there ought to be enough strength in this measure—I am not sure that the amendment has it—so that there is not a

197
long delay. The talk about someone having to go from doctor to doctor and almost having to move house to get a doctor strikes me as ridiculous. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give all the support that is needed to put this proposal into the Bill.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness will be surprised to receive from me, as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS, a brief probe as to what the position would be if the therapeutic drug bill for a particular patient on a drug such as zidovudine, for example, exceeded £5,000 a year. That is a figure which I believe has been mooted in this context.
I thank I am right in understanding that there is intended to be some kind of top-up mechanism in that sort of case. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could describe to me what it is, how it would be made effective and how brought into effect in time to allow the treatment to continue. It is an important point. Although these drugs are very expensive when prescribed outside hospital, the hospitalisation of the person in question will be even more expensive. It is very important that we have a proper mechanism for this.
5.45 p m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on this amendment three important principles arise including that there is an analogy with the cab rank rule. The first principle was established in the original National Health Service Act of 1946; namely, that everybody in this country should be entitled to medical care and hospital provision irrespective of means and up to a point, although public cost might in some cases be quite considerable in the provision of those services. I regard the first of the two subsections in the amendment as a practical application of that important principle.
With regard to the other two principles, the first one has been mentioned. It is that every patient shall have a free choice of doctor. That also involves freedom to refuse to have a particular doctor. That means that those who have the responsibility under the legislation of ensuring that there are general medical services provided, strictly speaking should, if those services are available, be able to provide enough to provide a free choice and a free choice of refusal. There must be a little competition there.
I come to the medical cab rank rule. That is a very ancient and well established one. I do not know whether doctors are still required to take the famous oath which, I believe, derived from the Greeks. It was an oath which said that no doctor should ever deny treatment to a patient, whether the patient could afford it or not.
To the extent that this amendment is an attempt to put into practice those three principles it deserves consideration and indeed support. If I had any doubt about the effect of the amendment, my doubt would arise on the wording of the second subsection. I must say that if it comes to what are in effect legal proceedings on appeal against refusal to admit any person to a list, it is not something that can be made
198
absolute. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, there must be certain cases when it might be difficult to apply an absolute standard.
Therefore, although in broad terms I support this amendment, I believe that the Government may wish to see whether this last subsection will be workable just as stated or whether it ought to be modified in some way.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I also should like to support this amendment, bearing in mind particularly the plight of physically disabled people. The House will know of my interest in that direction. I want to tell the House briefly of two situations. One was when the people for whom I work opened a home for severely physically disabled young people; the other was when, with the assistance and connivance (if that is the right word) of the National Health Service, we took very severely disabled people from long-stay wards in a local hospital into homes that we set up in order to help that particular hospital to close. In both cases it was extremely difficult to find general practitioners who were willing to take as their patients these physically disabled people.
It was not a question of money but of time, and the fact that they thought that they would be called out on home visits frequently, in particular in the middle of the night. My noble friend Lady Hooper knows of the second case about which I spoke to her informally some months ago. No doubt she will bear it in mind when considering the amendment, which has a great deal of merit.
The amendment may need to be slightly rephrased. Some noble Lords have cast doubt on the second part of the amendment. Perhaps we may consider the first line. It states:
"The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe a procedure".
Surely he and his advisers will have the wit and the ability to prescribe a procedure which will enable appeals to be managed in a way that is fair to both patients and doctors. It is extremely important that we make certain that everyone in this country is able to find with relative ease a general practitioner who will take him on his list.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I support the amendment which also stands in my name, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, put forward so cogently on introducing it. Having listened to the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Mottistone and Lord Swinfen, I now feel more strongly that I was right to do so.
When putting forward the amendment I had in mind practical cases such as those that have been mentioned. I did not expect to become involved in the fundamental issues of the rights of doctors and other such matters. Those are serious matters, but I hope that noble Lords will agree that we should not be deflected from pursuing practical issues. We can become philosophers and discuss the rights of doctors endlessly but I do not believe that we ought to do so. This is a practical matter.
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I make two points. Doctors are

199
professionals. True professionals do not regard work as a burden; it is what they wish to do. We must not therefore assume in this context that we are opening up a major problem of threatening vast numbers of doctors all of whom wish to spend their time playing golf. We want to give specific protection in specific cases.
In doing so, I do not believe that the rights of doctors and of patients are symmetric. I refer to patients with physical or mental handicap, and others. The consequences to them of having either no services of a doctor or of having services that are less than stable are more serious than the burdens that might be thrown on a doctor under pressure to accept patients. I do not regard their positions as being symmetric.
I can add nothing more. The key issues have been discussed. If we are lucky, the Government will accept the amendment. If we are even luckier, the Government may reformulate the amendment to improve it. Either way, I hope that we shall hear a positive response from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I certainly share the concern for patients which has motivated the amendment of the noble Baroness and many of the contributions that we have heard this afternoon. I recognise the anxieties that have been expressed.
Before responding to the substance of the amendment, perhaps I may say that we do not accept that the changes that we are introducing will mean that some patients are more uneconomic for their GPs. That applies equally to the new contract for GPs and to the changes that we are introducing under the Bill for indicative prescribing budgets and GP fund holding. In general practice it is recognised that some patients will need more care and attention than others. That has always been the case. Our reforms take that fully into account. For example, under the new GP contract, the capitation fee for a patient aged over 75 is two and a half times that for a patient aged under 65.
In the same way, indicative prescribing budgets and GP practice funds will be set at realistic levels to take account of the age and health patterns of the patients concerned. That would include the cost of the treatment for AIDS, about which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, specifically asked. The figure of £5,000 that he quoted refers to the cost of hospital treatment to be met from a practice fund. The district health authority will meet hospital costs above the level. There is no curtailment of the amount spent—just the amount that will come out of a practice fund.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I understand that. However, I am sure that she is also aware that there are therapeutic drug treatments which can be expensive. They may almost reach that figure. Will they be covered?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have obviously made it less than crystal-clear that indicative prescribing budgets mean precisely what they are
200
called: indicative. If there is justification for spending more on more expensive drugs or on a longer period of treatment in a particular case, that need will be met. Indeed, arrangements will exist to ensure that patients continue to receive the treatment that they need. I hope that makes it clear that a doctor will have at least no financial reason for refusing to accept a patient or for removing a patient from his list. It is generally agreed that it would be thoroughly unprofessional for any doctor to do so. I believe that there is no need for a provision in the Bill to deal with that situation.
On the detail of the amendment, Section 29 of the 1977 Act is quite emphatic, and will remain in force. Under that provision, every FPC or FHSA (as it will become) has the duty to arrange with medical practitioners to provide personal medical services for all persons who wish to take advantage of them. I can categorically assure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that the Bill removes none of the present safeguards to allow people to be placed on a list. On the contrary, we have strengthened the position. Under FPCs' enhanced management role in general medical services, they have the new task of developing services to ensure that they meet the needs of their populations. We have given them additional management resources to discharge that task. There is no question of anyone going without a doctor. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, among others.
While I understand the intentions behind the second part of the amendment concerning appeals, we also have to reject that on practical grounds. It would be hard to prove that a patient had not been removed from a doctor's list for good reason. I suspect that doctors would quickly become skilled at finding plausible reasons for not accepting or rejecting patients if they really wished to. Moreover, it seems to me that there could be little advantage to the patient. Like the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I find it difficult to imagine anyone wishing to be reinstated on a doctor's list where the doctor has made it perfectly clear by his or her actions that he or she does not want that patient. As has been said, when trust has broken down there is little to be gained on either side by claim and counter-claim about the reasons for the breakdown. A better and more effective method is that which already exists and to which I have referred. The FPC must have a role. It must be alert to excessive removals and take action if it appears necessary.
As we are discussing a fundamental issue on the nature of the doctor-patient relationship I must point out that, like any other professional relationship, it has always been freely entered into by both sides and terminable by either side without notice or reason being required. That has been the case since the establishment of the National Health Service. In the past the bureaucratic obstacles in the way of changing a GP meant that the advantage was slightly on the side of the doctor. For that reason we introduced reforms last November in order to make it easier for patients to choose and change their doctors. The balance is now fairer and we should be reluctant to change it further.
6 p.m
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that the arrangement has always been freely entered into or abandoned on either side. It is not quite so free. A doctor is not allowed to ask for a patient to be removed from his list at a time when the patient needs treatment. That is the present position and I presume that it will remain so. Therefore, the position is not as unequal as the noble Baroness suggested.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. I confirm that the safeguard will remain in place. I sought to explain the fact that a patient must have the permission of his GP before he could change and find another doctor. It is that aspect which has been changed.
I recognise the anxieties and understand the thinking behind the amendment. I hope that I have convinced the noble Baroness that her worst anxieties and fears are unfounded. The arrangements that are in place and the changes that are being introduced improve the position substantially; certainly, they do not worsen it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in addition to what she has said, does my noble friend not believe that if, in the statute, there were explicit provision preventing exclusion of a patient on financial grounds that might strengthen the hands of all concerned? In any event, what harm would be done?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is always difficult to argue with my noble friend, as Members on the Benches opposite are well aware. However, if a provision is not necessary we prefer not to have it in legislation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I am not sure whether it is perfect but the feeling of the House is that some kind of provision is required. I wish that the Minister could have said that she would take it away in order to put a provision in the Bill herself.
I wonder what we should do. Perhaps if the House votes on the spirit of the amendment it can be corrected at a later stage with the right of appeal improved. As regards the appeal, I wished to make doctors think again. I do not want people to appeal; indeed, for many reasons, one hopes that they will not. The provision is intended to protect a small number of people who are experiencing difficulty. If one has a handicapped child and is told by a doctor, "No, I do not have the time to take you on because I may be called out at night", one has the demoralised feeling of not being wanted. It is bad enough having to look after the child oneself for 24 hours; one needs support. For that reason people outside this House are worried.
If the amendment were agreed the Minister could do something about it. I believe that she has pressure from those in another place and that the situation is difficult for her. A Minister once said to me, "Go on pushing because it helps me to get legislation through". I must ask for the opinion of the House.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 100) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Alport, L.

Kagan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kearton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blackstone, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kitchener, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lock wood, B.

Carnock, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

McFarlanc of Llandaff, B.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Masham of Ilton, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nelson, E.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Erroll, E.

Northfield, L.

Falkender, B.

Oram, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Porritt, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Renton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Varley, L.

Hayter, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Willis, L.

Jacques, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Jay, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelmer, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Allerton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Balfour, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Beloff, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Blake, L.

Derwent, L.

Blatch, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Borthwick, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Elibank, L.

Butterworth, L.

Elles, B.

Caithness, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Forester, L.

203

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norrie, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Havers, L.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Pennock, L.

Hesketh, L.

Quinton, L.

Hives, L.

Reay, L.

Hood, V.

Rees, L.

Hooper, B.

Renwick, L.

Ingrow, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Keyes, L.

Sharpies, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Long, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Margadale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Westbury, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Mountevans, L.

Wynford, L.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.13 p.m.
Clause 14 [Recognition of fund-holding practices of doctors]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 14, line 38, at end insert:
("(1A) Within eight weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall publish a detailed statement setting out the criteria on which a Regional Health Authority shall grant recognition to a fund holding practice under subsection (2) below, which may include requirements on the part of any prospective fund holding practice to—

(a) demonstrate the support of its staff:

(b) demonstrate the support of any relevant community organisations; and

(c) demonstrate adequate information systems for the purposes of entering into NHS contracts.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we debated the circumstances in which the Secretary of State establishes NHS trusts, I sought to make certain requirements about consultations with staff and with the local community. I did not get very far although the Government introduced an amendment requiring regional health authorities to consult, to report to the Secretary of State and to publish the results of their consultation. At the time I expressed my thanks to the Government for that concession. I hope that they will take the same view about this amendment which is in the same spirit and which seeks to do the same in relation to fund-holding budgets.
There is still a great deal of opposition concerning GP fund holding among the public and, indeed, among the medical profession. It is important that views for and against should be taken into consideration by the Government as they have said will happen in relation to NHS trusts.
The British Medical Association representing the doctors firmly opposes the concept of GPs becoming
204
fund holders. A survey of public attitudes to fund holding was carried out by the NOP over the weekend 26th and 27th May among a sample poll of 634 people. Fifty nine per cent. believed that patients would receive cheaper treatment but not the best; 62 per cent. disagreed with the statement that patients would receive better treatment; 62 per cent. thought that fund holding would make it more difficult for the elderly and chronically sick to obtain treatment; and 67 per cent. felt that fund holding would result in doctors' budgets being too small to provide necessary treatment.
My view is that the Government should take seriously consultation about the establishment of GP fund holding in the same way that they say they will take seriously consultation about the establishment of NHS trusts. The amendment pursues themes of amendments previously tabled to the clauses dealing with self-governing trusts. It would oblige the Secretary of State to set out the final conditions on which budget holding status will be granted, including some demonstration of local support for the move and proof that the practice has adequate information support.
Amendment No. 102 requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report reviewing the development of budget holding practices. The aim is to seek to create greater openness. The amendments establish a framework for accountability within which budget holders would be established and operate. A statutory statement of the criteria for granting budget holding status would enable greater consultation and allow local interests a greater say in the development of primary health care services.
A desire to allow wider consultation and enhance accountability should be entirely compatible with the Government's stated aim of putting patients first. I hope that the Government will agree that this is a very modest and reasonable amendment and that they will not, as on so many other occasions, simply reject it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Bill already provides for regulations to be made setting out the conditions to be fulfilled for obtaining recognition as fund holding practices. That will be supplemented as necessary by detailed guidance. Therefore, the criteria will be a matter of record and no one will be left in any doubt about the basis on which applications are considered.
On recognition, our intention is that a practice must demonstrate that all the partners wish to join the scheme, that it has the ability to manage a practice fund and that it possesses an adequate computer support system. That system will enable GPs to manage their funds by keeping track of activity and expenditure.
The hospital element of the fund will be set primarily on the basis of past usage of hospital services. Working with regional health authorities and family health services authorities, practices will need to provide details of past referral and treatment patterns in order for the budget to be set and contracts to be made with hospitals.
The amendment refers also to the support of relevant community organisations. That would

205
cover a very wide range of organisations and would effectively give a veto to groups of people who are not necessarily involved in the practice. We believe that all GPs will explain the benefits of the scheme to their patients so that the patients may judge for themselves whether the scheme is bringing real benefits to them. If the patients are unhappy they will be free to change their GP. We do not think it likely that patients will wish to do that simply because the practice wishes to participate in the scheme.
I turn to Amendment No. 102 which deals with annual reports. We discussed the question of reports in general last Thursday. I explained the mechanisms already in place to monitor and review the implementation of the new arrangements. We expect regional health authorities to monitor the workings of the new scheme in their regions. The regional reviews conducted by the National Health Service management executive will provide an opportunity for those matters to be reviewed and for any central management input which may be required. Routine annual reports will not add anything of value to that process.
I recognise that your Lordships and Members of another place will wish to keep an eye on the development of the scheme, but there are existing mechanisms for that which work well. An annual report will add paper but very little of value. I cannot remember whether the noble Lord said that I should not as usual reject the amendment. I do not reject the amendment as usual. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, for once the Minister has been very persuasive. She has convinced me to withdraw the amendment, not because I do not agree with it nor because I thought her solution was better than mine, but because I appreciate that there will be detailed guidance. The practice will be required to prove that all partners agree, which is very important. They must be able to provide the information necessary (that is also important); and there will be certain requirements on standards. I want to read again what the Minister said on that point.
The Minister is quite right in saying that we shall require to keep an eye on developments. She said that there are procedures or organisations that will monitor the position. Was she talking of community health councils with which she established that there should be consultation when it came to NHS trusts? Was she thinking in terms of some method of monitoring that already exists? Perhaps she can answer that point before I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the mechanisms in relation to general monitoring indeed include the CHCs, but primarily will be the regional health authorities and, above them, the National Health Service management executive.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in the light of that helpful explanation I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Payments to recognised fund-holding practices]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 15, line 37, at end insert ("having due regard to factors such as the age composition of the practice list, proportions of chronically sick and disabled people on the practice list and the social and economic characteristics of the area.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 103 I speak also to Amendment No. 104. These amendments follow earlier themes and I state immediately that they are not amendments on which it would be appropriate to divide. They are amendments designed to enable the Government to throw some light on the questions posed.
The main text of the Bill refers to payments being,
"a sum determined in such manner and by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State may direct".
One understands why governments make statements of that kind. Equally one understands—it has been debated on many occasions—why other Members of your Lordships' House require something more specific.
By this amendment one is asking a straight question: what factors will the Secretary of State consider in determining those budgets? In my amendment I set out some of the important points which should be borne in mind. They are points not unrelated to the amendment so narrowly lost by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and myself.
As always, we are entering the area of asking about regulations and guidance. I do not seek to persuade the Minister to accept the amendment; I seek to persuade him to tell us more of the Government's thinking. At least two kinds of people need reassurance on the matter. The people who might hold fund-holding practices need some degree of assurance. I believe fund-holding practices are already a dead duck; I do not think we need to worry any further. It is a wheeze the Government dreamt up and it will come to practically nothing except to waste a great deal of administrative time. That is a matter for the Government. I am a great believer in employment creation for bureaucrats because otherwise they are added to the unemployment statistics.
I am not overstating the position, but if we are to accept the provision we need to know how the Government propose to set the sums and I await the Minister's reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord said that these are merely probing amendments. I totally reject what he said regarding fund-holding practices, but as he will appreciate the amendment refers to the general principle of fund-holding budgets.
The noble Lord moved a similar amendment at Committee stage. I spoke to it at that time. Practice funds will be set on an individual basis—that is important—after detailed discussions with each practice interested in participating in the scheme. Obviously a wide range of factors will be taken into account by the regional health authorities. Previous hospital treatment and prescribing patterns will be

207
examined. Account will be taken of such matters as the age and sex composition of a practice's list, the number of chronically sick and disabled people and other potentially high cost patients that it may have.
The Secretary of State will issue directions on the factors which need to be taken into account by the RHA when setting the fund. They can be added to or amended in the light of experience more easily than if they were contained in the Bill.
Both parties must agree. If the individual fund holder does not think that the appropriate factors have been taken into account in the appropriate manner and that due weight has been given to factors in his area which he thinks might cause his practice greater expense, he will say so. Further negotiations will then take place or he will say, "Sorry, I am not interested". From that point of view, as the noble Lord appreciates, the amendment is unnecessary. In the light of that explanation I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies perhaps I may say something.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there has been some slippage on procedure. It is Report stage. If the noble Lord wishes to put a question so be it, but the general rule is that no one intervenes after the Minister has spoken other than the mover of the amendment. However, on this occasion, if the noble Lord wishes to ask a question, he may.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if I did not speak before the noble Lord replied. Not having done so, I accept that I must not speak now but must couch my words in an interrogative form.
I am not wholly reassured by the Minister's reply and feel that the amendment is more necessary than I had previously thought. He said that if the arrangement was not satisfactory the budget holder might say, "Right, we are finished. We are walking out". That is not the way we wish to proceed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood. The budget holding practice may say that they do not wish to be a budget holding practice and therefore will go back to their original status. If they wish to have budget holding status they will only accept that position if they feel that the amount of money offered is sufficient. That is all I said.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Lord has said precisely what I said but in different words, which I have no doubt is within the rules of the House. However, that is not satisfactory. I ask the noble Lord a question. Let us suppose that a fund holding practice in a certain area of London happens to be burdened with a great many homeless people. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that homeless people have great difficulty getting on to a general practitioner's list. Some find it impossible. Their
208
children are not immunised or treated. If a fund-holding practice in one of those areas provides special arrangements for health care for homeless people, would it then qualify for an "allotted sum", to use the words in the Bill?
Lord Henley: My Lords, a budget-holding practice, before it agrees to become one, or if it wishes to continue as one, will have to satisfy itself that the resources offered to it by the region are sufficient for what it considers are its patients' needs. Surely that must answer the noble Lord's point.
Lord Peston: My Lords, having fallen foul of the rules last week I do not propose to have an argument with the noble Lord this week. I shall, so to speak, keep my powder dry for another occasion when we know what we can or cannot say. I thank the Minister for his reply. Much of what he says makes good sense. In particular, I see the logic of what he says about the budget when it is first set up. I have some anxiety, but it is for general medical practitioners to decide what they want to do. They will find themselves more involved with accounting than medicine. But, as the noble Lord said, no one is obliged to be a fund-holding practitioner, if that is the word. We obviously differ. Not only is no one obliged but few, I believe, will want to do it. The noble Lord thinks that more will agree to become budget-holders.
I accept entirely the point that getting started will be a free negotiation. However, what I had in mind in part—I simply place it on record because the Government will have to think the matter through—is that it is a continuing process. The budget is not fixed for all time. The Minister indicates that it is the same but it is not the same, because the rules for ceasing to be a fund-holding practice are themselves extremely complicated. Therefore, there is a sense in which GPs will feel themselves locked in. Their negotiating position will not be at all the same as the position at the outset. However, that does not mean that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is wrong. Although I do not accept that the position is the same, the fact remains that in the end there is an "out". However, what we look for is what happens in practice—another aspect of what I seek to put on the record. In a way one would like to see a few fund-holding practices purely to get some information on the experiment. But it is a pity that we need such experiments.
I thank the Minister. He has thrown some light and logic on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert:
("(10) A recognised fund holding practice as defined in section 14 above shall provide the relevant Family Health Services Authority with an annual report for publication.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Amendment No. 102 I sought to persuade the Government that the Secretary of State should be required to publish an annual report on the functioning of fund-holding

209
practices. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said that she would leave this responsibility to her right honourable friend. I hope that she will take a different view on this amendment, modest as it is, which would put a responsibility upon the fund-holding practice to provide an annual report to the relevant family health services authority.
If we are having anything like an experiment there must be some basis on which to judge how it is working. Part of that basis is a report to the FHSA. I should have thought that the FHSA would require that. The noble Baroness may reassure me by saying that such a provision will be in the guidelines, that the FHSA will expect to have an annual report and that t is all part of the system but that it will not be written into the Bill. To that extent this is a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I support the amendment in so far as it would appear to result in the work of a fund-holding practice, within those terms, being continuously monitored. I could not stand here and honestly say that I support an amendment that would necessarily impose a duty on fund-holding practices to spend a great deal of their resources and energy on preparing annual reports. However, I agree that an annual report should be prepared. We should know precisely what is going on in these fund-holding practices. I support the amendment as a way of ensuring that such practices are constantly and continuously monitored. However, I am not entirely sure that the practices themselves should be given the burdensome task of preparing formal annual reports.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hope that I can be reassuring on this amendment. The principle behind the practice funding initiative is to use GPs' undoubted expertise and experience so that NHS money can be used in the way that fund holders judge best for their patients. The scheme provides GPs with greater flexibility in the way they provide care to their patients.
However, under another of the measures introduced by this Government to improve service to patients, all GPs will be required to produce annual reports on the activities of their practices. These will include information about the number of referrals to hospital, the number and duties of practice staff and changes to the practice premises. A report dealing with the running of the practice fund would, in large part, be a duplication. The new contract will also require all GPs to provide patients with more information about the services available in their practices. We have already discussed practice leaflets in that respect.
I stress that the activity and expenditure of fund-holding practices will be monitored by FHSAs on a monthly and annual basis and that fund-holding accounts will be subject to audit procedures. So public money will be safeguarded. FHSAs, and through them RHAs, will therefore have a great deal of information about fund-holding practices. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that his proposal is a duplication of existing arrangements.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I am glad that we do not at present have a Liberal-Democrat government, wildly unlikely as that is. The Minister's reply was a jolly sight better than I could have expected from the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who does not want such a report. I am very satisfied with the reply which shows that the amendment is not necessary. It was a probing amendment which has produced a reply for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdaw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) In making regulations under this section and in specifying goods and services to be approved under subsection (7)(b) above the Secretary of State shall secure that the members of a recognised fund-holding practice may avail themselves of such alternative and complementary therapies as they may deem appropriate.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to give fund-holding GPs the right to make use of complementary medical practitioners for the benefit of patients within their allotted NHS budgets if they wish to do so. The amendment was withdrawn in Committee in order that its proposers might study the Government's reply. Since then we have corresponded with the noble Baroness the Minister in an attempt to clarify our respective positions.
We now bring back the amendment after much thought because we are persuaded that it offers the best way forward. Our reasons are these. We feel—I know that quite a number of your Lordships agree—that the time is now right for a degree of formal recognition of natural, or complementary, medicine. The full debate which we had on the subject on 9th May served to highlight the advances which the complementary therapies, such as chiropractic, osteopathy, acupuncture and herbalism, have made in recent years and the great interest in them which patients and doctors are now showing. Research is making their benefits ever more apparent.
I am sure that many of your Lordships will have seen in the newspapers last week the results of the MRC trial of chiropractic, which established its superiority over conventional treatment for that common affliction, back pain. I was delighted to read that there was an alternative approach which had proved its worth. But why has it taken 90 years for the public and the medical profession to become aware of its benefits? Just think how much suffering could have been saved if our health care system had been geared up to the maintenance of good health from whatever source. Let us waste no more time in welcoming into the fold those who can make a contribution to the alleviation of sickness.
It is unrealistic to expect that doctors are going to find the time and money to train in these therapies as thoroughly as they need to do to practise them safely and effectively, at least for a long time to come. We need all the current experts in the field.
Anything that makes for a wider choice in effective health care must be welcomed. I do not think that a Conservative Government would quarrel with that.

211
There is no real choice at present. Chiropractic may be able to save the nation £16 million annually, but the patient still has to find well over £100 for each course of treatment. I have had a great number of complementary medical treatments and I have spent a lot of money. I have a friend who was as ill as I was, and she does not have that kind of money. As a result, I am on my feet addressing your Lordships while she is still in bed, a chronic invalid. That should not be. It is time for complementary therapies to be made available to those in society who are not so well off, just as mainstream treatments are available.
When doctors can work with acupuncturists or osteopaths in the same practice, barriers will start to come down, bridges will be strengthened and prejudices will be begin to melt away. I believe that that is one of the most urgent needs if patients are to be properly served. Much progress has been made, but life is still decidedly uncomfortable for the patient who wants to take advantage of what both orthodoxy and heterodoxy have to offer. We are talking now about one-third of the patient population, not some small minority of health cranks. If the rigour of mainstream practice can learn from the often wider view of complementary medicine, and vice versa, we can have a system which really begins to make inroads into the intractable problems of today.
In seeking to achieve these benefits we believe that the slow approach is best. This amendment is not a charter for the wholesale introduction of complementary medicine on the National Health Service. With one or two exceptions the therapies are not ready for this. Before a patient can go as of right to consult a naturopath or a herbalist, all kinds of questions of training standards, registration and so on will need to be addressed. Then, and only then, will be the time for the Secretary of State to use his powers under the 1977 Act to extend the list of treatments universally available.
That is where I believe we were at cross-purposes at Committee stage with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. In her reply (Official Report, 30/4/90; col. 850) I believe she assumed that that was what we were after. We are not. What will happen under our amendment is that a limited number of doctors, and only those who want to do so, will begin to introduce some of their patients to therapies which they judge will benefit them. For that we do not need to be specific in the Bill.
Clearly they will do this only where they are satisfied as to the effectiveness of the practitioner concerned. The GP will retain control. We believe that that is the right approach at this moment. A gentle introduction will allow the benefits of complementary therapies to be monitored and comparisons to be made with practices which do not use them. Passions will not be stirred. This is still a sensitive area. Probably very little will happen for quite a long time.
Of course, this widening of choice will cost nothing: it must cost nothing. If a practice cannot achieve it within its allotted budget, then it will not happen. It is as simple as that.
I have explained why I think that the Government missed the point of what we are trying to do and why the Secretary of State's powers are irrelevant in this case. We are not attempting to go so far so fast. I am advised that there is no legal objection to the way this amendment is framed and that no other change of existing law will be called for.
There remains the Government's objection to what they term a "two-tier service". I can understand that argument. If our amendment goes through, some doctors—the fund holders—will be able to provide what other doctors cannot. We differ from the noble Baroness in believing that that is not a bad thing. If the time is right to begin to extend to patients the benefits of the complementary therapies, for the reasons that I have given, here is a good place to start. Besides, what is the Bill creating here if not a two-tier service, where certain doctors will be given more scope to find treatment from a variety of providers? All we are doing is making that scope a bit wider.
Freedom of choice cannot be bad. While we would not be averse from granting this choice to all doctors and their patients, in legislative terms it is not so straightforward. We are asking for less than that. We believe it is better that some patients should have these advantages than that none should.
This modest amendment could, in a gradual and non-threatening way, become a milestone in British health care. I do not think that it should be a difficult one for the Government to accept. If the Minister feels that it can be improved in some way while not losing the essence of what we are proposing, even at this stage we would consider withdrawing it and coming back with different wording. We shall listen to what she says with care. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, in the recent Cross-Bench debate which explored complementary medicine and to which the noble Lord referred, the Government made a very valuable statement. I believe it became clear that it is not possible to admit to the health service all that which is classified as complementary medicine. Each therapy must be examined. For example, I refer to the recent examination by the Medical Research Council and the success of chiropractic treatment for back conditions.
Before that there is the diagnosis. In the National Health Service that requires registered medical practitioners. However, I believe that large group practices in the future should include homoeopathic and chiropractic services as proposed in the amendment. A European draft directive about homoeopathic medicine is under discussion. It has also been under discussion in a Committee of your Lordships' House. But when does it become a matter for the Committee on the safety of medicines? Is it a medicine, is it an innocuous remedy or what? These matters remain to be resolved on a European basis. At least they are receiving attention. The amendment allows doctors in their budgets to pay for complementary medicine, having diagnosed the situation themselves. I support the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am terribly disappointed that this is not a government amendment. Right up to Committee stage one understood the various professional arguments that had been produced against this extension. After that, between Committee stage and now, I was hoping that the Government themselves would add an amendment to the Marshalled List along the lines of the amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, has just been discussing. Even at this late stage I hope that the Government will do something about, it.
This amendment is merely giving what is now a clearly accepted part of our medical service a chance to grow. Nobody is forcing anything; the door is merely being opened so that if complementary medicine can justify itself, it will grow through general demand and the results that flow from it. I support this Government in 99 per cent. of the measures they try to implement. I should like them to have the credit for having overcome this barrier and allowed the amendment.
I doubt whether there is anyone in your Lordships' House whose family has not found the absolute benefit that flows from complementary medicine in one Form or another. I know that my family has benefited, as have my neighbours and everyone else I know.
One understands that the people who have been trained to practise medicine in the form that we have experienced until now believe that their methods have been a great success. The real test of the success of the procedures which have continued until now is the fact that people are living longer. They are also active longer than they used to be. But if the Government accept something like this amendment, there is a chance of not only allowing people to live longer but living longer freed from pain, which is unnecessary in the light of experience. So I urge my noble friend—I do not know what power she has at this stage to give some sort of indication; and perhaps she does not have a written power—to realise that this is the day to put the telescope to the blind eye and make a move. That would help my noble friend as well as her department.
More than that, the Government would be making a commonsense next move in medicine, as in practical experience we have found that this can work. It ought not to be delayed and I should hate to think that it was a government of my party who were not giving this help forward when the case is now so clearly made out.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, perhaps I may also support this amendment and say how pleased and encouraged I am to hear the support that we are getting this evening from all sides of the House. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has said, we are moving the amendment again in the hope that the Government will have had time to reflect upon the arguments and to agree to this very small change in the Bill which would be welcomed by all practitioners of the complementary or natural therapies.
All we are suggesting is that fund-holding practices may be able to use,
214
"such alternative and complementary therapies as they deem appropriate".
This very minor change that we are seeking surely fits in with the Government's intentions for this Bill. The Health Reform Group, which I know has some influence, says in my briefing:
"the group believes that NHS trusts"—
and here I assume that it is talking for fund-holding practices as well—
"will provide an open and challenging environment in which staff of all disciplines will be able to develop their abilities to the full. Since resources will be earned on merit, trusts will strive for excellence and efficiency. They will have more opportunities to be innovative and flexible".
It goes on:
"through the sensitive use of their new financial freedoms, trusts will also be able to provide a greater choice for patients".
It is a fact that the natural therapies are becoming more popular and that many may eventually become available within the NHS. The innovations of this Bill must surely allow fund-holding practitioners to buy in whichever form of treatment they feel is best suited to their patients. The amendment does not say that fund holders must use complementary therapies; it says that they may consider the use of complementary therapies.
As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said, many of your Lordships will have read of the Medical Research Council's findings that chiropractic was a better treatment for low back pain and disability than treatment by conventional methods in hospital. It recommended that the treatment should become available within the NHS, and said that the overall saving might be in the region of £13 million in lost output and £3 million in social security payments.
In previous debates I have mentioned many examples of the advantages of complementary therapies. Perhaps the most important is the treatment of back pain. Another is the treatment of generalised stress which is highly effective without the use of any synthesised drugs, particularly the benzo-diazepines, some of which cause more harm and more addiction than the so-called hard drugs. Upper respiratory tract infections, most skin disorders such as psoriasis and eczema, allergies and arthritic conditions are all effectively treated by the complementary therapies. I have personally referred many children to osteopaths or cranial osteopaths for the treatment of otitis media or glue ear, rather than subject them to the surgical placement of grommets under a general anaesthetic. The list is endless. This Bill is an important step forward in health care and this minor change to include the therapies should be very carefully considered.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, very briefly, we should like to give support to this amendment. It is permissive; it is not compulsory, and it opens up new opportunities. We very much hope that the Government will support it.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to join in the happy consensus and express the hope that the proverbial blind telescope may for once be used. The fact is that there are general practitioners and general practices which are following exactly the

215
lines which are being proposed here, and they are able to provide an excellent service with the GP responsible for the diagnosis, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, was talking about a moment ago, and which is so often the essential point, but then where appropriate referring patients to a chiropractor, an osteopath or a counsellor, including in some cases a spiritual counsellor who can be of great service to some people.
What one would be doing, if only the telescope can be used, is giving encouragement to the general practitioners and alternative practitioners who are already proceeding in this way, and also encouraging others to do the same. It would be helping to bring within the bounds of respectability what until recently was not within those bounds, so that as a signal it could be quite important. I am very much for the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my name is one of those giving support to this amendment and I want to support it very strongly. I want first to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, on the way in which he moved it, because he brought together all the arguments. He very kindly sent me a copy of the letter that he sent on 8th June to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, the Minister. I thought the letter was very succinct in its presentation of the case. That was the first point that made me glad about this debate.
The second was the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, because, when we had a very much broader debate on 9th May, he was cautionary in his normal cautionary way. But he recognises that this is the way forward. It is a first step and it is most important that the amendment should be accepted.
As each month goes by there is growing conviction among the public that very often complementary natural therapies are preferable to the traditional methods of treatment. I was fascinated when I was last in China to realise that all Chinese doctors are trained in both Western methods of medicine and traditional methods. Some of them opt for two-thirds traditional and one-third contemporary, while some are the other way round. I also was very impressed by the report in the British Medical Journal about chiropractic, which showed that after two years the chiropractic patients had improved by 7 per cent. more than those treated in hospital, and after three years their benefit was nearly 10 per cent. greater. The study found that the chiropractic group received almost 44 per cent. more treatment than NHS patients, and so on. It was a very encouraging report.
Since 9th May, when we had the debate in the House, I have also had an opportunity of spending some time at the Marylebone health centre led by Dr. Pietroni, which is perhaps the only group practice that includes complementary therapies among those who provide service from that health centre. They will shortly be publishing the results, in terms of their ordinary patients, of those who are benefiting from complementary therapies in a very limited way. It is not every complementary therapy that is to be found there, and we would be very
216
unwise if we embarked at this stage, without trial or test, on a whole range of therapies that are not yet proven. They may have great advantages, but they are yet to be proven, and we are on the first step of a very important development indeed.
I very much hope that the Minister will feel that the breadth of support from this House for this modest amendment enables her to go forward and agree that this amendment should be carried. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Although we are old boys of the same school, there are not many things upon which we agree except that we like each other in an old-boyish sort of way. In terms of judgment there is hardly anything on which we agree. I think he would recognise that that is so. But if the noble Lord has come round to it, then the case must be proven.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for raising this point. Those who put their names to the amendment have spoken most eloquently. I think that perhaps your Lordships would have expected me to put my oar in on the subject of medical herbalism. I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, who said that it is important that the training programmes of the practitioners of these therapies should be thoroughly reviewed. Indeed, great efforts are being made in that direction.
I speak of course in respect of herbal practitioners in particular. A recent review has shown that they are increasing their patient numbers at the present moment at the rate of 75,000 patients per annum. That is a large number. It is not only a question as to whether they are being treated with a medicine or a therapy, the point surely must be that these people are voting with their pockets. They are paying for these therapies out of their own pockets without help from anyone else. Presumably they must therefore be assumed to be doing them good. The therapies were clearly defined in the Supply of Herbal Remedies Order 1977, No. 2130, which clearly states which herbs can be used in what doses, as well as what remedies should be prohibited. The order bears the signature of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to whom I am sure all practitioners in the field of herbal medicine will be grateful.
There are some 300 registered members of the National Institute who are seeing a swelling number of patients—if that is the right word—using these remedies, and no ill effects or suggestions of ill health have been pointed at them—despite previous suggestions earlier in this House—in the intervening 13 years since 1977, let alone the last 126 years since the National Institute of Medical Herbalists was formed. It is surely time, as has been clearly stated by other noble Lords, that this amendment should be passed, and I beg leave to support it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as has been said, we have discussed this subject before. Then, as now, I listened with great interest and considerable sympathy. However, it is not so simple a matter as the noble Earl, and indeed others, have suggested. Indeed his step-by-step approach in itself creates

217
difficulties. He acknowledged as one of them the creation of the two-tier system. It is not our intention to allow fund-holding GPs access to treatments for their patients which are not available to the patients of non-fund holding GPs. While the noble Earl finds nothing to quarrel with in that, I should expect to be criticised if we did so.
Nevertheless, if my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, under the powers given to him in Section 3 of the National Health Service Act 1977, should decide to have specified complementary therapies provided under the National Health Service, then the matter can of course be reconsidered. This may prove necesary as a result of the European Community directive to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred. I would remind your Lordships that homoeopathy treatment is already provided under the National Health Service, so it would be possible for other alternative and complementary therapies also to be included, but they would have to be specified by the Secretary of State under this Section 3 power.
The other issue of difficulty is that of clinical responsibility. I should make clear that at present any GP is entitled to provide natural therapies for his patients either himself or through a member of his practice staff. Under the new doctors' contract it will be open to FHSAs to contribute to the costs of such a member of staff. In this case the GP himself remains clinically responsible for his patients' treatment.
We believe that this flexibility may well be used by more GPs in the future as the range of services provided by GP practices develops and so long as the GPs have confidence in the value of such treatments for their patients. In the light of the contributions that have been made in the debate today, it should not be too long before that in fact happens. We shall certainly keep these development under review from our point of view, but I regret that I am not able to accept the noble Earl's amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support that I have had from all sides of the House. I could not have asked for more, nor indeed have expected more than I have had unanimously from all except the noble Baroness. Obviously I had been hoping for some accommodation from her on this matter. Sadly, it has not come. We have simply had a repeat of the arguments advanced last time with the issue of clinical responsibility thrown in, which would not be a problem under the wording of our amendment. Believing as I do that this is an important issue, as I believe do your Lordships, there is nothing left but to test the opinion of the House.
7.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 106) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 77.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Airedale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E [Teller]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

218

Carnock, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cobbold, L.

Listowel, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McFarlanc of Llandaff, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Diamond, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ennals, L.

Monson, L.

Erroll, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Northfield, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Oram, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Richard, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Roskill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hayter, L.

Seear, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seebohm, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hughes, L.

Sherfield, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Varley, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kearton, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Allerton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Blake, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Borthwick, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mountevans, L.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Pender, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Teviot, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ingrow, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Keyes, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 16 [Renunciation and removal of recognition as a fund-holding practice and withholding of funds]:
[Amendments Nos. 107 to 112 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Indicative budgets for doctors' practices]:
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 18, line 42, leave out ("by way of a budget").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Butterfield has unfortunately been taken ill and has asked me to move the amendment on his behalf. With the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 114 to 117. The amendments make simple changes to the clause and I trust that they will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we accept that the term "indicative budget" has been misunderstood and misrepresented, despite our best efforts to assure doctors and patients that the word "budget" does not represent a limit on funds. We are happy therefore to accept the amendments. We shall put forward a necessary but slight consequential drafting change on Third Reading. If the House agrees with the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, my noble friend Lord Sanderson, will bring forward parallel Scottish amendments also on Third Reading. I am happy to accept the amendments.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, why did the Government use the word "budget" in the first place? It has a clearly understood meaning. Do the Government not understand what it means?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only say that that was before my time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendments Nos. 114 to 117:
Page 18, line 43, leave out ("indicative budget") and insert ("indicative amount").
Page 19, line 13, leave out ("indicative budget") and insert ("indicative amount").
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("indicative budget") and insert ("indicative amount").
Page 19, line 18, leave out ("as that budget").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 19, line 21, after ("section") insert ("and section 97 of the principal Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 119. These amendments were tabled in Committee but due to a misunderstanding were not at that time debated. They relate to indicative drug budgets in general practice. I have retabled the amendments
220
because, despite the clear assurances that your Lordships received in Committee from the Minister, there is still some concern that the present proposals in the Bill will exert a subtle but unrelenting downward pressure on the sums available for drug budgeting in general practice.
We were much reassured in Committee to hear the Minister say that there would be no cash limits upon the sums available to general practitioners for prescribing purposes. We were also much reassured to be told that reserve funds would be available in the event that a practice happened to have a series of patients on its list who had special needs which required highly expensive medicines which would distort its prescribing costs in relation to other practices.
There is clear evidence that throughout the United Kingdom there is at present a substantial variation in prescribing costs. Some practices may have costs which are too high and some may have costs which are too low. In many cases those variations are not dependent upon the prescribing habits of the doctors concerned but are dependent upon the variation in their patient populations.
It is a matter of concern to many able and dedicated doctors that unless the amendment is placed on the face of the Bill—not this Government—a subsequent government may impose cash limits to the detriment of patient care. That is why the amendments have been tabled. Your Lordships are fully aware that some immensely costly drugs are continually being introduced into treatments. One recent example has been the development of a drug called erythropoetin for the treatment of anaemia in patients with chronic renal failure. It is an exceptionally expensive drug and yet its benefits to patients are enormous. The problem we all face is that if that drug were to be widely prescribed in hospitals or general practice it could substantially distort prescribing costs and might well cause certain general practitioners with many patients on their lists suffering from that condition to have a prescribing level far higher than the indicative drug budget originally assigned to that practice.
It is interesting to note that pharmaceuticals, as a percentage of the total NHS bill, have remained almost constant over the course of the past few years: 10.2 per cent. in 1984; 10.2 per cent. in 1985; 10.1 per cent. in 1986; 10.3 per cent. in 1987 and 10.4 per cent. in 1988, the most recent year for which figures are available.
If we compare pharmaceutical costs per capita in this country with those in other countries we see that in France in 1988 the total cost was £89; in West Germany, £87: in Italy £76; in Sweden £64 and in the UK £44. From this we can assume that UK doctors are conservative in their prescribing habits. They accepted—admittedly with some reluctance—the limited list of drugs which they could prescribe in general practice. They have functioned effectively within that constraint which is now generally accepted by the profession.
The pharmaceutical industry of this country is one of the jewels in our industrial crown. The 1986

221
Touche Ross report showed it to be one of our greatest and most effective earners of overseas income.
The problem is that if drug budgets in general practice were to be imposed too rigidly, this would take no account of the morbidity, the age structure and the demography of practices; of screening programmes; and of local hospital policies on prescribing. The new family health services authorities will not receive their global drug amounts until 1991. They will have little time to discuss them with individual practices.
Our special concern is the needs of a generally ageing population. The evidence is that the elderly—and by that I mean those over 65—consume about 42 per cent. of all medicines prescribed in the NHS. However, they represent only 15 per cent. of the population. Between 1977 and 1988 prescriptions in the NHS grew by 51 million, but 96 per cent. of that growth was accounted for by patients over the age of 65.
We are concerned that without the amendment there will be a subtle, continuing downward pressure on drug costs in the National Health Service. We were grateful for the assurances given by the Minister in Committee: nevertheless, we feel that it would be more appropriate to have the two amendments on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I recommend the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant, Lord Hunter of Newington and myself. I hope very much that we are pushing at an open door. Given that the Government have accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, we must now refer to "indicative amounts" and not "indicative budgets". That presents me with a great problem. I had become accustomed to "indicative budgets"; I shall now have to try to get into the habit of using "indicative amounts".
I do not believe that the amendment can be interpreted as criticising the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out, it seems that the problem of drugs is taken very seriously and that National Health Service expenditure on drugs has been kept under control. Many of the moves and pressures the Government have tried to introduce have been effective. Perhaps I may underline the point that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, made. By any international comparison we are not excessive spenders on drugs. That does not mean that we should not always scrutinise what we are doing. When we are discussing scarce resources it is agreed that we should scrutinise all forms of expenditure.
I said that I hoped that we were pushing at an open door. The reason is that the Secretary of State himself has given reassurances on the matter. The noble Baroness has intervened and spoken cogently on the subject. I believe that in terms of how we should like to see general practitioners work there is nothing between us. We want rational prescribing with general practitioners taking due account of the fact that drugs use up scarce resources. On the other hand, we are dealing with professional people who
222
must exercise their professional judgment to prescribe the drugs they think their patients ought to have.
The only issue is our old friend: what goes on the face of the Bill. I plead with the noble Baroness to put this provision on the face of the Bill for two reasons. One reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, is that another Secretary of State could use the Bill in quite a different way. I should not want that to happen. In many ways it is impertinent that I should give advice to the Government, but they could do with one or two friends in the medical world and the medical profession.
The other reason is that I can think of few actions more appropriate than accepting the amendment to reassure the medics that the Government's intentions are what they say they are. I do not remotely believe that the amendment has any political quality; it is just a matter of judgment as to whether or not it ought to be on the face of the Bill. My view, like that of my two noble friends who put down the amendment, and, I should have thought, of most noble Lords, is that this is a clear cut case where, whatever one thinks of other aspects of the Bill, it would be greatly improved is the amendment were accepted.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I strongly support what has been said and wish to make two points. First, can the Minister say how the Government see the role of the prescribing medical adviser to the family practitioner committee? This is a key person. We need an agreed normal procedure, agreed clear rules about the exceptions, but freedom in any place to prescribe in a certain situation. Any examination is to be carried out, if I understand it correctly, by the doctor's peers on behalf of the authority.
Lord Young of Darlington: My Lords, I agree very much with what has been said cogently by the noble Lords, Lord Hunter, Lord Peston and Lord Walton in particular. The indicative drug budgets are still a cause of concern. The matter has not been completely dismissed from the minds of GPs and others, despite what happened earlier this year. The fear is bound to exist that so long as there is downward pressure on costs—we have heard so much about it and know that it will come in greater measure in the future—there could be pressure at some point to bring in by the back door the cash limits which are so abhorred at any rate at the moment.
Whatever happens with the pressure on costs, it surely should not affect the medicines which GPs can prescribe for their patients. The Secretary of State gave way or appeared to give way—there is a good deal of doubt about what happened earlier this year in discussions with the BMA—on cash limits. It looked as though he and the Government would put cash limits behind them and not bring them up again at any rate for some considerable time.
In view of what has happened, I believe it most desirable that the matter should be made completely clear, as it would be if the amendment were accepted. It should be made completely clear that cash limits are out of bounds, and that there is no question of

223
their being introduced at any rate during the period of office of this Government. That would be reassuring to general practitioners and also to their colleagues in hospitals. Perhaps, above all, it would be reassuring to consumers.
I am sure in my own mind that this clause would have the full support of the Consumers' Association, of which I have the honour to be president. I am glad to say that the Consumers' Association has taken an increasing interest in health matters in response to the express concerns of its members, who have been canvassed. The association has about 1 million members so it is a force to be reckoned with. I am sure that if the 1 million members were here—that is a terrible thought—they would be very much in support of the amendment which was so ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
The Consumers' Association has many elderly members. They are the people who are especially concerned about this matter and who would be especially reassured by the acceptance of the amendment partly because their GPs would know about it—not many ordinary consumers would know about the clause—and they would be able to reassure their patients that they were not skimping in any way and that they were not under any pressure to skimp on health and clinical considerations, which should be uppermost in their concerns. I greatly support the amendment and hope that the Government will be able to support it also.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am sorry to have to disagree with those who have ably supported the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said the amendment is not at all political. I agree with him on that, but I think the matter is one of common sense. All of us would like to have an open cheque and I believe that is what is being asked for. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, explained that if a particular drug was given to a patient it could use up the entire budget of a GP. That seems to me to contradict the argument that GPs should have open-ended budgets so they can spend the vast amount of money that is required for that particular drug.
Within the health service as a whole there must always be a balance between what is spent on the general practitioner service, what is spent on the pharmaceutical service and what is spent on surgical procedures. Recently I visited Cuba, which prides itself on having a fantastically high medical standard which is out of all proportion to the standard of everything else in the country. However, Cuba is now desperately worried because it has discovered that the provision of medicine is unlimited and unending. The budget for medicine is eating up a great amount of money, but the Cubans do not know what to do about that because people's expectations have been raised to the point where they want to receive unlimited treatment, unlimited drugs and unlimited everything else. We must be realistic about this.
I recall clearly the time when a limited prescribing list was introduced for doctors. There had always
224
been such a list for dentists but when it was introduced for general practitioners there was a terrible fuss. We were told that their practices would be damaged and they would not be able to care properly for patients. However, I do not think the list made any difference at all. I believe patients are still being treated perfectly adequately with the list of drugs that is available.
It has been mentioned many times in your Lordships' House that quantities of medicines are thrown away. When people are asked to hand over unused medicines thousands of pounds' worth of unused medicines roll in. I am now at a stage when I can tick my National Health Service prescription and obtain it for nothing. If someone offers me medicines for nothing I can happily go and get them whether I use them or not. The Government must retain powers to look at drug budgets. To ask for such an open-ended measure as this is too drastic. For that reason I cannot support the amendments.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness in favour of cash limits despite what the Secretary of State has said?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall reply to that point. I believe that all of us would like to have no cash limits on anything. However, whether it is a case of my housekeeping budget or the national economy, that is not the way the world operates. Sooner or later we all have to think of how we spend our money. I am no economist. I do not talk about cash limits but of what can be afforded.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I wish to rise to defend the patient. Half the drugs that are prescribed are not taken. We know that many patients have been put on large doses of Valium for long periods of time. That has certainly reduced the quality of their lives. That is a fact. Downward pressure on the drug bill is therapeutic. We have to protect patients from over-prescribing.
I have to declare an interest here as I am a surgeon. I have a fundamental suspicion about massive quantities of drugs that are prescribed to patients. My consultant physician friends tell me that they do an enormous amount of good simply by taking patients off the 10, 12 or 14 drugs that they are on. Patients tend to be given too many drugs. I believe that a downward pressure on the drugs bill can be therapeutic. I believe we should reject these amendments.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this is an important subject. It has been useful to hear the contributions from my noble friends and indeed from others who have emphasised the need for account to be taken of the amount of spending on drugs. In that sense I recognise that we have the agreement of the House that the proposal of the Government is acceptable. It is important that in prescribing drugs GPs should be conscious of the facts of life that were so aptly described by my noble friend Lady Gardner. We simply wish to ensure that GPs think about the prescribing process. However, if need is established for further drugs in any particular case, moneys will

225
be available to supplement whatever amount has originally been indicated. We discussed this point earlier in relation to a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
The Government have been at pains to make it quite clear that the indicative prescribing scheme will not represent cash limits on drugs expenditure at any level. That is another reason why we were happy to accept the previous amendment as we recognised that the use of the word "budget" was rather misleading. We are realistic enough to expect the drugs bill to go on rising to meet the needs of an increasingly elderly population and of medical advance and the availability of new drugs.
Indicative prescribing amounts exist, as I have said, as indicative amounts. They are just one of the management tools that will be used by GPs, family health services authorities and regional health authorities in furtherance of the Government's objective of improving the overall quality and cost-effectiveness of prescribing in general practice, thereby improving patient care.
As I have said, these assurances have repeatedly been given by the Government and I know that they have been accepted in that context. Your Lordships may also wish to note that on 23rd May we published a detailed paper explaining how the indicative prescribing scheme will operate and putting it into the wider context of the Government's overall approach to prescribing. The working paper reflects the outcome of extensive discussions that have taken place since the publication of Working Paper 4. Both Ministers and the NHS Management Executive officials have been involved in discussions with interested parties, including the BMA, the GMSC, the joint Department of Health/NHS liaison groups set up by the NHS Management Executive and regional general managers, with a cross section of NHS membership, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, several individual pharmaceutical companies and FPC general managers. Many Members of Parliament, voluntary organisations, community health councils and members of the public have written to Ministers and the management executive with their views. The discussions and correspondence have enabled the details of the operation of the scheme to be developed and the Government's plans are contained in the working paper. I am sure that your Lordships will find it a sensible, useful and informative document which will finally lay to rest the misunderstandings which have been held by some.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, raised a question about the role of the medical adviser. Within the FHSA it will be the medical adviser who will promote the indicative amount and discuss the reasons for any variation with individual GPs.
Having given those assurances, the Government see no reason to move from the present legislative position, which was approved by this House during the passage of the Health and Medicines Act 1988. More importantly, while the Government have no plans to cash limit the vast majority of expenditure on drugs, medicines and listed applicances, to enable
226
the implementation of the GP funding scheme it will be necessary to include that portion of drugs expenditure which flows through GP practice funds within regions' overall cash limits.
I was particularly grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lady Gardner in emphasising that at the end of the day there will be some limit. I reiterate that in practical terms the GP practice funds will not be individually cash limited. But a cash limit will obviously apply at national or regional level.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I interrupt the noble Baroness, but it is very important that we do not debate at cross-purposes. Does she accept that the amendment was put down as a result of the reassurance that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave? Her noble friends may have made good points but they have nothing to do with the amendment. We live in a finite world and there are finite resources. The purpose of the amendment is simply to put down what her right honourable friend the Secretary of State said. Does she agree that the remarks of her two noble friends are totally beside the point?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I would not say that they were totally beside the point. We are discussing what seems in the eyes of some people to be unlimited amounts of money. I am very happy to have the reassurance of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it is appreciated that there are ultimate cash limits. I thought it worth mentioning that in the context of these discussions. In saying that, I hope that the assurances that I have been able to repeat will be felt to be adequate and satisfactory.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, no responsible doctor could ever believe that the sky is the limit so far as concerns prescribing. We must recognise that there must be constraints upon all forms of expenditure within a national health service. That includes expenditure on drugs and particularly on very new and extremely expensive drugs which inevitably must be rationed to some extent on the basis of some assessment of priority, as happens with all new and expensive developments in medical care whether surgical, medical or otherwise. I believe that that is a principle that the medical profession in general accepts.
Our purpose in tabling the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said, was simply to try to encapsulate on the face of the Bill the assurance that we were given by the Secretary of State to the effect that indicative drug amounts—as they are now to be called—were exactly what was meant by that term. They are indicative, and so far as concerns individual practices they will not be the end of the day. I believe that we have received the assurance that we sought; namely, that in the light of the patients in their practice GPs will not necessarily be restricted to a specific sum in any one year and if in the view of the family health services committee the nature of their patient population justifies a greater amount than is suggested in the indicative sum they will be able to call upon those additional funds. I believe that we have that reassurance.

227
The working paper to which the noble Baroness referred—Improving Prescribing—which has recently been published lays down a number of very important issues relating to the work of the family health service committee in relation to prescribing and a very satisfactory professional review machinery which will be able to take action to limit the prescribing of those doctors who appear to be exceeding reasonable limits. It has been generally welcomed by the profession.
In the light of the assurances that we have heard tonight, although I should have much preferred to see the amendment on the face of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage should begin again at 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Health Records Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Government Trading Bill
7.47 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [New provisions in connection with government trading funds]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert:
("(5A) An order establishing a trading fund for operations carried on by a person appointed in pursuance of any enactment may provide—

(a) for the fund to be under the control and management of that person instead of the responsible Minister and, accordingly,

(b) for this Act to have effect as if—

(i) the reference to the responsible Minister in section 3(1) of this Act and the first reference to him in section 4(1), and

(ii) such other references in this Act to the responsible Minister as may be specified in the order, where they are references to him in the exercise of his function of controlling or managing the fund,

were references to that person.").,
The noble Earl said: This technical amendment is designed to enable a trading fund to be established where the operations of the proposed fund are
228
carried on by a statutory office holder. Under the Bill as currently drafted and the 1973 Act, which it amends, it is implicit that the responsible Minister will be carrying on the funded operations and accordingly all the powers and responsibilities in relation to the management of the fund are his. However, there is a difficulty if operations carried on by statutory office holders are to be funded.
Of the agencies and agency candidates listed in Annex A to Cmnd. 914 there are two cases, the Land Registry and the Department of the Registers for Scotland, where the carrying on of the activity authorised by statute is placed squarely on the shoulders of the office holder who heads the department. Financial management of the activities is for him and he oversees income and expenditure in connection with the discharge of his statutory functions. A trading fund for such activities would not be under the control and management of the responsible Minister.
The amendment deals with that difficulty by providing that, where operations which are to be funded are carried out by a statutory office holder—a person appointed in pursuance of any enactment—an order establishing the fund may provide for it to be under the control and management of the office holder and the Act is to have effect as if relevant references to the responsibility are to him. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We are grateful to the noble Earl for having explained this technical amendment. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to extend our thanks to him for the co-operation which we have received since Second Reading from him and his department in elucidating the more abstruse parts of the Bill, which, as he well knows, is in part very technical.
There is one further technical query that I should like to clear up. Under the provisions of the interpretation of legislation Act of 1978, the term "person" includes a corporate body. I should like to be certain that there is no possibility of any corporate body being appointed by statute to run a particular aspect of the agency involved. It is necessary to do that because otherwise one is not clear about the matter.
The amendment refers in other parts of the Bill to the responsible Minister and the transfer or reallocation of his functions. I should like to be reassured that the other functions of the Minister in relation to the agency are not disturbed by that in any way and that we are talking about day-to-day management. I should also like to be reassured that the ultimate responsibility, in terms of responsibility to Parliament and scrutiny and examination by the National Audit Office, remains intact in all cases and that therefore, aside from the operation of the fund in the way described in the amendment, the final responsibility for accountability to Parliament will remain with the Minister of the Crown.
The Earl of Caithness: On the noble Lord's second point, I am sure that I can give him the assurance that he seeks. As he so rightly said, it is a question of the day-to-day running. I took that point even

229
further by saying that there were two cases in which that was laid down by statute to be the responsibility of the official rather than the Minister. However, with regard to the overall responsibility, I understand that that remains with the Minister.
On the first point raised by the noble Lord, I do not believe that there is a need to cover corporate bodies because the Bill refers to a person appointed pursuant to any enactment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: That was precisely the point that I made; namely, that under the interpretation of legislation Act, "person" was held to include in all future legislation a corporate body as well as an individual. That was the only reason that I raised the point. In view of the recent development concerning the Intervention Board for Agriculture, which as I shall explain later appears to have attained agency status more recently than the noble Earl's correspondence suggests, will the noble Earl assure me that the board and its head are in no way involved in the operation of the clause?
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord intends to raise the matter a little later, perhaps I may deal with the point then.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("£2,000") and insert ("£500").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3.
This amendment seeks to amend the Bill by substituting for the figure in the Bill the figure of £500 million and by deleting any further reference to it. As the noble Earl will be aware, under the original Trading Funds Act 1973, the aggregates of the limits in force in respect of all trading funds shall not exceed £250 million at any one time. The Bill puts the limit up to £2 billion and there is further provision by stages to a maximum of £4 billion.
I wonder why that increase is necessary. The total expenditure of all the agencies, according to the papers published on the financing of those agencies, amounts to some £9 billion. That is the total expenditure of all the agencies, not simply those that are included in this trading sphere. Why should it be necessary suddenly to move up to £2 billion and after that, if necessary, by stages to £4 billion? Can the noble Earl give me an assurance that no part of that sum is part of any future transaction to advance money for the purpose of securing a leverage buy-out by staff in a privatisation effort at some later stage? If there is no intention by the Government to become involved in that quasi junk fund field—as I am sure there is not—will the Minister kindly explain what kinds of expenditure are anticipated? Presumably capital expenditure is envisaged because the rest is provided out of the Vote.
It seems extraordinary that those figures should increase so greatly. Even the rate of inflation, about which the noble Earl is extremely sensitive and about which the country is sensitive, if added to the original £250 million would not account for the ultimate
230
figure of £4 billion. Even the United Kingdom has been a little more restrained in its inflation record than that.
Unless the noble Earl provokes me, which is unlikely, this is purely a probing amendment to find out the Government's intentions. If he can reassure me on the matter, I am sure that we can arrive at an amicable solution. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Our aim in setting the initial limit was to make it sufficient to cover the lifetime of a Parliament; that is, a period of five years. Beyond that, we would expect the Government to have to seek an order increasing the initial limit if they wished to set up further trading funds. That is consistent with most other statutory provisions covering the borrowing limits of public sector organisations, although I admit at once that determining the precise figure is subject to many uncertainties, not least on how quickly new trading funds will be set up.
In order to reach a judgment of what would be a suitable figure, we first looked at the present day equivalent of the limit of £250 million set in the 1973 Act. That gave us a figure of some £13 billion. However, given that we expect significantly more trading funds to be set up under the new powers, the presumption must be that that figure is too low. I am sure that the noble Lord will wish to take that point on board.
Accordingly, we looked at the number of bodies which might become trading funds in the course of time, based on agencies already established and the candidates listed in Annex A of the White Paper. That is not an easy judgment as it does not necessarily follow that all bodies listed in Annex A which fall within the powers will necessarily become trading funds.
Equally, other bodies not listed in the annex could become trading funds within five years of the Bill being enacted. What is clear is that the initial list of likely candidates in terms of both numbers and size is significantly more than the number of organisations named in the 1973 Act. All things considered, this suggested that a figure of £2,000 million was not unreasonable and that is the figure that was accepted in another place. Equally, I have to say that on the reasoning set out already and which I have described, a figure of £500 million would certainly be too low. In real terms it is less than two-fifths of the limit set in the 1973 Act. Further, it takes no account of the fact that the Government's clear intention set out in the White Paper is to set up significantly more trading funds under the amended legislation.
The second amendment would remove the power to increase the initial borrowing limit by affirmative resolution order up to a maximum of £4,000 million. I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord takes exception to what is a well precedented and sensible approach adopted by governments of both parties. I know that the 1973 Act itself does not contain such a power but subsequent legislation—for example, in relation to nationalised industries—normally does so. The requirement for affirmative resolution procedure for any order ensures that Parliament will always have an opportunity to consider and debate any proposed increase.

231
The provision raised no difficulty in another place where it was expressly considered, because by accident the Bill as originally introduced left out the order-making power which is now contained in Section 2B(9).
On the question of the coverage of borrowing limits, capital expenditure and working capital are the important points to remember. There is no clear relationship between a body's annual expenditure and its accrued borrowing requirement over time.
With regard to privatisation, I note that Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, deal more specifically with this matter. I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance on privatisation: namely, that the Bill does not contain power to enable a trading fund to be privatised without subsequent primary legislation.
I hope that I have now been able to calm the worst fears of the noble Lord and that he will see that the Government's solution to the problem proposed by the increased number of trading funds is indeed the right one.
8 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. The fact that the other place did not seem to worry very much about this matter raises the point that this Chamber very often tends to take a rather closer view than is sometimes possible in the other place. I must say that I am a little surprised that 17 years after the passage of the original Act in 1973, which involved only a £250 million borrowing power, the increase should have been so large.
The noble Earl says with some justification that the Government's wish to form outside agencies knows no bounds. We are well aware of the general political and philosophical thrust of the Government in these matters: privatise wherever possible, hive off wherever possible and take detailed responsibility away from Ministers wherever possible. One understands that. But the figures still remain very large indeed.
I gave the figure for the whole of the expenditure of the agencies on an annual basis, which was disclosed in the document to which I referred; but the very essence of the agencies that will be subject to trading funds is that they are already trading and that by and large their receipts exceed expenditure. Indeed, almost by definition they are already successful trading entities which derive the bulk of their income from the sales or proceeds of the services that they provide. Prudence would surely dictate that out of the profits that they make—and I have to refer only to Her Majesty's Stationery Office which must make a considerable profit—they ought to be able to make provision for their own working capital and, certainly so far as concerns HMSO, for the bulk of their capital expenditure as well spread over a period of time.
Therefore I still cannot understand the reason for those extremely large figures. I sincerely hope that on reflection the noble Earl will investigate this matter a little further with a view to complying with
232
my original request to give some indication as to what these funds would be required for by trading agencies, in addition to the funds already at their disposal or made available from time to time through the Vote or even by realisation of capital assets which may become obsolete.
However, I do not desire to pursue the matter, especially when we are discussing tonight rather more controversial matters that are already before this Chamber in the Bill on Report. I shall leave the matter there, and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("or be Financed by other means").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to deal with the vexed question of possible privatisation of some of the agencies already operating under the control of Ministers. The amendment seeks specifically (at page 6, line 8 of the Bill) to delete from the existing subsection the words:
"or be financed by other means".
The subsection as amended would therefore read:
"This section applies where any operations for which a trading fund is established are to cease to be funded operations (whether the operations ceasing to be funded represent the whole or part of the funded operations or are to cease altogether or be funded operations of another fund)".
There is no explanation so far as to what the words,
"or be financed by other means",
imply in terms of law. Therefore I am anxious that this subsection should be rather more closely defined.
Associated with this amendment is Amendment No. 7, which seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 2 in order to button up the matter satisfactorily. The new clause reads:
"Save as specifically provided for in section 4A of that Act none of the powers conferred or delegated under this Act shall be interpreted as permitting the disposal of any or all of the assets of any agency to which this Act applies or dealing with any or all of its liabilities otherwise than in the normal course of its business or related activities".
I am well aware of and accept the fact that the noble Earl has informed me in writing and has repeated today that there is no intention to privatise these agencies. Unfortunately the matter is still not without some doubt. I refer to the evidence given by Mr. Richard Luce to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, reproduced in its eighth report dated July 1988 (which is quite recently). He said:
"We confess to being slightly confused by the relationship between the Next Steps and the Government's privatisation policy".
As the Committee will recall, Next Steps was the Government paper dealing with the Government's intention to set up various agencies.
The Eighth Report states:
"The essential thing in any individual case is to avoid uncertainty. If an announcement that part of a department is to become an agency is greeted by suspicions that it might later be

233
privatised, such uncertainty could well damage efforts to improve efficiency and the quality of service. If the organisation is to be privatised it should be made clear at the outset that this is so".
However, that is refuted a little later by further evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee in its 38th Report of October 1989. It states:
"Next Steps is primarily about those operations which are to remain within Government. But it cannot be ruled out that after a period of years Agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation. Where there is a firm intention of privatisation when an Agency is being set up, this will be made clear".
As recently as 23rd January of this year, in giving evidence to the Treasury at the Standing Committee stage of the Bill, Mr. Peter Lilley, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, stated:
"The vast bulk of the agencies are by their nature, unsuitable for privatisation. However, we cannot rule it out absolutely across the board because in certain cases it will be appropriate, and circumstances may change so that some agencies fall into the category which were not there initially. But that will be comparatively rare".
There are already therefore sufficient statements on the record that would make it possible for a government, if they were so minded—on the assumption that the Government are returned after the next general election; I agree that that is a matter of some doubt—to be able to cross their hearts and say, "We warned you of this policy in the evidence that we gave to the Treasury Select Committee and to the Standing Committee." It is for the avoidance of doubt that I venture to put forward this series of amendments so that the position will be completely buttoned up.
I accept that the declaration of the noble Earl that there was no such intention was made in good faith. I do not question the Minister's integrity in the slightest. However, governments change and, as we have seen over recent years, their personnel are occasionally subject to reshuffles. It would be far safer, in my view and that of my colleagues, to have legislation on the statute book which closed that possibility.
The words of my amendment may not be those which become legally enforceable or which would pass the eagle eye of the Government draftsman. At a later stage I may seek the noble Earl's aid to secure a satisfactory form of words to achieve what I wish to accomplish. If the noble Earl agrees that there is no possibility of privatisation of the various agencies, he should raise no objection to the incorporation of such wards within the statute. After all, the Bill has been under consideration for some considerable time and one; could hardly complain if an endeavour were made to sharpen it up, and to insert clauses which incorporate the intentions that the noble Earl has been kind enough to indicate. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has the respect of all members of the Committee. I was grateful to him for reaffirming his strong belief in his party's principles of nationalisation.
From what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, noble Lords will have noted the enormous amount of work and diligence that he has put into preparing for the Bill. On a previous amendment he stated that another place does not necessarily devote the time
234
that we do to scrutinizing legislation. But without question the noble Lord has put in many hours on the Bill. We are grateful to him.
The Committee will agree that it is not the time to discuss the merits of privatisation, on which I know there are genuine differences. Those are so great that the noble Lord and I would never agree on the correct solution. However, I wish to take the opportunity to make it clear that the new Section 4A provides a means by which operation may cease to be funded by a trading fund. It is intended to cover three options. First, it provides for the case where activities cease altogether. Secondly, it allows activities to be funded by means of another trading fund. Thirdly, it allows activities to revert to being funded through the normal processes of parliamentary supply rather than through a trading fund.
The wording is new Section 4A(1), which provides for the third option, is,
"or to be financed by other means".
It is that wording which has raised what in my view are perfectly understandable doubts. I am therefore happy to make it absolutely clear on the record that I am advised that, read in the context of the Bill, the words, "financed by other means" have to be construed as carrying the implication of continuing Government finance. They do not, therefore, provide for privatisation.
The noble Lord quoted some extracts from the Treasury Select Committee reports. Like my honourable friend Mr. Lilley, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I cannot absolutely rule out privatisation of a trading fund for the future; nor indeed would I wish to do so. However, if it were to happen, it would require further primary legislation as indeed is happening with the Crown Suppliers. The Bill does not provide a means of bypassing the need for further legislation.
I understand the noble Lord's concern on the matter. Perhaps he will allow me to reflect further to see whether or not there is a form of words which will satisfy him. I give him no commitment but obviously I shall try.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the very careful way in which he has phrased his reply to the arguments that I have ventured to lay before the Committee.
In view of the very emphatic assurances that he has given, and his undertaking for a further review, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Minor and consequential amendments related to section 1]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 21, after ("accounts") insert ("prepared and presented in both form and content complying with good commercial practice and accepted accounting standards currently in force").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to amend Clause 2 at page 8, line 21 after "accounts" by inserting the words on the Marshalled List.
There is little argument between the noble Earl and myself on the desirability of the accounts of these agencies, in particular those involving government trading funds, being presented in proper form. The question is: what is proper form? In their original White Paper the Government agreed that accounts in commercial form would be published. That goes part of the way towards meeting the requirement for good accounting.
A point is given to the amendment by the fact that the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, which recently attained agency status, was the subject of detailed comment by the National Audit Office. I do not wish to weary the Minister too much or to detain the Committee for too long. However, we should note the findings of the audit office in relation to the accounting and financial reporting systems currently used by the intervention board which has become an agency for the purposes of the Next Steps procedures already adopted. I wish to quote from the report because the findings are important and they lie at the root of a great deal of my anxiety. Paragraph 14(b) states;
"The Board's two UK Parliamentary Vote accounts relate to the UK financial year, are cash-based, show administration separately from scheme expenditure, do not link Community contributions to individual schemes, and do not disclose assets and liabilities".
If agencies are to operate and have proper accounts prepared and presented to the public they must provide as correctly as possible for assets and liabilities of the agency. Sometimes they will include contingent liabilities for which provision in commercial accounts is often made by the next report on the accounts. We all know that commercial accounts, even accounts prepared under the Companies Act 1985 and those passed since, frequently exhibit deficiencies. However, that is no reason why one should not attempt to present accounts, particularly for trading agencies which are the subject of the Bill. Why should not the effort be made to prepare and present accounts in what we call good commercial form? Incidentally, the term "good commercial practice" used in relation to accounts is a phrase well understood in law. Its definition has been accomplished many times within various judgments given by the courts in relation to commercial accounts. Likewise, currently accepted accounting standards are progressively becoming the rule and are being taken into account by the courts which are often called upon to adjudicate upon them.
I wish to go even further, particularly in relation to the intervention board which is now an agency. Paragraph 14(c) states:
"The Board's Intervention Buying Accounts show the year-end position and movements in the Board's intervention stockholdings—an an accruals basis—and the direct costs of stockholding. But they do not show the indirect administrative costs of stockholding or link operational costs to individual commodities".
Paragraph 14(h) states:
"The Board's accounting systems, while sufficient for producing the cash-based UK Vote accounts, do not contain all the information needed to assemble the accounts required by the Community or the Intervention Buying Accounts. These have to be compiled and reconciled manually and laboriously. A new accounting system will be phased in during 1991".
That is one example.
We all know, and it has often been a matter of comment, that because they find it convenient so to do the Government generally prepare their accounts on a cash-in and cash-out basis. Occasionally they indulge in creative accounting; for example, by treating income received from the sale of assets in their possession not as receipts but as negative expenditure. That is a rather tongue-twisting term that has avoided the necessity for including it among ordinary receipts.
We wish to make sure that the agencies which fall within the ambit of the Bill prepare their accounts in the ordinary and conventional way. The noble Earl was kind enough to provide me with the pamphlet Trading Accounts: A Guide for Government Departments and Non-Departmental Public Bodies as published by the Treasury. Annex A makes quite clear the kind of profit and loss account and balance sheet formats, as appropriate, that would normally be required. Why they should not be required within such agencies eludes me. Surely there can be no reason why such agencies, particularly as the detailed day-to-day responsibilities are taken away from the Minister, should not conform to the best commercial practice. After all, the main thrust behind the formation of such agencies, particularly those which are subject to the Bill, is to make them more efficient in commercial terms.
The dead hand of government would be taken away from them. Presumably the dead hand of government includes the ridiculous concept of keeping one's accounts on a cash-in and cash-out basis, so beloved by the Treasury. Therefore, why should the Government resist incorporating what I intended to be a perfectly helpful amendment in order to give statutory sanction to the presentation of accounts as is done by ordinary trading organisations?
It is difficult to make cross-references to the Companies Act 1985 and to succeeding Companies Acts. A particular contortion of wording would be required in order to convert the limited company situation into that of an agency. Limited companies have certain statutory responsibilities in regard to their accounts which are inseparable from their share and capital structure, the rights given to certain types of shares, the various lengths of time for the satisfaction of their liabilities, the nature of their assets, and so forth.
However, within the scope of the document—and the noble Earl was most careful to provide me with a copy—I believe that the words of my amendment square amply with the principle of the pamphlet. In fact, this pamphlet is tailor-made for the job. Why should it not be given a statutory authority for the avoidance of any doubt?
I have a professional interest in such matters and I may have been a little discourteous, for which I apologise to the noble Earl. I believe that he understands the general thrust of my argument, and for the life of me I do not see why the provision cannot be incorporated in statute in the words that I ventured to place upon the Marshalled List in my amendment or in a suitable amendment which may occur to the noble Earl upon reflection. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving the amendment. It gives me an opportunity to set out clearly for the Committee the Government's intentions with regard to the form of trading fund accounts.
I agree with the noble Lord. I do not believe that there is any difference between the noble Lord and the Government with regard to our ultimate objectives. I have discussed these matters with the noble Lord outside the Chamber and I have explained the Government's intentions in a letter to him which forms the basis of what I shall now say to the Committee. I have also listened carefully to what the noble Lord said in moving his amendment. If there is any difference between us, it relates to the best means of achieving our objectives and not to the objectives themselves.
Our intention, which I know the noble Lord shares, is to have a clear, consistent and transparent framework for the preparation of trading fund accounts. That is why the Bill follows the normal precedent as, for example, in nationalised industry legislation of giving the Treasury power to issue directions in relation to the form of accounts and the methods and principle on which they are to be prepared either generally or in relation to specific funds. We intend to make any general directions available to Parliament by laying copies of the directions before Parliament. Where directions are specific to any particular trading fund, we would expect that fund to publish those directions as part of its accounts which, by virtue of Section 4(6) of the 1973 Act, would be laid before Parliament.
The reason for dealing with these matters in directions, rather than in primary legislation, is the one which the noble Lord himself stated during the Second Reading debate. Accounting concepts have changed considerably over the years, and we would expect continuing development in the future.
I must congratulate the noble Lord on his skill and ingenuity in trying to draft a suitable amendment. However, I have to say that his amendment, and I believe any similar approach, fails on two counts. First, by referring to good commercial practice and accepted accounting standards, which are essentially private sector led, it implies that private sector requirements should dictate, both in spirit and in detail, what is best for the public sector. I am sure that the noble Lord recognises fully that there are some genuine differences between the public and private sectors which can require different accounting treatments. However, the amendment does not recognise that. Secondly, the amendment implies that innovation to meet the requirements of the public sector should be constrained by private sector practice. Again, practical experience, for example, in relation to inflation accounting, shows that this is not so.
I should also make clear that in encouraging best accounting practice we supplement accounts directions with guidance. We have recently consolidated and updated existing guidance on trading accounts in a Treasury booklet which has the title Trading Accounts: A Guide for Government
238
departments and NDPBs. Indeed, the noble Lord referred in particular to Annex A. I am sure that the noble Lord has taken clearly on board Annex C which deals with accruals-based accounting. Agencies are either government departments in their own right or part of a government department. I believe that that guidance gives the clearest possible indication of our intention that trading fund accounts should be commercial-style accounts reflecting best practice.
The noble Lord raised the question of the NAO report on IBAP. We shall read the report with great care and interest before responding to it.
I believe that the proven arrangements which I have described are the best way of achieving the underlying objectives of both the Government and the noble Lord. I must be honest with the noble Lord. I cannot give to this amendment the same consideration as I said I would give to the previous amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Once again I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. I am even more grateful for the publication which he was kind enough to leave with me, produced by none other than the Treasury itself. That underlines precisely what I have said. For example, Annex A sets out the draft format of a profit and loss account and balance sheet prescribed in the Companies Act 1985 and recommended for public sector bodies. These are public sector bodies. Annex B sets out some aspects of the accounting and disclosure requirements of the Companies Act 1985 and statements of standard accounting practice as they apply to accruals-based accounts prepared by public sector bodies. There is nothing between us as to the concept.
The Government have been kind enough to put themselves into print in the particular document to which I have referred. I am rather at a loss as to why they are afraid of giving their own publication official sanction within a Bill which deals with the public bodies to which the noble Earl referred.
I hope that the noble Earl will give this matter further consideration. I take note of what he said about the wording which I have used. However, I believe that there must be a way of marrying what appears to be the Treasury concept and my own. They appear to be identical. There must be some way of expressing that in the Bill. On the basis that I intend to return to the matter again on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 28, after ("require") insert:
("(6B) Where any enactment (other than this Act) requires, in whatever terms, a report to be prepared for any period as to the funded operations and sent to any person, or laid before Parliament, or both or so sent or laid by any time or times, an order may provide for that requirement to be treated as satisfied by preparing the report for the financial year and sending it to that person, or laying it before Parliament, or both or, as the case may be, so sending or laying it by the time or times specified in the order.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is intended to deal with a problem which so far as we know is confined to the Patent Office, although the

239
amendment would also cover any other similar cases. The Patent Office is required by legislation to produce an annual report on a calendar year basis. The intention underlying Sections 4(6) and 4(6A) of the Bill is that trading funds should be able to produce and publish a combined annual report and accounts.
Since the Patent Office works on an April-March financial year (which is also likely to be the financial year if the Patent Office were given a trading fund), to meet this requirement the Patent Office would either have to change its financial year to the calendar year or publish two separate annual reports. On consideration I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand the necessity for trying to amalgamate that. The amendment would solve the problem which I have highlighted by making it possible for a report produced for a fund's financial year to be treated as satisfying any other statutory reporting requirement. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I do not wish to detain the Committee very long on what may be a technicality. The noble Earl said that, so far as is known, the Patent Office provides the only exception of which account must be taken. Let us assume that that is so. What is the objection within this Bill to amending the appropriate sections of the statute which require the Patent Office to do certain things and bring it within the ambit of the Bill? One would need only to change the Act which lays down what the Patent Office must do and incorporate the amendment at the end of the schedule into the existing Bill. Why contort oneself into perpetuating the exception which is being made in respect of the Patent Office? That seems to me the last word in administrative convenience. Perhaps the noble Earl can elucidate on that point. Would it not be simpler to bring the Patent Office into line rather than make the particular exception which the noble Earl proposes to make by his amendment?
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise to the noble Lord for not making myself as clear as I should have liked in moving the amendment. It is for convenience that we seek the amendment and hope that the Committee will agree to it.
It is for the reason given by the noble Lord, which I mentioned earlier, that we have phrased the amendment as it now appears on the Marshalled List. Should there be another example in addition to the Patent Office I am sure that the noble Lord agrees that further primary legislation would be required to deal with the matter. The amendment prevents that.
Much as I should enjoy debating such a measure with the noble Lord, on reflection I am sure that he will agree that this is the better way of achieving our purpose.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply at this stage. I do not wish to nit-pick over a small matter of this kind. I was curious. I sincerely hope, given the Government's impending colossal legislative programme, it will not
240
be necessary to distort the position further by passing a special Act to accomplish the purpose I had in mind.
I accept the explanation given by the noble Lord. I was merely trying to help—always a dangerous thing for the Opposition to do. On the basis of the reply that he has given I am prepared to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to. House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Lord Henley: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 15 minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.42 to 8.45 p.m.]

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment No. 120 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 120A:
After Clause 19, [In substitution for Amendment No. 120], insert the following new clause:
("Clinical and General Standards Board
.—(1) There shall be established in accordance with this section a Clinical and General Standards Board (in this section referred to as the Board) which shall have the following functions in connection with clinical and general care—

(a) in accordance with a request made by the Health Ministers or any one of them, to provide advice on the standards of clinical and general care for, and the access to and availability of services to, national health service patients and, in this connection, to carry out such investigations into such matters (if any) and to make such reports in relation thereto as the Health Ministers may require;

(b) in accordance with a request made by one or more health services bodies, to provide advice on. to carry out investigations into and report on the standards of clinical and general care for, and the access to and availability of services to, national health service patients for whom services are or are to be provided by or on behalf of the body or bodies concerned:

(c) to initiate and carry out its own enquiries as and when it deems necessary;

(d) to set clinical and general standards, assess trends and give independent advice to the Health Ministers on the performance of the health service nationally;

(e) to monitor and secure improvements in the quality of the health services at all levels and in all regions;

(f) to identify and make known more widely good practice and promising developments and draw attention to weaknesses requiring action;

(g) to make an annual report to Parliament:

(h) such other functions as may be prescribed by regulations.

(2) The Board shall consist of a chairman and other members appointed by the Health Ministers from persons nominated by

241
the Royal Colleges, the other health professions and consumer orga isations or other such body or bodies as may be specified in regulations; and

(a) such regulations may provide that one or more of the members who are not appointed from persons so ominated must fulfil such conditions or hold such posts as may be so specified; and

(b) regulations shall provide that the Board shall appoint a Director of Clinical and General Standards who shall report to the Board on particular bodies within the health service and make such reports public.

(3) Regulations may make provision as to—

(a) the appointment, tenure and vacation of office of the chairman and members of the Board;

(b) the appointment of and the exercise of functions by committees and sub-committees of the Board (including committees and sub-committees consisting wholly or partly of persons who are not members of the Board);

(c) the procedure of the Board and any committees or sub-committees thereof; and

(d) the attendance at meetings of the Board or any committee or sub-committee thereof of persons appointed by the Health Ministers and the extent of their participation in such meetings.

(4) Proceedings of the Board or of any committee or sub-committee of the Board shall not be invalidated by any vacancy in membership or by any defect in a member's appointment or qualifications.
(5) The Health Ministers—

(a) may pay to the chairman and members of the Board, or of any committee or sub-committee of the Board or any persons appointed as mentioned in subsection (3)(d) above, such sums by way of remuneration and travelling and other allowances as the Health Ministers, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine;

(b) shall make available to the Board and to any committee or sub-committee thereof such professional staff and other services or facilities as are necessary to enable them to carry out their functions; and

(c) shall defray such expenditure as is reasonably incurred by the board in carrying out their functions.

(6) Where the Board carry out an investigation or make a report in accordance with a request made by a health service body, that body shall reimburse, in such manner as the Health Ministers may determine, so much of the expenditure incurred by them under paragaphs (a) and (c) of subsection (5) above as they certify as being attributable to the carrying out of that investigation or the making of that report.
(7) In this section—
"clinical and general care" means any action which is taken in connection with the diagnosis of illness or the care or treatment of a patient;
"the Health Ministers" means the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with health in England, in Wales and in Scotland;
"health service body" means—

(i) a health authority, within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977,

(ii) a Health Board or Special Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,

(iii) a State Hospital Management Committee constituted under section 91 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984,

(iv) the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service,

(v) a National Health Service trust constituted under Part I of this Act or under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and

(vi) a Family Health Services Authority;

"national health service patient" means any person for whom any services are or are to be provided by or on behalf of a health service body;
242
"regulations" means regulations made by the Health Ministers and any such regulations may make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case, including different provision for different areas; and
"services" means services provided—

(a) in England and Wales, by virtue of directions under section 13 or section 14 of the National Health Service Act 1977 or section 5 of this Act; or

(b) in Scotland, by a health services body under Part I or Part III of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978; or

(c) pursuant to an NHS contract, as defined in section 4(1) of this Act or section 17A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will have noticed that there are two apparently very similar amendments in the Marshalled List—Amendments Nos. 120A and 198. Both concern the broad question of monitoring and quality assurance. Both fall for consideration, one being tabled by the Government and one by myself in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, my noble friend Lord Ennals and the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Cox. For once there are five and that seems a good precedent, especially on something so important.
The similarity is deliberate. The proposers of the amendment wish to show how much common ground there is between us. I understand that the Minister will speak directly after me and I express the hope—without telescopes or anything of that kind—that she will be able to stress the common ground to a considerable extent, perhaps going the whole way.
I must say at once that I am grateful to the Minister and the Government—I am sure that other noble Lords who have an interest in the question agree—for taking the action that they have since Committee stage when my amendment, which proposed the establishment of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Health, was narrowly defeated. We should all rather have the Government's Clinical Standards Advisory Group than nothing. However, that does not go far enough in two crucial respects. As the name of the group makes clear, its concern will be with clinical standards. And it will be an advisory body. On both counts, according to our arguments, the government body will be too narrowly restricted. Its functions need to be widened.
In taking that view and putting forward an alternative amendment—even though there are not so many Peers present as one would like to express their support—I can say that we have the support of the Royal College of Nursing and other consumer bodies with which I am, and have been for a long time, actively connected. They are the College of Health, the National Consumer Council, the Patients' Association and the community health councils of England and Wales. They all want the functions of the new body to be widened so that it is not just advisory and is not concerned only with clinical standards but with standards of performance more generally.
The first issue on which there is a difference between the two amendments is about the new body being advisory. As I see it, the Government want I the body to be yet another body advising itself. We

243
think that is wrong. A purely advisory body has no clout. We want the status of the body to be upgraded so that it carries more weight in the health service and beyond, generally, among patients. It should, in our view, be a board and not an advisory group, let alone an advisory committee, and as such the board and its professional staff should have a certain independence with the power to launch inquiries on its own initiative and not just when requested to do so by health Ministers and health service bodies. It should have the power to give independent advice to Ministers and to make an annual report to Parliament on the state of the health services.
When we discussed these matters in Committee I spoke about the admiration that I have for Her Majesty's inspectors of education. I refer to the kind of annual report which is produced every year by Her Majesty's senior chief inspector of schools, with the whole inspectorate behind him. It is always an important document in the current history of education. It summarises the state of the problems, and not only that but the achievements in any one year. It is very much what I hope this board, if it were set up, would be responsible for every year, and it would come to Parliament.
The second, more important, issue which divides us is whether the new body should be confined to clinical standards alone. This restriction suggests that the Government have still not grasped the point made by all the people who at various stages of this Bill have argued for accreditation, monitoring, quality control and inspection; and all of us have had our proposals rejected.
The royal colleges already monitor clinical standards, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, pointed out in Committee. I would say that there is relatively little disquiet about clinical standards in the health service. It is recognised widely that our doctors and nurses are second to none. However, there is disquiet about other standards in the health services and particularly a fear that as a result of the extra pressure to get down costs which is to come from this Bill—indeed, it is in part a purpose of the Bill—the quality of the overall service given to patients could suffer.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley—I am sorry to see that he is not in the Chamber tonight—put the point very trenchantly in Committee when he said:
"The bigger the downward pressure on costs, the more important it is to have a very strong quality assurance control. I beg my noble friends" —
I join with the noble Lord on that—
"on the Front Bench and the Secretary of State to come forward with a convincing, credible system of quality control".
I am afraid that the form in which the government amendment appears has not satisfied the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr. It is still true that the public, patients and their families need to be reassured and have their confidence in the overall quality of the health service in these difficult times restored and maintained to the highest possible extent. Hence our amendment and the main difference between it and the Government's amendment.
Our amendment proposes that the board should be concerned with clinical and general standards. We want the new monitoring body to be concerned with both; that is, with standards generally.
I now come to my argument that I am not going to be able to set out at great length—no one would want me to—but I intend to give one or two examples which I hope will make the point clear. It is a nonsense to separate the two. The highest clinical standards cannot be maintained unless general standards are also maintained. However good the conditions, they depend on proper standards being observed by all the people concerned.
I am sure that on this point the noble Lords on my left—the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Hunter—will agree (I hope they agree) that the conditions depend on all sorts of people if a good job is to be done: the cleaners, if cross-infection is to be avoided; the way in which the waiting lists are managed by administrators; and the efficiency with which medical records are kept and produced at exactly the right time, or as near exactly the right time as is possible. All their work may be brought to nought unless proper arrangements are made for the after care of discharged patients and unless patients are properly informed about what they need to do to look after themselves. Clinicians' letters and discharge summaries must be sent off to GPs before it is too late for them to be relevant.
Those are just a few examples but surely they are telling and bear out the general point that a hospital or a GP's practice does not just need high standards in one area, even if it is the most important area of all—clinical standards of treatment. There must be an array of standards and teamwork, with all the people in the team concerned with quality encouraged to maintain quality. If the government amendment is passed it will be a slight on all those people whose work in its own way is also vital even though their lot may be in some way humble compared with that of great clinicians and important doctors in hospitals.
What clinicians know, patients also know. Those of us who have been patients—and most of us have been patients at some time in our lives or have had relatives or friends who have been patients—surely know that our worries and their worries, if they exist, are not just about clinical treatment but about everything else that goes on in hospitals and GPs' surgeries within the community health services that need to be closely linked with the acute services.
I give one example before I conclude. It is of a lady whose case came to my attention recently. This elderly lady was waiting, like so many others, for a hip replacement. She knew that she had to wait for a long time because her doctor told her so, and in any case she reads the press. After two years of patient waiting she telephoned the hospital and asked when her turn was to come. There was a commotion at the end of the telephone and eventually the hospital staff apologised and said that they were very sorry but her papers had been mislaid. As they therefore had no record of her ever having been on the waiting list she had to go to the bottom of the queue.
She waited another two years and again contacted the hospital to ask when her turn was coming. Incredibly, again her papers had been mislaid. The poor lady eventually, after six years, had the hip replacement. She had to suffer protracted pain. She did not badger the hospital, as some people would. Her husband, seriously ill through much of that time, died. She felt that she was never going to get any help from the health service and was in despair; but she was not in despair about the clinicians.
I expect that the clinical standards at this orthopaedic hospital, for that is what it was, were of the highest possible level. But other things went wrong which stopped people getting the right medical treatment, reassurance or even a roughly firm date when they might get relief. The problem was nothing to do with the clinicians; it was to do with poor management. Good management and good management standards can be particularised in many different ways. They are a vital supplement and back-up to what clinicians do and can do.
The public need to be assured that in our great health service the overall quality will be maintained. The body proposed in this amendment will at least go some way towards giving that assurance. I appeal in particular to the Minister opposite to support this amendment, and, if necessary, I shall appeal more widely. If this amendment is supported it will achieve a double purpose. Noble Lords will be supporting the Government's amendment in the important essence of it. They will be going even further. It will be more than just simple support for the amendment, for noble Lords will be recognising that if clinical standards are to be maintained and improved we need more than just concern. In a sense we could achieve two ends for the price of one vote if it comes to that. I hope that there will be support for this line of thought. I beg to move.
9 P.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it has been suggested that it would be helpful if I intervene at this stage to speak particularly to Government Amendment No. 198. Since we are speaking to a much wider grouping, I will happily respond at the end to any points raised in the course of further debate.
During our debate on earlier amendments I said that the contractual process will focus attention on quality of care and on areas where improvements in health standards are needed. In the debate on this group of amendments we are considering what impact national bodies can have on quality. Local and national initiatives should complement each other in this key area. We see the role of national bodies as one of assisting, informing and encouraging work at local level.
Central action cannot replace detailed local effort but it can inspire and enhance it. I hope that these initial remarks help to place in context the Clinical Standards Advisory Group which Government Amendment No. 198 will establish. Your Lordships will know that the decision to establish the group was announced jointly by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the conference of royal colleges following a meeting on 15th May. I am pleased that the conference of royal colleges
246
welcomes the decision to establish the group as a significant step forward in promoting high clinical standards everywhere in the National Health Service following implementation of our reform programme.
It might be helpful if I set out in some detail the way in which we envisage the Clinical Standards Advisory Group operating. The group will consist of a lay chairman, members appointed on the nomination of medical, dental and nursing royal colleges and the chairmen of the standing medical, dental and nursing advisory committees. It will have a wide remit to provide advice, carry out studies and submit reports at the request of the Secretaries of State on issues relating to standards of clinical care nationally, regionally or locally.
In addition, the group will be able to provide advice on specific local issues at the request of health service bodies. That will enable it to provide valuable help to districts seeking to monitor the quality of service obtained through a particular pattern of National Health Service contracts or to help a National Health Service trust looking for independent advice on aspects of the services which it provides.
The group's programme of work will be settled between it and the Secretaries of State. They will consider together proposals for studies, including those from health service bodies and other organisations; for example, the royal colleges. It will also give priority to those which they consider to be of the greatest value to the health service as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, suggested that the group should have more clout. I believe that it will have ample clout. Both the Government and the nominating bodies will ensure that the membership will be highly experienced. Its reports will be authoritative. Nobody will want or indeed be able to leave its views sitting on the shelf. I do not believe that Amendment No. 120A which we are considering adds to this and might even detract from the group if lines of accountability and responsibility remain vague.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the group will be able to act on its own or will it still act at the request of the Secretary of State or the health authority?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as regards the independence of the group, I believe that the expertise of its members will enable it to become a respected source of advice on clinical quality, complementing the drive to improve standards in the National Health Service both locally and nationally. In answer to the specific question which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has just raised, there will be nothing to prevent the group initiating activity, though we would largely expect it to respond to requests.
I believe that its establishment fully meets the concerns of your Lordships and others outside your Lordships' House who have sought ways of guaranteeing that our proposals have an impact where they matter most; namely, in connection with the quality of clinical care provided to patients. Therefore, I commend to the House the Clinical

247
Standards Advisory Group and the new clause establishing it.
Perhaps I may comment on the amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. I believe that your Lordships will agree that this board will operate in many ways in much the same way as our Clinical Standards Advisory Group in providing advice on standards of clinical care. The board would have power,
"to set general standards, assess trends and give independent advice to the Health Ministers on the performance of the Health Service nationally [and] to monitor and secure improvements in the quality of the health services at all levels and in all regions".
These are worthy aims, but I fear that they would cast the board's role so widely as to reduce its effectiveness in examining any specific area and, in particular, in advising on the specialist matter of clinical care.
The wide remit advocated by this amendment would cut across the valuable work already being undertaken by the National Health Service management executive in monitoring and improving the performance of the health service generally. This role was neatly encapsulated in an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, which we did not, unfortunately, manage to discuss last Thursday. I say "unfortunately" because the National Health Service management executive has a key role to play in improving quality and performance in the health service. Indeed, it was established very much for that purpose. Quality was an agenda item on all the reviews of the regional health authorities' performance which were undertaken by the management executive last year. This trend looks set to continue in this year's review programme.
Additionally, the National Health Service management executive has earmarked £10 million for quality initiatives this year, with £7.5 million allocated to regions for local projects and £2.5 million retained centrally for national demonstration projects and centrally funded initiatives. Also, much has been achieved through a series of meetings between the director of operations and the medical director of the management executive with regional managers this year to discuss initiatives, to evaluate and to improve quality of care around the country.
I fear that the clinical and general standards board, with its director of clinical and general standards, would compete with rather than complement the work of the National Health Service management executive on quality. Quality is surely an inherent part of the work of each of the National Health Service management executive's directors. It should not be isolated and shunted off into the hands of a single individual or body. Indeed, doing so would only restrict the management executive's current range of activities in the field of quality improvements.
As I said earlier, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group's programme of work is intended to be settled between it and the health Ministers. This means that they will be able to decide together which studies
248
would be of greatest value in enhancing clinical standards and giving benefit to patients. They will consider proposals from a whole range of sources—from the group itself and from the health Ministers but also from the health service bodies and other bodies such as the royal colleges.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I interrupt? The Minister has made a very important statement. She said that they will decide together. The whole point of our amendment is the independence of this body. The Minister said that they will decide together. But Amendment No. 198 states that the group shall have functions:

"(a) in accordance with a request made by the Health Ministers or any one of them…

(b) in accordance with a request made by one or more health service bodies…

(c) such other functions as may be prescribed by regulations."

They will carry out requests, which means orders sent down by the Ministers. The whole point of what the rest of us want is that these people should be as independent as possible, not creatures of the Minister, carrying out his requirements. This is a totally different concept.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is why it is most useful to have this opportunity to explain the intentions behind this amendment. It was certainly on this basis that the agreement was reached with the royal colleges—an agreement which I hope your Lordships will all feel is very valuable and will be very important in having an effective body in this area.
I intended to go on to say that with the combined strength of the health Ministers and the advisory group in considering the programme of work, they will be in a position to consider proposals from a whole range of sources—from the group itself, from the health Ministers, as the amendment states, but also from health service bodies and other bodies such as the royal colleges. We hope that the clinical standards advisory group will include members with a wealth of experience of the health service on clinical issues in particular. The group will be perfectly able to put forward its own ideas in its discussions with the Secretary of State, without the need for the protective power proposed by this amendment.
I believe that the working arrangements that I have outlined pave the way for constructive co-operation between the health Ministers and the Clinical Standards Advisory Group; and that co-operation, I repeat, is surely the best guarantee of an effective role for the group. In urging your Lordships to consider sympathetically the Government's amendment when we come to it—and I feel that I almost do not need to urge in that way—I would say that I feel that Amendment No. 120A would add nothing to smooth working relationships, and it cannot therefore be helpful to our consideration.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the amendment that I put down for last week with the noble Lord, Lord Carr. For the reasons

249
that were given I withdrew it, but it was substantially a question which asked the Government to say more about the management board. Some 18 months ago the Government announced the formation of this policy board and a management board for the National Health Service. The Secretary of State himself would chair the policy board, and among its members was the Chief Medical Officer of the National Health Service sitting there by personal invitation. There was no nurse on it, so far as I understood the matter.
The appointment of the chief executive of the management board, Mr. Duncan Nicol, was made shortly thereafter, and the board has been active in strengthening the management side of the National Health Service, particularly on the general practice authorities. More recently the Government decided that the chief of research and development, whom they had proposed in response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on medical research with reference to the National Health Service, should be redesignated Director of Research and a member of the management board. This would add to the R&D input to that board.
With other developments to which the Minister has referred, particularly the proposals about clinical matters agreed with the medical profession, there remain; a large and vitally important area of quality control that has been mentioned—that of the management of scarce resources provided by the National Health Service. Apart from these clinical matters there is this wide range of services where effective management is vitally important to the patients and the quality of service.
The research and development of this large enterprise will be the responsibility of the Director of Research and Development, with the input to the management board. It seems to me that the quality control designed to improve the general standards of orgalisation should be the responsibility of that board, and in fact its main function. The Minister has told us something about this. Perhaps she may wish to tell us more about it later.
Coming to the proposed amendment, I do not agree with the inclusion of clinical matters as just part of the general management function and control. I believe that the Government and the medical profession got it right in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and if the management board is responsible for studies of management throughout the health service it should still hold that central role. It should decide if there is to be inspection or something of that sort, or other methods of control. A great deal has been spent on management in recent months, and it is important to find out if the managers are effective in a somewhat difficult role where close collaboration with clinicians is necessary for success. I have discussed this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Carr, who is unable to be here tonight. He has agreed that the general management should be dealt with in this way.
Baroness Cox:My Lords, may I briefly intervene and say that I concur wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, in welcoming the
250
Government's amendment as a significant step in the right direction. It must be apparent, from the fact that my name appears mysteriously in, I think, an unprecedent fifth place as a supporter of the amendment, that I have some concern about the fact that the government amendment does not go far enough. I shall not spell them out, but I should like to reiterate four areas.
I have been appreciative of the account of my noble friend the Minister of the government amendment and the way it is intended that it should work. But I must confess that I am still not quite convinced by what my noble friend said about the genuine degree of independence in the board as proposed in the Government's amendment. Nor was I really convinced by the interpretation of the powers of independent initiative that the board should have in instigating inquiries of its own accord. It seems to me from the wording of the Government's amendment that the board would still depend upon an inquiry being instigated at the behest of others rather than having its own absolutely independent initiative.
Thirdly, while I welcome the focus on clinical standards—I am a great believer in any measure which will ensure and maintain the highest possible clinical standards—I support the wider interpretation in respect of quality assurance implied by including "general standards" with the word "clinical". It is not sufficient specifically to focus on clinical diagnosis, treatment and procedures. Other aspects of care must affect clinical practice; for example, standards of hygiene in clinical areas or the nutritional adequacy of diets for sick people.
Fourthly, it is important that the report should be published and be in the public domain. It is the basis of accountability and learning. What will happen under the new dispensation in the provision of health care? The amendment to which my name strangely appears in fifth place is an important addition to the Government's amendment. It does nothing to violate the spirit of that amendment; it would greatly enhance the board's effectiveness, including its effectiveness in monitoring standards of clinical care, which is why I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I support the amendment. My name appears on the list. It has reached third place. The first time the amendment appeared, my name did not get there at all. Perhaps I got into the middle and pushed the others outwards. I too warmly welcome the Government's initiative, which is an important step forward. It is very much in line with concerns which were expressed on both sides of the House on Second Reading and in Committee. I agree with all that has been said: it is too small a step.
I should like to think that, having got that far, the Government might be prepared to be influenced by this debate and the debate which might conceivably take place on Third Reading. Who knows? I should like to express my views by asking questions which I believe will indicate where my concerns lie.
The first and most important question is how independent will the body be. The Minister said that it could initiate its own work. I intervened to ask

251
the question and she gave an answer: "Yes, it could if it so decided". However, there is nothing in the amendment to suggest that it could initiate its own inquiries. If it can, that should be written on the face of the Bill. How will the body operate? Will it operate with teams of—I will not say inspectors—experts rather as the Health Advisory Service has operated? If so, how many hospitals and health service units would it expect to be able to visit in the course of a year? My real question is: how big a job is it going to do? I know that in the first discussion that the royal colleges had with the Secretary of State, he put in single figures the number of hospitals or units that might be visited in the course of a year. That seems to me to be inadequate. What goes with that point is: how many staff would the body be expected to have to do its job?
I believe that the Minister answered the question about how much the board would cost. She gave the figure of £10 million, plus £7.5 million, plus £2.5 million. If my arithmetic is right, that amounts to £20 million in the course of a year. Perhaps she will confirm that I have the figure right. How will the body be set up? I am aware that there will be some nominations by professional bodies, but does she not think that it should include—"representation" is a word that we dare not use—some persons who are known to have special experience of community and consumer interests? There is no reflection of that point which I believe would add to the degree of independence that the Minister suggests the body should have.
How will the body report? To whom will it report and, in particular, will those reports be made public? My last question is the same as my first. Is this body to be a tool of the Secretary of State, able to act at the request of health service bodies, or will it be a truly independent body? Many people, professionals and others, would be much more confident if they felt that it was an independent body which was not merely beholden to the Secretary of State.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my amendment is grouped with these amendments because unfortunately the printers were a little muddled last night. For those noble Lords who do not already know the secret, page 37 of the Marshalled List shows my name on Amendment No. 198A, which is correct. However, what was line 7 last night when I put the amendment down is line 6 of the new clause under Amendment No. 198. My other amendments are down under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and his name has crept in more than once, as it crept in in the middle of the names on Amendment No. 120A. My other amendments arc Nos. 199B and 199C, which I put down last night.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, both our names are down, jointly.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, yes, I accept the noble Lord's name. Normally I do not readily accept names from the other side of the House because they tend to diminish my amendments. I am cautious about it. However, that is another matter.
252
It is unfortunate that this happened. Thank heaven that I put the amendments down last night because otherwise they would not be there at all. As my noble friend the Minister knows, I normally like to tell her why I have put down amendments in order to give her and her officials a chance to understand their purpose and accept them. Unfortunately, my amendment has been grouped with the other amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Young. From my point of view, it is a disaster because it has given rise to the debate today instead of on Thursday when I would have been ready for it. So there is a bit of a muddle.
In passing, to cover the situation, I should say that Amendment No. 120A suffers from the same deficiencies in my terms as Amendment No. 198. My three amendments need to be inserted into Amendment No. 120A, if your Lordships decide to accept it as the alternative. I think that noble Lords will not do so because it seems to me that the difference between the two is nothing like as great as has been suggested. It is rather surprising that Amendment No. 120A was not put in the form of amendments to Amendment No. 198. The seven subsections are almost identical and it is muddling for those of us who are not in on the secret.
On Amendment No. 198, in my Amendment No. 198A I suggest seriously to the Government—and I hope that they will take it on board—that it is a good point that advice should be given on,
"the standards of clinical care for, and the access to, continuity and availability of services to, national health service patients".
As your Lordships know, my guidance in this matter is given by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. One of the great worries of schizophrenics is that there tends to be a break in continuity of services. It is sometimes caused by the patients themselves because part of their illness causes them to ask for a break in continuity when it is not in their best interests. That is the conundrum.
The reason for putting "continuity" into subsection (1)(a) and (b) is entirely to make sure that it is not overlooked in those areas in which continuity of health services is vital to the people concerned, even if at a particular time they say they do not want it.
So far I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 198A and 199C. However, my Amendment No. 199B is of a slightly different nature. Amendment No. 120A has the same aim as Amendment No. 199B. Amendment No. 199B asks that as well as provision for a request to be made to the Clinical Standards Advisory Group by one or more health service bodies, there should also be an opportunity for a request to be made by reputable voluntary organisations.
The two voluntary organisations with which I am associated, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and Sane, both have the highest quality of medical and psychiatric advice at hand in the advisory groups that work with them. It must not be thought that we are talking about any old voluntary organisation that will not be well supported. However, as I see it, there is no reason why what one might call a less well supported voluntary organisation should not make

253
such a request. The advisory group could give that request the respect that it deserved. After giving a lot of thought to the wording of the measure, I decided it would be better to refer to voluntary organisations in general.
Whatever people may think about the advisory group, I believe it will be made up of a reputable body of people. My noble friend the Minister made that point. That advisory group will be able to pay such regard to these matters as is necessary. We should not limit these requests for services to be provided by the advisory group purely to health ministers and health service bodies. Even though I have not been able to brief my noble friend the Minister in advance, I hope she will give consideration to my amendment. If she cannot give me an immediate reply now, I hope she will take the amendments away, think about them and perhaps come back with them on Third Reading.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I hope that before the noble Lord sits down he will not mind changing his last sentence to refer to "our" amendments. The amendments stand in my name and I fully support them, Therefore, I wish them to be known as our amendments.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, as I have not yet sat down I shall stand up again. I take that generosity exactly as it is given and I accept it on this one occasion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I believe my co se is simpler as I am one of five people involved in an amendment. It is encouraging that there has been some progress but, like other supporters of the amendment, I feel that an independent body is needed. I shall give the House an example of bad patient access to the National Health Service which came my way on Sunday. I was telephoned in Yorkshire and told that the access for people in wheelchairs to the sexually transmitted diseases clinic at the Westminster Hospital had been closed. Many people who have AIDS have to use wheelchairs when they are ill because of weakness. The route they used to take was by lift but now the only route they have is outside and runs past the morgue. How insensitive and uncaring can management become?
This matter has made me feel strongly that there must be an independent body so there is no cover up and these cases do not occur. For people in wheelchairs not to have access to any clinic in a National Health Service hospital must be bad practice. Will the government amendment grouped with this amendment consider standards of food and of transport to hospitals and other needs? Will it have any teeth?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the principles underlying the amendment which has been proposed by the "famous five". Having said that, I am concerned lest the issue of clinical care on the one hand be confused with the issue of management control and quality assurance on the other. My
254
concern is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, said, clinicians are dependent upon all of the services within the NHS. Many of those he specified in proposing the amendment clearly have an impact on the standard of clinical care which clinicians provide.
The word "clinical" implying in its broadest sense services which directly affect the care of patients and services directly available to patients, it seems to me that the monitoring of the standards of such clinical care should be separated from the monitoring of managerial standards, which are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, said, the remit of the NHS management board.
It is for that reason that I have reservations about supporting Amendment No. 120A. Therefore I am very pleased that the Government arc proposing their own amendment, Amendment No. 198. I wholly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to the effect that this body must have a degree of independence, not only from government but also an independence enabling it to take action on its own initiative and to sponsor and initiate investigations into standard clinical care.
Some small points appear to be missing from the government amendment. They were raised at meetings between the conference of colleges and the Secretary of State. For instance, preventive services are not mentioned. I believe that it was understood by the representatives of the colleges that these would be included in the remit of the proposed body and also that the term "clinical care" should be interpreted to include continuing care.
Secondly, no mention is made specifically of the colleges or other similar bodies being able to ask the Clinical Standards Advisory Group to intitate studies. However, I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her opening statement say that they would be among the groups that would be in a position to initiate studies. Nevertheless, that is not included in the amendment. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, said, it is true that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said previously that the royal colleges already monitor standards. They monitor educational standards. They monitor the standards of appointments held by junior hospital staff in relation to their educational content. At present they do not monitor directly the standards of clinical care provided for patients, although clearly that is relevant. It is very important that this new body should have that role at the forefront of its activities. The issue will not be solved simply by including colleges with health service bodies—which they are not. The colleges point out that under subsection (6) of the government amendment they would have to reimburse all the costs involved, which gives them certain concerns.
I wish to support the view expressed by certain noble Lords that the reporting system must be an open one. I believe that the colleges understood from their discussions with the Secretary of State that the reports of the advisory group would normally be published and that his response to the reports of that group would also be published.

255
With those reservations I wish to say how much I welcome the Government's initiative in establishing this body, but I do not believe that the amendment has quite got it right as yet.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, as the only remaining member of the "famous five" who has not yet spoken perhaps I may be allowed to make a few remarks about the amendment. I cannot remember who first coined the phrase "famous five" but it is very appropriate. I believe that it is the first time that an amendment has had five sponsors in your Lordships' House. Perhaps it will become a precedent. The whole issue of quality assurance has united those who dislike the Bill very much, those who quite like it and even some who like it very much.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wondered why the noble Lord, Lord Young, had tabled this long amendment when it was so close to the Government's, but if he had read it carefully he would have seen that there were crucial differences. It would have been messy to take the Government's amendment and pepper it with a great number of minor amendments. That is not a discourtesy of the House; it is intended for clarification.
There are several respects in which the amendment is superior to the Government's version, some of which have already been mentioned. The first is the power to initiate. Unless the board, the group, or whatever it is to be called, can initiate inquiries, it will have no credibility whatsoever as an independent body. I discussed the matter the other day with an experienced regional manager who is sympathetic to the Bill. He told me that quality assurance must be systematic and comprehensive. That means that the board must have the power to initiate, otherwise there will be no belief in its independence. It is to the Government's advantage that it should be seen to be independent, otherwise it will simply be seen as the Government's poodle.
In her opening remarks the noble Baroness said that there was nothing to prevent the group from initiating activity. That provision is certainly not in the Bill. Subsection (1)(c) of the Government's amendment states that regulations may provide for other functions, but it does not state that the group can initiate activity. That is an important point which the noble Baroness might like to bear in mind when she winds up.
The noble Baroness also referred to the nominating bodies, but the Government's version does not set out any nominating bodies. They are left entirely to regulations, so there is no prescriptive right of any kind for consumers to nominate on to the Government's group. That is another weakness in the Government's version.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young, also incorporates a director, which the Government's version does not. That is important because if there is no director to select staff who are appropriate for the job, who will do it? Subsection (5)(b) of the government amendment states:
"[The Health Ministers] shall make available to the Advisory Group and to any committee or sub-committee thereof such staff
256
and other services or facilities as are necessary to enable them to carry out their functions".
Who will those people be? They will probably be civil servants, but they are not the right people to do the job. We need other health professionals. If there is a director on the scene, he will ensure that the right people are contracted to do the job. That is a further weakness in the Government's proposals.
There is also the important point regarding the lack of an annual report to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred. We should know what is going on.
Finally, we come to the objections that have been advanced to the inclusion of the word "general". The Government's version refers to "Clinical Standards" and the version of the noble Lord, Lord Young, refers to "Clinical and General Standards". It has been implied that that might muddy the pure waters of clinical standards.
When I consulted the experienced manager the other day, I asked him what were the main points of quality assurance. He gave me nine: control of infection; investigations of deaths; investigations of accidents; readmission rates; use of blood; peri-operative deaths; waiting lists; medical audits; and hygiene, food, and so on. He then gave me a number of what he called softer points; namely, those concerning customer relations, courtesy and all the other slightly less definable matters which are also extremely important.
At least five of those quality assurance points probably fall within the generic term "clinical". But there are several others which do not and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, are equally important to the final delivery of treatment and care in a hospital.
I do not think that we need go to the stake for the word "general". However, the intention behind it—that the powers of the body should be to investigate all those matters, whether or not under the label of the word "general"—is an important matter which we ought to have in consideration. It is the whole delivery of the service of the hospital. Obviously the strict clinical standards are the starting point of the whole thing, but there are wider circles which develop from those clinical standards. It seems to me that they ought to be incorporated. On all those grounds, it seems to me that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, is in many respects superior to the Government's version. I agree with him that we are grateful for that so far as it goes.
I should like to make a final point following from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Also grouped with these amendments are Amendments Nos. 199 to 204 which are relatively minor amendments to the Government's version. Owing to misprints, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has already referred, this group has become detached from its sponsors, who are in fact myself, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Although I do not want to speak to those amendments tonight because I think that we should address the rival merits of the general packages advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and by the Government, I want to give notice at this

257
stage that we certainly reserve the right to return to the lesser amendments at a later stage when they are called, which of course cannot be today.
Having said that, I hope very much that the Minister will be able to be helpful to us this evening. I hope that she will take on board some of the concerns that have been expressed and perhaps even come some way to meet us on some of the points. In particular I attach importance to the power to initiate inquiries. That seems to me practically the most important power that this board wants and currently lacks.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Baroness winds up the debate, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a proposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, the series of amendments to the government amendment have not been taken. We have not spoken directly to them. I hope that at the end of our debates, whether it is today or on Third Reading, we shall not be making a choice between the Government's proposals and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young.
There was a degree of flexibility in the Minister's first reply which I certainly warmly welcome, particularly concerning the possibility of initiating inquires. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it would be possible for there to be a meeting of minds or persons—of amenders—between now and Third Reading in the hope that we might be able to find some more areas of agreement before we come to a final date.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understood that we were discussing the whole grouping now. Certainly my noble friend Lord Mottistone has spoken to a number of amendments in the group, as indeed have other noble Lords. Naturally, if I am unable to satisfy any areas of doubt in noble Lords' minds this evening and at this stage, in order to avoid a rediscussion of the whole issue on Third Reading I shall certainly be willing to have a meeting as the noble Lord suggests
With the leave of the House I shall attempt to respond to a number of the issues that have been raised, specifically perhaps on Amendments Nos. 198A, 199,199C, 199A and 200, which seek to define more precisely what is meant by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group's function of providing advice on standards of clinical care in the health service. I have tried to make clear that the remit of that group is to advise on all aspects of the provision of high quality clinical care. In saying that, I point to subsection (7) of the new clause proposed in government Amendment No. 198. That gives a very clear and wide definition of clinical care. It was on the issue of clinical care that the anxieties of the medical profession and the royal colleges were so forcefully expressed. It seems an appropriate as well as an agreed remit which gives the group the freedom to agree a programme of work with the health Ministers in the way that I have described.
I can certainly give the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the assurance that he seeks that the group's activities will be able to extend to the quality of clinical
258
care in the community health services. But a list of specific functions defining the group's activities in the way suggested by the amendments would add little to its freedom of action and independence and might restrict it by excluding subjects not specifically mentioned in the clause. I hope that the noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press the amendments.
Much has been said in the short debate about the independence, or lack of independence, of the body proposed in the government amendment. But I have very little doubt that, with a membership consisting of distinguished nominees of the medical, dental and nursing royal colleges—I emphasise that to my noble friend Lady Cox—as well as the chairman of the standing advisory committee, the group will have no hesitation in providing forthright independent advice on the issues which it is asked to tackle. Certainly, representatives of those groups to which I have referred have had no hesitation, without such a statutory request.
I can assure your Lordships that the group will receive the necessary funding to enable it to discharge its functions effectively. However, it will not wish just to be asked. We expect it to be active in proposing a work programme to the Secretary of State. The scope of the group's remit has deliberately been drawn to cover standards of clinical care rather than care in general.
The clause makes clear that that includes the questions of access to and availability of high standards of clinical care. It is the single most critical aspect of the service that the patient receives. I believe that it is right to allot this field to the group, leaving other more general aspects of care—for example, the quality of hospital food, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred—to be tackled through the NHS management executive's continuing programme of quality improvement, to which I referred earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone, asked about other groups being able to commission work in deciding that programme. As I said earlier, the programme would be agreed between the Clinical Standards Advisory Group and the health Ministers. In deciding that programme it will be free to consider suggestions for studies from any person or body or make suggestions itself. It was in that sense that I said there was nothing to prevent the group from initiating discussion or consideration of an issue.
I also mentioned the royal colleges as a valuable potential source of suggestions. Voluntary organisations are another source. That is the best way to ensure that the group has a manageable and effective programme of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked how the group would operate. Its working methods will evolve over time, without a doubt. The use of ad hoc teams has worked very well in the case of the health advisory service and may be appropriate in this case. As I have said, the programme will be discussed with Ministers. We shall need to have the group in place before we can finally fix the scale of its activity in any one year. I assure your Lordships that the group's activities will be fully funded and that appropriate staffing support will be provided.

259
The £10 million to which I referred earlier was for a quality initiative to take place this year. The full cost of the group's functioning has yet to be determined and will depend largely on its work programme. I assure your Lordships that funding will be adequate for its purpose. Similarly, I cannot give firm figures for the number of visits that the group is likely to make. That would make no sense before at least the chairman is in place. However, I suspect that the amount will be more than the single figure sum suggested by the noble Lord.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Walton, asked whether the reports would be made public. We believe that the clinical standards advisory group will play a most constructive role in advising health Ministers and individual health service bodies on standards of care. Therefore, its report on specific and general areas will be of value to all parts of the health service. I expect that it will become normal practice for the reports to be published and made widely available in most cases, certainly as regards national issues. However, that matter must be decided between the group and the Minister or body commissioning a study.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, quoted nine key areas. I assure him that, with the single exception of catering and hygiene standards, all the areas he mentioned will fall fairly and squarely on the remit of the group as defined in the Government's Amendment No. 198.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about the ability to look at waiting lists. I assure him that the group will have the ability to look at access to services as well as at the services themselves. That is explicit on the face of the Government's amendment and therefore the group will be able to look at excessive waiting times.
I hope that I have touched upon and answered most of the points that were raised. I reiterate that it would not be helpful to spell out all the aspects of the advisory group's constitution and remit in excessive detail in the Bill because that would only restrict its activities in the long run. We have had a most useful discussion on this group of amendments. I hope that my comments have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, and the co-movers of his amendment and that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment with the assurance that their anxieties are covered by the Government's amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I do not believe that my amendments have been dealt with properly. I propose to speak to them and move them when we deal with the Bill on Thursday. I hope that arrangements can be made to accept that position.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wish to remind her of my question about her statement that there is nothing to prevent the group from initiating activity. I made the point that the Government's amendment contained nothing to that effect. Subsection (1)(c) of their Amendment No. 198 refers to:
"such other functions as may be prescribed by regulations".
260
Other words then fell from the Minister's lips when she was winding up. She said that she assumed the group would be active in proposing a work programme to the Secretary of State. Is she prepared to put those two commitments onto the face of the Bill; that is, the right to initiate and the right to be active in proposing a programme to the Secretary of State? That is an important point. She has used both phrases and it would be most helpful if they could be put on the face of the Bill.
10 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House—our procedures on Report are becoming rather irregular—I have tried to convey that the best way forward is that the wording of the amendment should be as general as possible and as we have agreed it with the royal colleges. It is not necessary to do as the noble Lord suggests in order to meet his anxieties.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister said. It certainly went beyond what I was expecting or hoping for. I particularly welcome what I took to be an assurance that there will be further consideration and discussion before the Bill is finally put to bed on what action should be taken as regards the very difficult issues of monitoring, quality control and so on. I hope that as a result of that it will be possible for the Government to come back with a different amendment either when we reach Amendment No. 198 or at Third Reading. That would be very welcome. I hope that I am not expecting too much.
I should like to point out what seemed to be the implications of the attitude taken by the Minister, especially in her last remarks. Many of us, including the noble Lord. Lord Walton, have put a good deal of weight on the necessity, as we see it, for the board to have the power to initiate its own inquiries. If that could be written into the Bill, that alone would make a difference.
We have also placed a good deal of weight on the desirability of the board being able to make an annual report to Parliament. Again, that would make a difference.
The most important point still remains; that is, what are thought to be the boundaries of clinical care. My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock read out a list of matters which should be considered. If those could be brought within the purview of the board, then one would be very near to being satisfied about the matter.
The first function of the proposed group or board is that it will provide advice on standards of clinical care and access to and availability of services to National Health Service patients. It has never been clear whether the access and availability of services reference applies to clinical standards in the first place and whether or not the legal ejusdem generis rule applies. If it does not—and the Minister's remarks suggested that it does not—then the provision about access and availability of services could be taken out of that clause and put into a clause on its own. There would then be an extension

261
of the functions of the board beyond clinical care but all related to it. We should then be sure as to how far the Government's remit to the board will extend.
If we go as far as that, then the question will rise as to what will be the name of the board or group. The name Clinical Advisory Group seems to be misleading. It would be much less misleading if it was ca led a clinical and general standards group or board.
262
Those are the points implied by what has been ably expressed in the debate. We hope that the Government will come back later. In view of that I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, but if things do not work out then I shall bring it back again at Third Reading. However, we hope that it will be with us before that time in the form of a government amendment.
Noble Lords: No!
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 20 [Extension of function etc. of Audit Commission to cover the Health Service]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 21, line 11, at end insert:
("(1A) Section 27 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall continue to apply to health service bodies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 121 and 123 concern the scope of the work of the Audit Commission. The Bill very properly imports the Audit Commission into the scrutiny of its operations and extends the functions of that body to some extent to the National Health Service. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, Section 26 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 will apply fully to the National Health Service.
Section 26 is the section under which the Audit Commission carries out what are generally called value for money studies. They are extremely useful but of limited scope. For example, the two which were initiated before the introduction of the Bill—although I understand work is in hand on them—concern energy use in hospitals (which is of great importance to the proper use of resources) and surgical dressings. Those arc useful but limited studies on specific topics.
The Bill as written largely prevents the operation of Section 27 of the Local Government Finance Act from applying to the health service. Section 27 gives the Audit Commission wider scope. It enables it to undertake studies on the impact of policy on the delivery of services. For example, the management arrangements may be scrutinised. In relation to schools the objective was to develop a set of indicators for monitoring performance under the new LMS regimes. The work of social services concentrated on the difficult area of monitoring performance in the care of children. Section 27 studies include reviews of auditors' project reports and management letters. They also focus on areas where the improvements achieved seem to be lower than expected.
From those few examples it will be seen that the Section 27 studies carried out by the Audit Commission are somewhat wider in scope than those carried out under Section 26. When I last raised the topic I ventured to suggest that it would be helpful for the Audit Commission to preserve its scope in that slightly wider field in relation to the health service, particularly at a time of far-ranging reform.
The Government replied. In fact, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who wrote to me. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, in replying to the previous debate, made the same point; that the Government are not prepared for these powers to be construed as entitling the commission to question the merits of the policy objections of the Secretary of State. That was the phrase used:
"to question the merits of the policy objectives of the Secretary of State".
As a result of the previous debate I have taken that point on board. I am prepared to concede that it would not be appropriate for the Audit
264
Commission to do that, However, it still seems to me appropriate that the Audit Commission should remain broadly with its Section 27 powers, which, incidentally, it will retain over the community care end of the Bill. Therefore, there will be a slight anomaly, which was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, last time round. The Audit Commission will have full Section 26 and Section 27 powers over community care but will only have, in effect, Section 26 powers over the NHS end of the Bill. That seems to be a slight anomaly.
It was also suggested to me when we debated this matter previously that, as the National Audit Office is the auditor of the National Health Service, it is not appropriate for the Audit Commission to be involved. My understanding of the role of the National Audit Office in relation to the NHS is that it audits the main accounts of the department. There seems to be no reason why the Audit Commission should not take over for the district and regional authorities.
The main point of the revised set of amendments which I have tabled is that I again seek to preserve the general scope of Section 27 in relation to the health service but I have accepted the Government's point that the main policy objectives, the broad thrust of the Government's policy, should not be questioned. That is embodied in Amendment No. 123, which states:
"Powers conferred by this subsection shall not be construed as entitling the Commission to question the merits of the policy objectives of the Secretary of State".
Incidentally, in Section 27 there is in any case a power for Ministers to veto publication of reports which they do not think are appropriate. Therefore, the Secretary of State has the last word. All I suggest is that he does not deprive himself of this valuable management tool and that the Section 27 powers are broadly extended to the National Health Service. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I do not see Amendment No. 123 as being consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has been saying. What the amendment does, before it puts in the reference to policy, is to remove everything from line 14 to line 28 on page 82. It takes out paragraph 19(2) and the new subsection (6) from Section 27 to which the noble Lord was speaking.
That removes an amendment which was accepted in the Commons to give the Audit Commission, as we saw it, more rather than less power to look into the effect of Government's statutory provisions, directions and guidance from the Secretary of State. It seems to us—that is, myself and my advisers from the National Schizophrenic Fellowship—that there is a great deal to be said for the commission having the power which Mr. Andrew Mitchell, who moved the amendment in the Commons, spent a long time explaining was a good way of strengthening the powers of the Audit Commission.
The Audit Commission is much admired in the caring world. It can be said that its report Making a

265
Reality, of Community Care published in 1986 led to the Griffiths Report and in turn to this part of the Bill. On the whole, I strongly discourage support for Amendment No. 123. In the meantime I recommend the noble Lords who tabled it to take another look before striking out this rather important part or the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall deal first with the anomaly which, according to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, exists between Part III and the health side of the Bill. I thought that I had made myself clear at Committee stage: if I did not, I do so now. There is no anomaly here. The community care services are managed by the local authorities. At the end of the day the NHS is directly accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State. That is the key difference. Local authorities and the NHS are very different animals.
During our debate in Committee noble Lords expressed some uncertainty about what we are aiming to achieve in the provisions in Schedule 4 to the Bill relating to value-for-money studies. I shall seek to clarify this. In relation to local government, the commission has two distinct powers on value for money. One is contained in Section 26 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. This requires the commission to undertake or promote studies into economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The Bill applies this provision in full to the commission's new role in the National Health Service.
The other power is the one in Section 27 of the 1982 Act which allows the commission to report on the impact of statutes, directions and guidance. Initially, we simply excluded this provision from the new arrangements for NHS audit because of the major difference between the accountability of local authorities to their electorates and the position in the NHS where it is Parliament which holds the Government to account on its policies. But in another place we did accept that we could strengthen the commission's hand by making it explicit that it could take full account of the implementation of statutes, directions and guidance, subject to its not questioning the policy objectives of the Secretary of State.
That is the provision contained in paragraph 19 of Schedule 4. This was agreed by all those concerned, including the commission, as reflecting a proper balance and the reality of the constitutional position. It also mirrors professional audit practice. It is the auditor's role to report on regularity and value for money in the implementation of policy rather than dispute the underlying objectives.
Let there be no doubt about the importance we attach to value-for-money studies. Indeed, the whole point of the transfer of responsibility to the Audit Commission is to put more emphasis on value for money and to make this work independent of government. We shall look to the commission to be vigorous and forthright in carrying out its new
266
responsibilities, backed by the very considerable armoury of powers which the Bill contains.
Turning to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I recognise that he has reflected on the Government's position and has tried to find a way forward in the constructive spirit which we have come to expect from the noble Lord. I regret to say that his proposition will simply not work. It is inconsistent, on the one hand, to allow the commission to report on the impact of government policy and, on the other, to say that policy objectives shall not be questioned. The two are inseparable.
I do not believe that we should saddle the commission with a statutory basis that leaves so much room for doubt and dispute. What we want is a clear-cut power for the commission to take full account in its reports of the implementation of statutes, directions and guidance in a way which does not question the underlying policy objectives.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the Bill promotes rather than hinders the commission's essential value-for-money role and that he will therefore not press his amendments.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his reply. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that Amendments Nos. 121 and 123 had to be read together. The first restores the full power of Section 27 to the audit of health service bodies. Amendment No. 123 then restricted that power in the way that I described; in other words, inhibiting the questioning of the merits of policy objectives of the Secretary of State. In fact it would not have undermined the compromise that was achieved by Mr. Andrew Mitchell in another place but would have slightly extended it. That is my understanding of what the effect of these amendments would have been. So the noble Lord's criticism of the amendment on those grounds does not stand up.
Turning to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I should have thought there was somewhere a halfway house in which Section 27 studies could be made. After all, they are objective studies without overtly questioning policy objectives. If the Government then come to reflect on their policy objectives, that would be another matter, and I should have thought would have been quite a healthy thing for them to do.
In view of what the noble Lord said and of what has already been achieved by the amendment in another place, I shall not press this matter further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 80, line 7, leave out ("To the extent that") and insert ("In such circumstances and to such extent as").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 122 and will also speak to Amendments Nos. 124 to 129 inclusive. These amendments to the English and Scottish provisions of the Bill dealing with the statutory audit do two things. First, they phase the coming into effect of the audit provisions. In order to ensure continuity of the expertise, the Bill provides for the transfer to the English Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission of the civil servants working on National Health Service statutory audit. At present the provisions dealing with the transfer of staff cannot come into effect until the dates on which the two commissions take over the work. In practice, we want job offers to be issued beforehand, so that affected staff have time to consider them and, if they accept, transfer to their new employer on or before the operative date. Amendments Nos. 124 to 127 pave the way for that transfer.
The remaining amendments deal with the frequency of audit of individual GP practice funds. In general, we do not think it will be necessary for the auditor to do a detailed audit of the relevant accounts of each fund holder more frequently than once every three years because the accounts of every fund holder will be summarised and included in the accounts of the relevant FHSA or health board. That is why the Bill at present says,
"To the extent that regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide, this Part of this Act shall not apply to the accounts for any year of the members of a recognised fund-holding practice if those accounts are submittted to a Family Health Services Authority and summarised in that Authority's accounts".
But we also want to allow the auditor, if he is concerned about the financial affairs of an individual fund holding practice, to do a detailed audit more frequently than once every three years. These are the "circumstances" referred to in Amendments Nos. 122 and 129. I have no reason to think that it will often be necessary for the auditor to intervene in this way, but it is right that the Bill should make proper provision for the auditor to investigate any cases of concern about the spending of public money.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:
Page, 82, line 43, leave out ("section 20 or) and insert ("paragraph 22 of Schedule 4 to").
Page 83, line 4, leave out ("section 20 or) and insert ("paragraph 22 of Schedule 4 to").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35 [Accounts and audit of NHS trusts and fund-holding practices]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 43, line 30, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendments relating to Audit of Accounts of Scottish Health Service Bodies]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 129:
Page 93, line 16, after ("or) insert ("paragraph 3(3) of").
Page 95, line 24, leave out ("(1A)") and insert ("(1B)").
Page 95, line 25, leave out ("1B) To the extent that") and insert "(1C) In such circumstances and to such extent as").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 129A:
Insert the following new clause:
("Schemes for meeting losses and liabilities etc. of certain health service bodies
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury establish a scheme whereby any of the bodies specified in subsection (2) below may make provision to meet—

(a) expenses arising from any loss of or damage to their property; and

(b) liabilities to third parties for loss, damage or injury arising out of the carrying out of the functions of the bodies concerned.

(2) The bodies referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) health authorities;

(b) NHS trusts; and

(c) the Public Health Laboratory Service Board;

but a scheme under this section may limit the class or description of bodies which are eligible to participate in it.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (1) above, a scheme under this section may—

(a) provide for the scheme to be administered by the Secretary of State or by a health authority of NHS trust specified in the scheme;

(b) require any body which participates in the scheme to make payments in accordance with the scheme; and

(c) provide for the making of payments for the purposes of the scheme of moneys provided by Parliament.

(4) Without prejudice to any other power of direction conferred on the Secretary of State, if the Secretary of State so directs, a body which is eligible to participate in a scheme shall do so.
(5) Neither the Secretary of State nor any health authority or NHS trust administering a scheme under this section shall, by virtue of their activities under the scheme, be regarded as carrying on insurance business for the purposes of the Insurance Companies Act 1982.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 129A I shall speak also to No. 138A. These amendments flow essentially from the establishment of National Health Service trusts. They will give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to enable him, or regions acting under delegated powers, to meet the liabilities of trusts or other defined health service bodies, and for the Secretary of State for Scotland to do likewise.
As your Lordships will be aware, health authorities currently bear their own risks and do not insure. Many regions run arrangements whereby the costs of particularly large clinical negligence claims are met from funds held back by the regions, thus spreading the cost between districts. In Scotland and Wales pooling arrangements to share the costs of high value liabilities are operated by the Secretary of State. These arrangements will, in all probability, take on more significance in future as health authorities will be responsible for meeting liabilities

269
arising from the medical negligence of their employees.
The National Health Service trusts will of course be liable to meet the costs of any claim against them. As the legislation stands they would, however, not be able to participate in existing pooling arrangements or any other arrangements that might be devised for sharing the risk of major claims between health authorities. There is no power for the Secretary of State or the regions to meet the liabilities of trusts in return for the payment of agreed contributions from them.
Trusts would effectively have to meet their own liabilities without the option of spreading the risk. We do not believe that it would be right for trusts, which will remain fully part of the National Health Service, to have to meet liabilities on a different basis from health authorities. These amendments therefore give the Secretary of State the necessary power to establish schemes for meeting the liabilities of defined health service bodies, including trusts. I commend both these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 130:
Before Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Exercise of primary functions with regard to homelessness
. In Section 72 of the Housing Act 1985 (which provides that, on a request by a local housing authority for assistance in the discharge of certain statutory functions relating to homelessness, or threatened homelessness, a body of a description specified in the paragraph shall cooperate in rendering such assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) request a family health services authority or district health authority within the meaning of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to exercise any of their primary functions under that Act with special regard to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This new clause seeks to provide a more effective statutory framework for the provision of primary health care for the homeless. It places a statutory duty on health authorities and FHSAs to co-operate with local housing authorities in the care of the homeless. This will be brought about by amending Section 72 of the Housing Act 1985 which already exists to secure the co-operation of a range of other bodies and authorities with local housing authorities.
Under that clause, for example, social services departments are bound to help if a local housing authority makes a request. This amendment extends that precedent to the provision of health care. Under the Housing Act 1985 local authorities are under a duty to find suitable accommodation for homeless families. In 1988 local authorities in England accepted over 117,000 households as homeless under the terms of the 1985 Act, which Shelter estimated as translating into 337,000 people. This is the only official measure of homelessness,and it is generally agreed that it is simply the tip of the iceberg.
In 1988 local authorities actually turned away more families than they accepted under the relatively strict legislative definition of homelessness. The truth is that no one knows for sure how many people are homeless in the United Kingdom. Shelter puts the figure at over 500,000—half a million—while surveys carried out by the Salvation Army put the figure at 75,000 in London alone, Whatever the figure, everyone agrees that it is growing. I think there are signs that it is going to grow very seriously.
What can be done? The amendment is deliberately non-prescriptive as to the action that might be taken to improve health care services for the homeless. This is not because of a lack of ideas. The few specialist units already working with the homeless have provided many lessons such as using patient-held records to improve continuity of care and arranging special surgeries for homeless families. Health care professionals have also put forward positive proposals such as DHAs and FHSAs establishing objectives for monitoring and delivering health care to homeless families with a homeless persons' liaison officer in each locality.
The amendment does not prescribe any of those possible solutions because it recognises that in different cases different solutions may be necessary. Without the amendment it is doubtful whether such collaboration would be forthcoming in the new market-drive NHS. Pressures on health authorities, in particular, are likely to force them back to an old style curative model, neglecting policies of health promotion and illness prevention and forgetting completely the needs of the homeless. It would be wrong if the Bill were allowed on to the statute book without recognising that one of the major causes and consequences of ill health is homelessness, a scourge that is rapidly growing in our society. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, homeless people have exactly the same rights as anybody else to health and social care services and they too will benefit from the general improvement in services which will flow from the radical changes introduced by the Bill and from other recent measures.
However, we are conscious that some homeless people will have difficulty in gaining access to services. We know that some need to be encouraged to make full use of the services which are already available to them. We hope that the new fee payable to GPs under their revised contract for registering and giving health checks to new patients will encourage them to register homeless people as patients. The White Paper Promoting Better Health also lays a specific responsibility on family practitioner committees to assess the health needs of all their residents and actively to develop services to meet those needs. In areas where there are homeless people they will need to take account of their special requirements.
The pivotal role given by the Bill to district health authorities will also lead to specific improvements in services for homeless people. The Bill gives district health authorities specific responsibility for the provision of a comprehensive range of high quality services for all their population. That will, of course,

271
include homeless people. In addition, the community care proposals in the Bill will ensure a better quality of care for all service users.
Those improvements are expected to take effect over the next few years. But the Government have already taken concrete action to help homeless people. They have set up the emergency assistance scheme for rough sleepers in severe weather. That scheme, which has already proved its worth, provides emergency shelter and food in harsh weather and is administered on behalf of the Government by the Single Homeless in London organisation.
There has been particular concern in recent years about how to make effective arrangements for the continuing care of mentally ill people being treated in the community. The plight of homeless mentally ill people has been singled out for particular attention. Ministers and officials at the Department of Health are currently in discussion with health and social services authorities and voluntary bodies in central London, where there is a particular concentration of homeless mentally ill people, with a view to identifying practical steps to get them the support they need. We hope that any approach developed for central London will prove a useful model for other parts of the country.
Given that all citizens of this country have full right of access to services, the Government can see no need for any specific mention of the entitlement to health care of homeless people to be enshrined in legislation. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Minister is right. Homeless people have the same rights as others: the problem is that they do not have the same opportunities. I am afraid that for many years the Government have said that they recognise the problem of homelessness but have not taken action to deal with it. Homelessness has worsened year after year.
I do not take seriously the Minister's optimistic hopes that somehow things will come right in the end. They come right only when some action is taken which leads to their coming right. That is what the amendment is designed to do. It will not reach the statute book. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, not because I am satisfied with the Minister's answer but because, having put the case and heard the answer, I do not want to go any further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 132:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Services for the elderly and disabled
At the end of section 56 of the principal Act (which enables the Secretary of State to make special arrangements to secure the adequate provision of services) there shall be added—
"(2) In performing his duties under this section, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the provision of services for elderly and disabled persons." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause provides a safeguard against poor service provision and gives the Secretary of State special powers to correct situations where services are deemed to be inadequate. The background is that in the new market-driven National Health Service the elderly and disabled, whose chronic conditions are unpredictable and cannot easily be costed, are likely to be among the first to experience any problems which might occur. It seems only right, therefore, that the Secretary of State should have specific regard to protecting adequate service provision for them. That is what the amendment is designed to do.
The contracting system may lead to more rigid discharge policies by hospitals, with the effect that patients are discharged quicker and sicker. Elderly patients especially, who take longer to recover from hospital treatment, may find themselves in the community with inadequate support.
It is interesting that in the East Anglian simulation exercise, to which I have referred on a number of occasions, one of the causes of the market crash on the third day was the complete swamping of community services by patients discharged too early. I fear that that was an all too true prediction. Although it is not within the scope of the Bill, this new clause would also have the advantage of plugging any gaps in services caused by the new GP contract. In short, for any period of change there is bound to be some turbulence. It seems only right that an amendment of this kind should be written into the Bill as a safeguard, providing a safety net for some of the most vulnerable members of our community. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we share the noble Lord's view of the importance of services for elderly and disabled people which, as he would be one of the first to point out, do not have the glamour that certain other services possess. However, this amendment would provide a fairly poor mechanism for improving them. For a start, services would have to reach a demonstrably inadequate state before action would be taken to improve them.
As with other services in the National Health Service, the level of provision is and will remain a matter for individual health authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities and competing claims on resources. In planning these services, we expect health authorities to work closely with FPCs. This collaboration should be improved by the changes which we are introducing to FPCs to ensure that the best possible services are provided to local people.
Elderly people are already recognised as a priority group. Thus health authorities are required when preparing their service provision plans to give special consideration to their needs. The level of service to be provided is for each health authority to decide.
Under the community care provisions in this Bill, health authorities and local authorities will be required to plan jointly their service provision for all people who require social and/or medical care. FHSAs will be involved in this process. In drawing up these plans health and local authortities will have to take into consideration the needs of the local

273
population and demographic factors such as the ageing population. We therefore already have a major programme of action in hand to improve services to people in these groups. No doubt we have a great deal of further debate still to come on community care. I hope in the meantime that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it has been noted that during the Committee and Report stages I have endeavoured to ensure that there is written into the Bill the awareness of the Government and Parliament that we need to make special provision for the elderly and disabled and for other underprivileged groups. Successive Ministers have given reassuring answers. I have always had to say that I was not satisfied with those reassuring answers and that is what I say now. In a year's time, when the Bill comes into operation, we shall see whether the needs of these people, whether they be homeless, elderly or disabled, are better looked after or worse. I have my fears, but 1 shall not press the amendment to a vote tonight. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 132A:
Before Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Grants for health care research
—(1) Section 97 of the principal Act shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(1A) The Secretary of State shall make grants to each relevant authority to be used solely for the provision of postgraduate, vocational and continuing education programmes for medical and dental practitioners, nurses and other health care professionals.

(1B) The Secretary of State shall maintain a fund for the purposes of making grants to any hospital or other NHS establishment where research is undertaken using funds provided by a registered charity." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 142A. Those two amendments stand in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. I shall be brief because in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, gave an assurance that finds available to health authorities for the provision of postgraduate, vocational and continuing education programmes would be protected. Considerable concern had been expressed over the fact that in the recent past certain health authorities, finding themselves short of funds to fulfil their obligations, had withdrawn support for a number of those activities for all professions. I have to say that there is still considerable concern on the part of the medical profession and on the part of postgraduate deans that funds which are available for the continuing postgraduate and vocational education of medical practitioners may in the future be under similar threat. I trust that we can have a similar assurance from the noble Baroness that these funds will in future be protected.
A second issue which is particularly related to Amendment No. 142A and to the proposed new
274
Subsection (2)(1B) of Amendment 132A relates to research in the National Health Service. One of the fundamental features of our National Health Service and its support for medical research is that the NHS provides the environment, the situation and the facilities in which medical research can be carried out and in which the Medical Research Council and the research granting charities provide the funds for the direct costs of undertaking that research. However, there have been circumstances where health authorities have found themselves in great difficulty in accepting much needed funds to support research and where research funds have been perforce diverted into providing clinical services to patients and patient care for which they were not in the first instance intended.
The hope in the proposed new Subsection (2)(1B) of Amendment No. 132A is that the Secretary of State shall maintain a fund to provide the infrastructure against which the funds from charities and the research councils can properly be used for the support of research, which is what they were provided for. When the Secretary of State met the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House he gave an assurance that the Government's commitment to the support of research in the National Health Service was absolute. We trust that his commitment will extend to the support of this particular provision. We also hope that in accordance with Amendment No. 142A the service increment for teaching might perhaps more properly be called—this has been the case in effect for a good many years—a service increment for teaching and research. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, in Committee I supported the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in an amendment similar to this one except that it did not include the proposed new Subsection (2)(1B) in Amendment No. 132A. I raised that issue because I am concerned about the amount of money devoted to medical research in the present day. At least 50 per cent. of the money devoted to research is raised by medical research charities. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to the fact that the charities are having to spend a large amount of their funds not on pure research or clinical research but on paying for back-up services in National Health Service hospitals.
One of the biggest medical charities has carried out an analysis of its expenditure in two big London teaching hospitals. I referred to this in Committee. The expenditure comes to somewhere between 35 and 40 per cent. of its funds. The people who donate money to the research charities do not expect that money to be spent on back-up services. Moreover, we spend less on research than most other countries in the world. It is important that we use every penny that is raised by the medical research charities for research and not for back-up services.
This amendment came up at 10.50 p.m. at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I put it down again for Report stage in the hope that it might come up a little earlier. Well, it is five minutes earlier, but that does not make much difference. It is a desperately important amendment

275
for the future of the National Health Service. It is a tragedy that it has again come up so late in the day.
Regarding the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned with respect to postgraduate vocational training, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure us that the Secretary of State will maintain a fund for the purposes of making grants to other NHS establishments where research is undertaken by medical charities. That would not entail an enormous sum of money but it would make all the difference to the way in which the research charities could spend their money. It would also help to improve the research facilities that we so desparately need in the National Health Service.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, at this time of night I do not wish to prolong the debate by repeating what has already been said so adequately, but I wish to support these two amendments. I see them as particularly important amendments. In particular I should like to underline the reference in subsection (1A) of Amendment No. 132A to the need to support the provision of postgraduate, vocational and continuing education programmes.
In the nursing profession there has been ample evidence of the way in which authorities cut back on the funding of post-basic education. This is leading to severe problems in manpower provision in the health service. I am thinking particularly of the cutting back on funding education for community nursing—district nurses and health visitors—and also the crucial under-funding for paediatric intensive care nurses of which we have been made so very much aware. Therefore I wish to add my support to the amendments.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords—
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not wish to speak before I say simply that we support the amendments. I am not clear that they are of equal importance, but I should particularly like to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, in emphasising the importance of continuing education. I do not seek to undermine the importance of research, but nothing can be more important than that the Secretary of State should see to it that vocational and continuing education for all health care professionals is an obligatory part of the NHS in whatever new form it takes.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, when we discussed a similar amendment at Committee stage I explained that the Government were looking actively at the funding of continuing and postgraduate education for the caring profession and that a group of interested professionals led by the Chief Medical Officer had helped in those deliberations. I also explained that we had already decided that there should be a clearly defined budget for postgraduate and continuing education and that we were examining further how best that budget should be
276
managed. No amendment is needed to operate such a budget. The powers under Section 97 of the National Health Service Act 1977 are sufficient to allow the funds to be separately identified and managed at both regional and district level.
Your Lordships should also be aware that the Government are already consulting research interests about the establishment of a fund to be used for supporting charitably funded research. The fund would be available to those hospitals which do not have access to the service increment for teaching (SIFT), which since 1st April last year will also cover the service costs of research. The membership of the Association of Medical Research Charities on the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education in the next phases of its work also shows our commitment to working constructively with the charitable sector, which makes such an important contribution in this area. I am happy to underline that point again. Again, Section 97 powers could be used to operate such a scheme. I hope that that goes some way to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Robson.
Because the amendment commits the Government to a single fund for all hospitals when the problem of service costs of research is peculiar to non-teaching hospitals, we find that it is in that sense too prescriptive. In addition, it might cast doubt on the use of the power in Section 97 to which I have referred, which has been used for many years for the general funding of the health authorities and for the payment of sums to health authorities for specific purposes.
Turning to the second amendment, hospitals are protected from the costs of medical and dental education through the SIFT programme. This was increased from 1st April this year to meet 100 per cent. of the cost instead of the previous 75 per cent. of the average excess costs of teaching hospitals, including those attributable to research. The increase in SIFT this year of £26 million brings the total to £343 million.
The steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education made some useful recommendations which the Government have accepted and, as a result, SIFT will be clearly targeted to supporting undergraduate medical and dental education and research. That fulfils the aim of the second amendment, which we also believe to be rather too specific.
The amendment also seeks to make the regional health authority give everyone responsible for research, even in non-teaching hospitals, a slice of the cake. Yet we are looking at a quite separate arrangement for the non-teaching hospitals and this amendment would make us fund them twice. Because of the way SIFT is calculated, it would not make sense simply to increase its value and support all research anywhere from it: we strongly believe that we need the two separate schemes.
I hope that I have been able to make it clear that we share the same objects of supporting education and training, both undergraduate and postgraduate, and research. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lard Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in the light of the clear assurances given by the noble Baroness, for which I am most grateful—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, shares my view—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Distribution of general medical services]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 23, line 32, leave out ("for") and insert ("to fill a vacancy created by the withdrawal from the medical list of a single-handed practitioner in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 134 to 137.
The issue is simple. It is a question of the powers of family health service authorities in selecting medical practitioners. Clause 22(2A) states:
"If in the opinion of the Medical Practices Committee, a medical practitioner is required for a particular part of the locality of a Family Health Services Authority, then, in such circumstances, as may be prescribed,—
(a) the Authority (instead of the Committee) shall, in accordance with regulations, select the medical practitioner whose application they wish to be considered by the Committee."
When that issue was debated in Committee, I believe that the Minister said in reply that the power would be used to fill a vacancy created by the withdrawal from the medical list of a single-handed practitioner and that that was not a general power which the Government wished to transfer from the Medical Practices Committee to the FHSA. I wish to write into the Bill what I think was an assurance that was given at that time. If that were done, I think that it would be of considerable assurance to the medical profession. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall reply to Amendment No. 133 and my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden will speak to Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 inclusive. We understand the motives behind this amendment but it would not achieve what the noble Lord has in mind. There is a practical difficulty. We all know what we mean by "single-handed" but there is no definition of it in the 1977 National Health Service Act, nor indeed in the relevant regulations.
There are some occasions when a vacancy which is, to all intents and purposes, single-handed, has actually been shared, for example, by a husband and wife or by more than one part-time doctor. If this amendment were to be accepted, the FHSA would not be able to select the doctor to fill such a vacancy. In addition, when the Medical Practices Committee creates a new single-handed practice vacancy, the FHSA would not be able to select the doctor to fill it. I am sure that the noble Lord does not intend that that should happen.
I believe that there is no difference between us. The Bill will not permit FHSAs to appoint doctors seeking to set up new practices from scratch, not in
278
response to an advertisement. I can inform the noble Lord that when the regulations are made they will define FHSAs' powers and will specifically exclude partnership vacancies. I can also undertake that we shall consult the Medical Practices Committee and representatives of the profession on these regulations in due course. I cannot commend this amendment to the House.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I quite understand why the Minister could not do so. It is an unsatisfactory amendment. I was just doing my best. That is all it was. The Minister has convinced me that the amendment in its present form is not satisfactory; but she has gone further than that. She has given two very important assurances which I think will be very satisfactory to the medical profession. In particular I am glad that there will be consultation before the regulations are drafted. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Distribution of general medical services]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 45, line 10, leave out ("Committee") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 135, 136 and 137. These amendments bring the Scottish Clause 38 into line with the English and Welsh Clause 22, which was amended in a similar way at Committee stage. They provide that the Secretary of State rather than the Scottish Medical Practices Committee should handle a doctor's appeal on a point of law against a health board decision not to select him for a GP practice vacancy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 135 to 137:
Page 45, line 12, leave out ("Committee allow an appeal under paragraph (c) they") and insert ("Secretary of State allows an appeal under paragraph (c) he").
Page 45, line 43, leave out ("for") and insert ("after").
Page 45, line 44, leave out from ("be") to ("and") in line 45 and insert ("inserted").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Limitations on right to be included in list of dental practitioners]:
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 138A:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Schemes for meeting losses and liabilities etc. of certain health service bodies
. After section 85A of the 1978 Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
"Schemes for meeting losses and liabilities etc. of certain health service bodies
85B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury establish a scheme whereby any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) may make provision to meet—

(a) expenses arising from any loss of or damage to their property; and

(b) liabilities to third parties for loss, damage or injury arising out of the carrying out of the functions of the bodies concerned.

(2) The bodies referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) Health Boards;

(b) the Agency;

(c) a State Hospital Management Committee constituted under section 91 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; and

(d) NHS trusts,

but a scheme under this section may limit the class or description of bodies which are eligible to participate in it.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (1), a scheme under this section may—

(a) provide for the scheme to be administered by the Secretary of State, the Agency, or a Health Board or NHS trust specified in the scheme;

(b) require any body which participates in the scheme to make payments in accordance with the scheme; and

(c) provide for the making of payments for the purposes of the scheme out of money provided by Parliament.

(4) Without prejudice to any other power of direction conferred on the Secretary of State, if the Secretary of State so directs, any body which is eligible to participate in a scheme shall do.
(5) Neither the Secretary of State nor any body administering a scheme under this section shall, by virtue of their activities under the scheme, be regarded as carrying on insurance business for the purposes of the Insurance Companies Act 1982.")."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Transfer to DHA of certain functions relating to private patients]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 139:
Page 25, line 30, at end insert—
("(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) above, a District or Special Health Authority shall not make available accommodation and services for private patients which exceeds one quarter of all such accommodation and services at a hospital or hospitals for which they have a responsibility.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another simple amendment which is tabled in my name. It is clear—I do not think that any of us would doubt it—that the National Health Service has a positive duty to seek in every way that it can to eliminate racial discrimination.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I think that we have got the amendments out of order. It was not intended to move Amendment No. 139.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in that case Amendment No. 139 is not moved.
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 140 and 140A not moved.]
11 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 141:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Exercise of functions
. It shall be a duty of every health authority, Family Health Service Authority and National Health Service Trust to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need—

(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination: and

(b) to promote equality of opportunity. and good relations between persons of different racial groups.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I was saying, before I was so rudely but quite properly interrupted, it is clear that the National Health Service has a positive duty to eliminate racial discrimination and to promote racial equality. I have never produced such unity in the House by anything that I have ever said before.
At the time when the Bill was published, the Commission for Racial Equality was anxious that this concept should be written into the Bill, and I warmly agree. The CRE's social policy division director, Jean Coussins, said:
"We said in our response to the White Papers which preceded this Bill that inequalities and discrimination within the health service and community care provision, in both employment and service delivery, needed to be explicitly addressed. This has not happened. The Government should take the opportunity of fresh legislation to make it absolutely clear that their aims to improve patient care and value for money apply equally to all citizens".
I am sure that the Government will say—and they are right—that that is their intention. As we have argued on a number of other issues, this is so fundamental, so important to our society, that in my opinion—and I know that others support it—that simple view should be written on to the face of the Bill.
In proposing the amendment, there has been consultation with and approval by the National Association of Health Authorities, the Overseas Doctors Association, the King's Fund Task Force on Ethnic Minority Health, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and other health authority and local authority organisations.
It is a simple amendment. However, I believe that it would produce not only a good response by those who care about equal opportunities for racial minorities but would point out to local health authorities the need at all times almost to fall over backwards to show that they are being fair and equal in their treatment. I hope that the Government will give a favourable wind, or at least a favourable answer, to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the amendment. Everyone nowadays is an equal opportunities employer except when one examines the results, only to find that they are very difficult to discover.
I know that the Government will tell us that it is the law of the land and the policy of the authority. However, the fact remains that when one considers the detail very little happens. I hope that the Government agree that the principle should be on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall say that it is the law of the land and that there is recourse to law if there is any breach of the law. We have continually demonstrated our commitment to equality of opportunity in all walks of life for people from ethnic minority communities.
In employment, it is for health authorities, as for other organisations, including National Health Service trusts, to ensure that they comply with the law. It is for individual health authorities to determine how their responsibilities should be met. But I should like to stress that we have on many occasions emphasised to them the importance which we attach to ensuring that the particular needs of people from different racial groups are adequately catered for.
It was this commitment, coupled with our concern about the rate of progress within the health service in implementing the Commission for Racial Equality's code of practice, which led us to join with the King's Fund in 1986 in establishing a special Task Force on Racial Equality in the National Health Service. One of the main objectives of the task force (which is due to complete its work in December this year) has been to provide guidance and practical assistance to health authorities seeking to implement the code of practice.
On family practitioner services, we have been taking steps to increase the access to these services of people from ethnic minority communities. For example, first, details of GP practices at which languages other than English are spoken will be available from the new local directories of family doctors which we are requiring FSHAs to produce to help patients to choose a doctor. Secondly, the new GP contract will encourage more women GPs to practise, thereby helping women, including those from ethnic minorities, who prefer to see a woman doctor. Thirdly, doctors are now being better rewarded by the new deprivation payments for practising in inner city areas, where large numbers of people from ethnic minorities live.
On services for which district health authorities will be responsible, each authority will be responsible for ensuring that a comprehensive range of services is provided to its resident population. They will assess the health needs of that population, including any special needs of particular groups such as ethnic minorities, and agree contracts with providers for services to be delivered. In developing contracts for individual services, district health authorities will agree standards with providers of health care designed to improve the quality and responsiveness of care to all patients.
Through the regional review process we shall continue to pursue the adoption of action plan tasks on equal opportunities with regional health authorities. While there is still a considerable way to go, we are confident that these initiatives are having a strong impact and that we now have a firm base on which to continue to build. The amendment would not only be out of keeping with the spirit of the reforms by adding to the central direction of health authorities which are charged with ensuring the appropriate delivery of health services to all their
282
community but it would also be unnecessary because it duplicates the effect of existing legislation and government policy on health authorities. I cannot commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I accept what the Minister said—that this would not be in conformity with the views of the Government about the errors of any central direction. That is where the Government, and I and those on these Benches, must part company. This happens to be one issue. I believe that there are certain issues which the Government must state as a matter of national policy. This is one such issue on the basis of equal treatment. I agree with the Minister and I am sure that everything she said is being done. I believe that she would have wished to have an even stronger impact provided in an amendment such as this.
During the Committee and Report stages we on these Benches have sought to argue that the Government should insist on certain matters. The ways in which the principles are carried out are for health authorities to decide. We have looked at the different aspects of society; for example, people who are facing particular difficulties and disadvantages, elderly and disabled people and now ethnic minorities. We have sought to say that there should be some central direction not on how it should be done but that it should be done.
Therefore, there is a difference between us. The amendment was my last attempt to persuade the Government to write into the Bill some of the essential principles. They have decided that they do not wish to do so and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 142A not moved.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 142:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of health authorities etc. to promote preventative measures
. It shall be a duty of every health authority, Family Health Service Authority and National Health Service trust to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need to provide information on preventative health measures and health promotion.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be extraordinary if the National Health Service and Community Care Bill said nothing about prevention. The amendment seeks to ensure that in carrying out its functions any health body has a role in preventing ill health. There is no difference of view as to whether our health service should also have preventive, educational and screening roles. As with the last amendment, it is a question of emphasis.
The Bill aims to make the health service more responsive to the health needs of the general population but it says nothing about health promotion. It is important that the value of health promotion is recognised by the health service providers and is seen as being an integral part of patient care. That applies at every level of the service, from primary care to post-operative discharge. Patients need to be informed about how to improve

283
their health recovery and how to prevent further illness. Health promotion is an important part of a comprehensive health care system which aims to provide more than a curative service. That such a provision finds no place in the Bill is an extraordinary omission. I beg to move.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I am not sure what good it will do to put the words of the amendment on to the face of the Bill. People know what to do but it is impossible to force them to do it. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is very keen on preventing people from smoking. And yet, on National No Smoking Day, there was a photograph in the press showing noble Lords and Members of another place smoking their pipes in defiance of that day.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I was not one of them.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was not among them nor was any noble Lord on this side of the House.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I remind your Lordships that it is World No Smoking Day this Thursday.
The legislative basis for disease prevention and health promotion is clear. Section 1 of the 1977 National Health Service Act makes clear the duty of the Secretary of State for Health,
"to continue the promotion in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of those countries, and

(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness".

This places as much weight on the Secretary of State's responsibilities for prevention and promotion as it does for the provision of services for the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Legislation is not required to ensure that NHS authorities carry out diagnosis and treatment, and likewise it is not necessary for health promotion and disease prevention.
The Bill is concerned with the organisation and management of services rather than definitions of the elements which make up a comprehensive health service. This clause separates out health promotion from other responsibilities which fall to health authorities and family health services authorities to provide rather than ensuring that health promotion is an integral part of all their services to patients. Health promotion is an integral part of the work of all health professionals in their day-to-day dealings with patients and should be a core part of the role of the new authorities.
While I fully support the aim of the new clause, the Government are taking action in the field of preventive medicine. I need refer only to the new GP contracts in that respect. I trust that the noble Lord will be reassured by my comments.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Minister said politely and constructively what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said in brief. He said, "I do not know what good this amendment will do". The Minister said
284
the same and explained what the Government are doing. I respect much that the Government are doing in this area. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, I do not know what good this Bill will do. It is before us. I should have liked to improve it and my success rate so far is pretty bloody awful. I have done my best. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  EC HEREDITARY HEADS OF STATE: STATUS
  EC HEREDITARY HEADS OF STATE: STATUS
  PALESTINIAN UNIVERSITIES: CLOSURE
  PALESTINIAN UNIVERSITIES: CLOSURE
  SENEGAL/GUINEA BISSAU DISPUTE
  SENEGAL/GUINEA BISSAU DISPUTE
  UNHCR: FUNDING
  UNHCR: FUNDING
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 7th-8th JUNE
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 7th-8th JUNE
  PRIVATISATION PROCEEDS
  PRIVATISATION PROCEEDS
  DEER: LIVE EXPORTS
  DEER: LIVE EXPORTS
  FISHING INDUSTRY: RE-EMPLOYMENT OF LEAVERS
  FISHING INDUSTRY: RE-EMPLOYMENT OF LEAVERS
  FISHING INDUSTRY: PAY
  FISHING INDUSTRY: PAY
  FISHING VESSELS: EMPLOYEE NUMBERS
  FISHING VESSELS: EMPLOYEE NUMBERS
  FISHING VESSELS: COSTS AND EARNINGS
  FISHING VESSELS: COSTS AND EARNINGS
  FISHING INDUSTRY: EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  FISHING INDUSTRY: EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  FARM ANIMALS: SLAUGHTER REGULATIONS
  FARM ANIMALS: SLAUGHTER REGULATIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCILS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCILS