Sitting of 14 March 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NOTTINGHAM PARK ESTATE BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
  STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Business Innovation Centre, Cheshire
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had concerning the funding of Cheshire's business innovation centre; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I have had several representations, including my hon. Friend's, asking for grants from the European regional development fund to be made available to the Cheshire business innovation centre. The centre is eligible to apply.
    Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are moneys available at the European level for the business innovation centre? Will he encourage the local authorities to apply for that money, and give the application fair wind?
    Mr. Hogg: It is not a matter for me to adjudicate upon, but moneys are available and I hope that an application will be made. My hon. Friend's urging is of great significance and will be taken into account by those who ultimately make the decision.
    Mr. Hoyle: If an application is made now that moneys are available, will the Minister give it his support in the right quarters in Brussels?
    Mr. Hogg: The application will be considered by the programme monitoring committee. Clearly, the application must satisfy the usual criteria—notably, that it represents good value for money and that there is no duplication. I am sure that those making the application will apply their minds to satisfying precisely those criteria.

    Single European Market
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from engineering companies in Norfolk about the single European market.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: None, Sir.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that while Norfolk firms are gearing up for 1992 they are also helping the disabled and handicapped? Perhaps he will join me in paying particular tribute to Bead Engineering, which recently won a Fit for Work award for employing disabled people? Is my hon. Friend further aware that while Norfolk firms will definitely benefit from the Department of Transport's recent commitment to dual the main trunk roads into King's Lynn, they will have to compete on a level playing field in Europe? What steps will my hon. Friend take to ensure that a level playing field exists?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend played an important part in having the roads of King's Lynn improved and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his success in that. I have no doubt that he also played a part in ensuring that unemployment rates have fallen by 14 percentage points in the last 12 months. As to the broader issue of a level playing field, my hon. Friend is right to say that the removal of state aids and the provision of level playing fields is an important policy objective.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that right hon. and hon. Members should ask only one supplementary question, not more.

    Trading Standards Officers
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of local authority trading standards officers to discuss consumer matters.
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of local authority trading standards officers to discuss consumer affairs.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I met representatives of local authority trading standards officers on three occasions in 1989 to discuss consumer matters, and my officials have frequent meetings with trading standards officers.
    Mr. Martlew: Is the Minister aware that there is deep concern in trading standards offices and in British industry that the harmonisation of safety laws throughout Europe will mean the dumping of dangerous foreign goods on an unsuspecting British public?
    Mr. Forth: If there is such concern, it is misplaced. Authorities will still have powers to identify any items that are proved to be unsafe and to remove them from the market. That will be against the background of creating the single market and a single, verifiable and viable product safety standard so that consumers throughout

    465
    Europe can be equally assured of the safety of products on the market place. We shall continue to strive for that objective.
    Mr. Maxton: When the Minister met the trading standards officers, did he discuss with them the compulsory annual recording of car mileages? If he did, does he agree with them that it is an essential means of cutting down on fraud in the car markets? If so, when will he introduce legislation to carry it out?
    Mr. Forth: The answers are no, no and I do not have it in mind.
    Sir Anthony Grant: When my hon. Friend next meets the trading standards officers, will he discuss with them a serious problem which has arisen for small petrol retailers? The trading standards officers have said that pumps must be changed to allow for unleaded petrol by the end of the month, but the manufacturers and installers of the new pumps are unable to meet the demand, largely because they are overworked by the big oil companies. Will the Minister tell the trading standards officers to take things calmly in view of the backlog?
    Mr. Forth: I am slightly surprised that the matter has not been brought to my attention other than by my hon. Friend now. He suggests that I have some powers over trading standards officers. I am sure that the House will be reassured to know that I have no such powers and that the trading standards officers do their excellent work totally independently from the Government. However, I acknowledge the problem that my hon. Friend has described and I will find out what can be done to alleviate it.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from Britain being a dumping ground, the stringent laws that have been introduced in Britain for the furniture industry make us unique in Europe so that no European manufacturer can sell in Britain without attaining our standards and we are leading the world?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I should like it to be more widely understood in Britain that throughout the furniture industry enormous efforts have been made to comply with our high furniture safety standards. I very much welcome that, and I believe that people in Britain can be reassured that they will enjoy the highest standards of furniture fire safety in Europe if not the world.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of the public concern over his failure to reappoint Esther Rantzen to the National Consumer Council—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is really a laughing matter.
    Mr. Griffiths: I agree entirely, Mr. Speaker. It is far from a laughing matter. Is not the truth simply that the Minister cannot face the criticism that that consumer champion articulates on behalf of millions of people in Britain? Is not she paying the penalty for supporting the Consumer Guarantees Bill which the country and people overwhelmingly want and the Minister implacably opposes? Will he consider reappointing Esther Rantzen to the NCC as part of a Government contribution to world consumer day tomorrow?
    Mr. Forth: I am not aware of the source or the nature of the public concern claimed by the hon. Gentleman. Ester Rantzen has served three terms on the National Consumer Council. That is exceptional in itself and I felt that it was time for new blood and new ideas. Despite the fact that on her programme some three or four weeks ago Ester Rantzen invited people to write to Members of Parliament and to me expressing their public concern about the Bill that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as of a few days ago I had received only one letter in reply.

    Manufacturing Facilities, Birmingham
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many overseas-based companies have now established manufacturing facilities in the Birmingham area.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: To date, some 50 companies have established manufacturing operations in Birmingham. Recent announcements include projects from two West German companies, Kirsten Automotive Ltd and Keiper Recaro, which will be located on the Woodgate business park in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. King: Is my hon. Friend aware that the growing tide of foreign companies investing in Britain, certainly in Birmingham and the west midlands, is evidence of a strong resurgence of manufacturing capability in the region? Does he further agree that the role of the West Midlands development agency has been a spur to encourage much of that investment and that it is the wish of businesses in the region that that work should continue and increase?
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the West Midlands development agency, and he will know that I have been able substantially to increase the money that goes to that organisation. It must be said that my hon. Friend has also made a considerable contribution to attracting industry to his area. I was extremely grateful to him for his support of the Keiper Recaro project. I greatly valued my hon. Friend's representations, which enabled me to form a clear view of the matter, following which I was able to give the project a grant.
    Mr. Henderson: The Minister will know that, even with the inward investment in the west midlands, which we all welcome, manufacturing investment in the area is lower today than it was in 1979 and that even in high-tech industries, as defined by the Department of Trade and Industry, 10,000 jobs have gone since 1981. What will the Minister tell industrialists and workers in Lichfield in Mid-Staffordshire about Conservative economic policy?
    Mr. Hogg: I will tell them the truth, and they will be mightily impressed by it. Between 1984 and 1988, more than 260 inward investment projects in the west midlands created or safeguarded about 36,500 jobs. While we are talking about investment, I should point out that manufacturing investment in 1989 was 5 per cent. higher than in 1988 and 34 per cent. higher than five years ago. That is the fastest rate of growth in any three-year period since the war. That is what I shall tell them and they will find it very persuasive.

    Avionics
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much is to be provided by his Department in the form of grant for research into civil aircraft avionics under the first phase of the control technology programme.
    Mr. Doulglas Hogg: I am pleased to say that the Department has offered a grant of £3·88 million for the programme under the civil aircraft and aeroengine research demonstration budget.
    Mr. Evans: I welcome that reply. Is not that just the pump primer that we need to develop digital avionics bearing in mind how necessary that is for the next generation of civil aircraft? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just what business and the Government should be doing so that we can develop our industry and rebut the Opposition's claims that we do not have an interest in the future redevelopment of our aerospace industry?
    Mr. Hogg: Absolutely—I entirely agree. My hon. Friend is a particular champion of the British aerospace industry and I am grateful to him for that. On the substantive question, pre-competitive collaborative projects are extremely important to the Government and we put a lot of money into them. That is one reason why the aerospace industry is so successful.
    Mr. Jack: Will my hon. Friend ensure that that excellent news is transmitted to the engineering unions, which so recently sponsored a strike in the aerospace industry which damaged the prospects of Airbus Industrie and the future potential for the research that my hon. Friend's Department is funding?
    Mr. Hogg: I shall certainly point out that the Government are showing a commitment to the engineering and aerospace industries which is not always apparent among Opposition Members or in the trade unions.

    Regulatory Obstacles to Business
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions he has taken to remove the regulatory obstacles to business.
    The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The Department of Trade and Industry has a co-ordinating role around Whitehall in deregulation matters. In addition, each of the major Departments has a Minister and officials responsible for deregulation in their own areas. They are charged with the task of reviewing existing regulations to establish whether they can be simplified and reduced and for ensuring that new regulations meet the right standards so that they do not impose an unreasonable burden on business.
    On 21 December 1989, at columns 395–97 of Hansard, the Government listed the deregulation reviews currently under way. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Department is conducting a series of studies of the problems faced by new businesses trying to establish themselves in particular sectors to see whether further help can be given to them in the form of more deregulation.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and I applaud his will to do something about the
    468
    over-regulation of the business community, but is he aware that the DTI still administers 48 quangos with esoteric functions such as the "persons hearing estate agents' appeals" body, and so on? Is he also aware that the section of the Civil Service guide dealing with the ramifications of the Department's interventionist bodies runs to 70 columns? When will those bodies be curtailed?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the DTI is extremely keen to reduce unreasonable regulation. We are busy in many areas—for example. in the financial services. Tomorrow we shall take up the powers under the Companies Act 1989 to simplify the financial services regulations, without in any way endangering investor protection. We are also announcing the removal of the need for company seals under the Companies Act. We have set out arrangements for simplified financial statements and we have introduced a great deal of simplification in export licences.
    However, if my hon. Friend knows of specific cases of bodies that she thinks are unnecessary, or whose work could be handled better in some other way, I should be happy to hear of them.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the Minister has referred to so many people involved in trying to help businesses to avoid the problems imposed on them by the Government, has he had any representations about—and is he planning to take action on—the problems caused to small businesses by plans to force them to administer and enforce attachment orders related to poll tax? There is considerable anxiety about the personnel problems as well as the administrative problems that they could cause.
    Mr. Redwood: If I receive representations I will forward them to my colleagues at the Department of the Environment. The burdens on business that the Government impose are modest compared with those that would be imposed by the policies of the Opposition parties. I was interested to see a recent study by Public Policy Consultants, an independent body, which said that if Labour policies were adopted the burdens on business would rise substantially, which would be deleterious to the conduct of business in this country.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend accept that despite his positive answer about the review of the work of the deregulation unit, which is certainly encouraging, there is a need to reduce the considerable hurdles that firms have to overcome when they start up and to prevent new hurdles from being placed in their way? My hon. Friend's Department may be good at preventing such hurdles, but not all the other Departments are so good. Will he therefore keep a vigilant eye on them because that is also part of his task?
    Mr. Redwood: As I explained earlier, the main responsibility lies with each Department and its deregulation Minister to see that its regulations are responsible and reasonable and that the burdens on business are not insupportable. That is what they are doing. Of course my Department will remain vigilant through its co-ordination role, and my hon. Friend is right that particular problems affect small businesses and new businesses. That is why the deregulation unit at the DTI, in conjunction with other Departments, is making a

    469
    special study of a group of small business start-ups problems to see whether we can cut through still more red tape.
    Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister explain in what conditions he would use the existing regulatory structure applying to businesses under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986? We should be interested to know under what conditions he would operate the phrase "public interest" if not in the case of the Fayed brothers and the House of Fraser.
    Mr. Redwood: I have nothing to add to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on that subject last week, or to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General's remarks at Question Time. It was made quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had taken into account all necessary matters and had decided that it was not in the public interest to pursue that case.
    Mr. McCrindle: My hon. Friend has referred to the Companies Act 1989 and financial services. Is he satisfied that the whole approach of self-regulation, with its plethora of self-regulatory organisations, continues to operate in the interests of the investor and as expected when the legislation went through the House?
    Mr. Redwood: I think that the 1986 legislation is a major advance on what preceded it. A statutory framework operates through the Securities and Investments Board. I also welcome the fact that the SIB is currently keen to see regulation reduced to the minimum required to meet the necessary standards of investor protection and is working hard on the rule books with the self-regulatory organisations to ensure that that is so. I am also pleased that in the Companies Act 1989 the House passed the provision ensuring that the cost of compliance must be taken into account when forming regulations for financial services.

    Confederation of British Industry
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters he intends to discuss.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I look forward to a continuation of constructive dialogue with the president of the CBI on matters relevant to the well-being of British business.
    Mr. Haynes: Will the Minister take the opportunity to have a word with that dodo of a Secretary of State so that when he meets the CBI he appreciates the CBI's concern about investment in our manufacturing industry? The Government should be forced to help so that industry is competitive. Will he also have a word with the Secretary of State about the serious situation arising out of high interest rates which help to make our industry uncompetitive? The Minister should get his right hon. Friend up off his backside and let us have some industry working in the interests of the nation.
    Mr. Hogg: I look forward to the discussion, as we shall begin by discussing the fact that in the three years ending in 1989 investment increased by around 40 per cent. As I have already said, that is the largest three-year growth since the war. I shall express my pleasure at that and I shall
    470
    go on to say that no doubt such investment is at least partly responsible for the fact that in the past 12 months unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by 30 per cent.
    Mr. Dickens: When my hon. Friend next meets the president of the CBI will he ask him to congratulate his members on producing products that people want to buy, and which are of excellent quality, at competitive prices and are offered with good after-sales service and delivered on time? That is why the industrial base of our country is now outstripping the rest of Europe. We do not need any carping from the Opposition.
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with that. One of the extraordinary things about the Labour party is its willingness to denigrate British industry. I shall certainly congratulate the president of the CBI on the fact that exports are 11 per cent. higher than they were 12 months ago. That is an extraordinary achievement and it is proper to congratulate the CBI on it.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Now that the Secretary of State has virtually abandoned his responsibilities in relation to City fraud and is also winding down his responsibilities to the regions and even to export services, will the Minister at least wake up to the damage that his 15 per cent. interest rate policy is doing, particularly the 45 per cent. rise in business liquidations reported to the Lord Chancellor? Does he agree that a do-nothing Budget for industry will simply not do and will he urge upon the Chancellor an investment budget for industry and training which will help bring interest rates down?
    Mr. Hogg: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that, in last Tuesday's debate, I referred to the hon. Gentleman as having made a speech composed of stale jokes and ignorance—on this occasion he left out the stale jokes. The liquidations point is a good example of the hon. Gentleman's ignorance. He seems unaware that there are 60,000 more firms opening each year—that is the difference between the number closing and the number opening. In a dynamic economy there are both closures and new firms starting. At present, there are many more new firms than closures, representing a fourfould increase on the previous 10 years. That is a basic fact. The hon. Gentleman should do just a little more homework, please.

    Hungary
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to promote increased trade links between the United Kingdom and Hungary.
    Mr. Redwood: My Department is taking an active interest in promoting trade with Hungary. For example, it is leading trade missions. I led one myself, and last week there was a successful industrial delegation to Hungary. The Foreign Secretary also visited Hungary recently.
    We have established a know-how fund effective from the beginning of April and we have also involved ourselves with our European partners in developing European assistance for Hungary and other eastern European countries. We are making a wide amount of information available through the DTI in London and through Foreign Office posts in the relevant countries and capitals. We are also making information available more generally

    471
    —for example, through a seminar in May to be led by the DTI, the CBI and the London chamber of commerce, telling British business men about opportunities in Hungary. I am pleased to say that there has already been a vigorous private sector response.
    Mr. Butterfill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action that he is taking. Does he agree that Hungary represents excellent investment opportunities for British businesses and that it deserves special recognition as the first eastern bloc country to throw off the shackles of Socialism and to introduce democracy and the beginnings of a market economy?
    Mr. Redwood: It is certainly one of the more promising areas of central and eastern Europe where business opportunities are considerable. That is not just my view but the view of the investing companies of western Europe. Many successful joint ventures have already been created by western companies and some by British companies, which I especially welcome. The Government will, of course, extend the hand of friendship and assistance and ensure that the interests of British businesses are well represented in Hungary and in the other promising eastern European countries starting out on the process of enterprise and democratic reform.
    Dr. Hampson: Can my hon. Friend say whether he prefers, rather than direct investment at this stage, to support management training and the giving of technical assistance? Has he considered approaching British businesses to see whether they would second some of their younger managers to Hungary and other eastern European countries for a period? They could provide much assistance on matters such as marketing and distribution.
    Mr. Redwood: The purpose of the know-how fund is to encourage such links and to help in financing the transfer of know-how. Of course, I would welcome it if British businesses made talented managers available to help in that process. I believe that many will also decide to invest in countries such as Hungary where they will learn for themselves, at close quarters, of the trading conditions and opportunities in that country. British business men are already winning contracts there and I am pleased to announce that Rank Xerox signed a contract last week for £250,000 and has already done £700,000 of business in the year so far. That is a major improvement on the conditions which existed prior to the changes that we are discussing.

    GATT
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress being made in reducing tariff barriers in interventional trade in the current general agreement on tariffs and trade round.
    Mr. Redwood: It has been agreed that participants in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations should submit offers of tariff reductions by mid-March, to be followed by requests for improvements in others' offers by the end of April. I expect the European Community to offer a reduction of around one third in tariff levels, which is the target agreed by Ministers at the mid-term review of the round. This would be subject to review in the light of offers from others.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that for trade to be fair there must be reciprocal openings of other markets in third countries outside the EEC if the international conditions are to be stabilised and made productive for all parties? Does he recognise that the particular interests of the high-quality cashmere industry in the central and border areas of Scotland are vitally dependent on getting access to those new markets? Will he give the House an assurance that the special interests of the high-quality hosiery industry in those areas will be taken into account when negotiating the final EEC mandate for the GATT talks?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is right. There needs to be reciprocal action by all parties to the GATT discussions so that there is progressive market opening on both sides. There is major asymmetry in current tariff levels with Japan at 2·5 per cent. and the European Community at 5·5 per cent. on average for industry, whereas India and Brazil are at 135 per cent. and 45 per cent. respectively.
    I can give my hon. Friend a pledge that the interests of important British industries will be taken into account in our advice to the European Community, but I stress that it is an EC matter and the EC will handle the negotiations for ourselves and the other 11 member states.
    Mrs. Currie: Is the Minister aware that there is concern in parts of the footwear industry in my constituency about the possible dumping of shoddy goods from abroad? Does he share with me a robust view about fair competition but, nevertheless, agree that where there is any evidence of unfair practices the Government will take action?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to make trade more liberal and to open it as much as we can, but there need to be GATT disciplines—as there are—if trade is unfair. One of the negotiating objectives of our partners and ourselves is to ensure that there are sensible disciplines against sudden surges m imports of sensitive products and against dumping and other malpractice.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister make it clear that unless real safeguards are secured for international textiles within GATT the British Government remain committed to an extension of the multi-fibre arrangement? Will he say what progress is being made in persuading the Americans to abandon national quotas?
    Mr. Redwood: We have extensively debated the arrangements for the MFA and for the transition that would be necessary if successful negotiations were achieved in GATT. Those debates made it clear that GATT procedures and protections will need to be strengthened in several areas, such as design and intellectual property, surges of imports, dumping, subsidy and other problems of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. I reaffirm the pledge that those are matters for the GATT negotiations and that they will be handled by the EC negotiators. As we come near the end of the round—it has to be completed this year—it will be necessary for the EC as a whole to make a judgment about whether sufficient progress has been made and whether the right assurances have been achieved for the package to be in the EC's interests by giving us more free trade opportunities.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received from the group of major British exporters in respect of ECGD.
    Mr. Redwood: Recent representations made by the Major British Exporters Grouping were taken into account in the report submitted to the Secretary of State by the official interdepartmental working group formed at his request to advise on the Kemp review of status options for ECGD.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern felt by the group of major British exporters on the future of the project sector of ECGD, in that the international competition is much involved in utilising its own ECGD type of mechanisms? Is not the national interest involved? In view of the substantial contribution that the major British exporters make to our balance of payments, how does my hon. Friend view the future of the project sector?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister for Trade made it clear when they announced their proposals for the ECGD that the project sector would be kept separate from the insurance sector. The insurance sector is already profitable and is suitable for privatisation. The project group will remain under the Government's aegis. I accept that there is a role for such assistance to leading British exporters.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that the Export Credits Guarantee Department is bankrupt? Is he aware that the ECGD is supposed to help Third world countries as a sort of insurance against the lack of money that they suffer from time to time? Is not it odd that the Government, who pride themselves on their business activities, now find their insurance department in the red? On top of that, we hear today that invisibles are also invisible.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has it the wrong way round. The purpose of the ECGD is to offer cover for British exporters doing deals in those countries and to protect them against specified risks in return for certain premiums. Of course ECGD is not bust—it is supported by Her Majesty's Treasury and it has money from the Consolidated Fund to make sure that it can fulfil its role and carry out its remit. The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been generous support for ECGD in past years. That was necessary, given the risks that were covered and the important role played by that organisation in helping to finance British trade.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend say something about the review of the ECGD and that we would like to see a level playing field for European and worldwide trade? Surely other countries give better deals to their manufacturers and exporters. Unless we provide equal treatment for our traders, they will be at a great disadvantage, particularly as our trade is now suffering and needs a boost. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the ECGD will continue to back British industry?
    Mr. Redwood: The ECGD has to conduct its policy within the framework of the GATT disciplines and of the European Community policy against state aid. If my hon. Friend has evidence of unrealistically high levels of state
    474
    support by competitor countries I should be interested to see it, as would the European Commission, which is currently conducting an inquiry into the general issue of state aid. Of course, Britain does not wish to be undercut by other countries abusing state aids, but the British Government believe that the disciplines within the European Community and GATT should be strengthened to avoid an expensive and damaging trade war by escalating subsidies in that way.

    National Economic Development Council
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the director-general of the National Economic Development Council; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My Department has frequent contacts with the director-general of NEDO and his staff on a wide range of business matters and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks forward to continuing those when he chairs the council on 4 April.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister discussed with the director general Britain's disastrous balance of trade figures, which show a £14·4 billion deficit with the EC for 1989? Did the Government consider a joint approach to the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggesting that an interest rate of more than 15 per cent. is hardly conducive to increasing trade and investment and thus reducing that tremendous deficit?
    Mr. Hogg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wish to talk about exports because he will find the position rather encouraging. In the three months to January 1990, excluding erratics and oil, the volume of exports was up 4 per cent. over the previous three months and by no less than 11 per cent. on the previous year. Those are encouraging figures. I am also pleased to note that between January last year and January this year unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) has fallen by 22 per cent.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What does my hon. Friend think that the prospects of the British economy would be if we renationalised most of our industries, increased income tax and national insurance, put a levy on training and increased corporation tax, all of which are policies that have been put forward by the Opposition?
    Mr. Hogg: Experience has shown that the Labour party has not a clue how to manage the economy. Two things would happen. First, the competitiveness of British industry would plummet—let us not forget that the competitiveness of British industry plummeted by 25 per cent. when the Labour party was in office. Secondly, inflation would escalate—let us not forget either that it reached a high point of 26 per cent. or thereabouts in August 1975. That would be the inevitable consequences of the Labour party's policy.
    Mr. Caborn: I hope that if the director general ever meets the Minister he will get more sense out of him than we do. That apart, can the Minister say whether there will be discussions about the economy of the west midlands? As my hon. Friend said, the level of manufacturing investment has fallen and there has been a 70 per cent. fall

    475
    in apprenticeships in the engineering industry from 1979 to date. That is a serious problem for the engine of the British economy—the midlands—so what does the Minister intend to do about it?
    Mr. Hogg: The director general might be a little upset by the hon. Gentleman's offensive words. As usual, the Labour party has got it wrong. The west midlands has been extremely prosperous and is the chief magnet for inward investment. As we are discussing the west midlands, I shall mention manufactured exports, which rose by 3·5 per cent. in the past three months. That is jolly good news and it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to that.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: May I divert my hon. Friend's attention to a more fundamental matter? Has he discussed with the National Economic Development Council the acute and dangerous dependence on the Japanese semi-conductor industry, not only in this country but in western Europe and America? If not, will he show the NEDC the recent advisory report to the President of the United States, highlighting the grave consequences if that dependence is not reduced?
    Mr. Hogg: I have not discussed the matter with the director-general, but I may find an appropriate occasion to do so, as I would welcome his views on the European programmes that we have in place, particularly on this matter. I think that they are the proper way forward and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of them.

    Advice Centres
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding he proposes to give citizens advice bureaux and consumer advice centres for 1990–91.
    Mr. Forth: My Department does not provide funds specifically for consumer advice centres or directly to citizens advice bureaux. Details of the DTI grant in aid for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland in 1990–91 will not be available until after the Chancellor's annual statement on 20 March.
    Mr. Martin: That is a very disappointing reply, given that the Government's policy is to keep interest rates high. He will know that many thousands of families are in a desperate situation because of mortage rates. Banks and other lending societies are giving easy credit and the only bodies people can turn to are the advice bureaux. In view of the Government's policies, ought not the Government at least to consider financing those organisations?
    Mr. Forth: No, because since 1945 the system has been—correctly, I believe—that the responsibility for funding bureaux at local level lies principally with local authorities. We very generously finance the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in London and Citizens Advice Scotland in Edinburgh to such an extent that Government funding has more than doubled in real terms over the past 10 years. It is worth noting that advice from the financial institutions, to those who seek it, is increasingly available from the private sector. We encourage that and think it right, and we look for the tendency to increase in the future.
    Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the advice given by citizens advice bureaux is non-political, and that the money spent by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is not kept at the centre to promote politically-oriented advice?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend voices an anxiety which I know is shared by many. It is legitimate when considerable sums of taxpayers' money—£9 million or £10 million per year—is given to an organisation such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I think and hope that those involved with the work of CABs are aware of the worries that my hon. Friend has expressed—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has not been called to ask a supplementary question.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend seems to have touched a raw nerve among Opposition Members. I do not know what they are trying to conceal by their shouting and barracking, but I hope that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux feels that it has nothing to conceal.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister accept that many people will note what he and his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) have said about the citizens advice bureaux, which exist to represent the interests of their clients whatever the Government in power? If the national association is being seen as another Marxist cell, we have reached a point where few people will take seriously what the Government say on these issues.
    Mr. Forth: Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest a little too much. Everyone will wish to examine his words carefully as they were certainly not the words that I used.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that in towns and cities such as Stockport, which are well served with citizens advice bureaux, it is an utter waste of money to set up a welfare rights unit on the community charge?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is as assiduous as ever in drawing the attention of the House to what is going on in his constituency. He may wish to draw the same matters to the attention of the community charge payers of Stockport, who will wish to take a view at the local elections.

    Industry Council
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what matters he expects to discuss at the next meeting of the EEC Industry Council.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The next meeting of the EC Industry Council will be held on 28 May. It is provisionally scheduled to discuss audiovisual matters, industrial targeting in electronics, small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) Participation in Community research and development programmes and SME access to public procurement.
    Moreover, as the hon. Gentleman is perhaps aware, there was also a meeting yesterday of the Industry Council, which discussed automobiles, shipbuilding, textiles, footwear, biotechnology and mining policy.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware of the European study, which stated that the steel industry has a bright five years ahead of it? Will the hon. Gentleman stop procastinating about the Scottish steel industry and give it his full support to ensure that it takes part in that bright future and that steel workers who have given their all to this country remain in full employment?
    Mr. Hogg: My advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should not lead with his chins but reflect more carefully before he asks questions. British steelmaking is among the most productive and profitable in the European Community. Incidentally, I always take it well from hon. Members if they preface their remarks by telling us by how much unemployment has fallen in their constituencies in the past 12 months. The hon. Gentleman did not do that, but I will tell the House that in his constituency it has fallen by 21 per cent.
    Mr. Allason: When my hon. Friend attends the EEC Industry Council, will he raise the issue of artificial obstacles to exports to Japan? Recently, a confectionery firm in the west country was required to obtain certificates from Harwell for each item of confectionery certifying that each item was not radioactive. There was also a requirement at the trade fair in Japan sponsored by the DTI demanding that the firm display a large sign over its stall stating that the items on show were not fit for human consumption and would be destroyed after the fair. Will my hon. Friend draw attention to that issue please?
    Mr. Hogg: I cannot guarantee to do that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. It would be helpful if he drew it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are anxious for the Japanese to admit yet more British products into Japan and, so far, we have achieved considerable success. In the past 12 months, exports to Japan have increased by about one third. In the same period, the number of passenger cars imported into Japan from the United Kingdom increased by 75 per cent. If those figures are wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend.

    Assistance to Exporters
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to help British exporters.
    Mr. Redwood: The DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office offer a comprehensive set of services to British exporters in overseas markets. We already have a good range of services in major markets, such as the United States of America, the EEC and the far east. In response to a previous question about Hungary, I announced the way in which we are strengthening our services in certain eastern European markets, especially Hungary.
    I am delighted to tell the House that exports increased by 15 per cent. in 1989 on 1988, although some Opposition Members seem to find that difficult to understand. Many exporters consider that sponsored trade fairs, the work of the British Overseas Trade Board and of our posts in those countries greatly assist their export efforts.
    Mr. Galloway: That all sounds patriotic, but why are the Government proceeding with the dogmatic privatisation nonsense in relation to the Export Credits Guarantee
    478
    Department, some parts of which are being privatised while others are left with a big question mark over their future? That is spreading uncertainty throughout the OECD and those who depend on it. Why are the Government advancing with the Union Jack in one hand and the privatisation axe in the other?
    Mr. Redwood: It is because privatisation works where other systems do not. That is why it is being adopted world wide to strengthen accountability and to improve services on a broad scale. I have already explained to the House that profitable insurance services are being privatised to bring them into line with EEC requirements, so that they continue to offer a good service to British exporters. The other services that we provide, costing £138 million a year, are welcomed widely by British industry, and exporters are proving to be successful.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that exporters need decent postal services, and that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of those services? Will he encourage his ministerial colleagues to get rid of the Post Office monopoly, which has led to poor quality service?
    Mr. Redwood: I am sure that, like everyone else, exporters want high quality postal services. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for postal affairs is present and no doubt has heard my hon. Friend's comments.
    Ms. Quin: Does the Minister agree that the prospects for exports have not been helped by recent Government decisions—for example, the strange decision to turn down the invitation to Britain to be special guest country at the Hamburg trade fair in 1992? Will he confirm that the French accepted that invitation since we declined it? Surely the German market is important for our visible and invisible trade now that the latter is also in the red. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that we do not lose out in that market in the future? When will he take our trade problems seriously?
    Mr. Redwood: I have explained the numerous measures that the Government are taking and how the private sector is responding. That is why exports are rising and why we are doing well in many markets around the world. The hon. Lady is not listening to my answers. Many services are on offer; people are taking them up and the results are there for all to see in an improving balance of trade.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Will my hon. Friend keep one of the old plans well in mind? I refer to the assistance to exporters for appearing at trade fairs. I follow the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) in this. We are a proud island race with a wonderful boat-building capability. British marine industries are doing very well and they need that extra help so that they can appear all over the world and contest what we fear will be the rise of Japan into that new market.
    Mr. Redwood: Yes, of course the Government will support British exporters, as I have already described. As my hon. Friend knows, the British Overseas Trade Board runs a system of sponsored trade fairs, which many British exporters find most welcome.

    Recycling
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Recycling Advisory Group to report on its consideration of recycling of domestic and industrial waste.
    Mr. Forth: The group is expected to complete the current phase of its work before the end of May.
    Mr. McKay: Given the absence of provisions for recycling in the Environmental Protection Bill, will the Minister arrange for the report to be printed in full and then immediately introduce legislation to implement that report?
    Mr. Forth: No. The hon. Gentleman perhaps misunderstands the purpose of the group. It was formed last September from a wide variety of interests to advise my Department and the Government generally about the way forward on recycling. We look forward to its preliminary conclusions, but they will not be part of a formal report. However, we expect that the group will provide a major input to the preparation of the environment White Paper later this year.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is excellent to encourage householders to segregate and dispose of waste so that it can be recycled, ultimately the only efficient way forward is to encourage waste disposal authorities to negotiate with recycling companies so that 90 per cent. of domestic waste can be recycled?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but he tempts me to prejudge and pre-empt the recycling group's conclusions, which I am reluctant to do. The group will examine precisely those aspects and I look forward to its conclusions to ascertain how we can best put such recommendations into effect.

    Textiles
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in the textile industry.
    Mr. Redwood: The latest available figures show that imports of textiles exceeded exports by £1,565 million in 1989.
    Mr. Robinson: As the Minister knows, given today's dreadful news that our invisible balance is also in the red, those figures give no room for complacency. What objectives does the Minister have for the forthcoming multi-fibre arrangement talks in Europe? Will he specifically tackle the global quota requirement which the United States is establishing and which, as we all know, is simple protectionism?
    Mr. Redwood: I have already covered that in answer to a previous question and in extensive debates in the House. My hon. Friend the Minister of Industry has also answered such a debate.
    The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the bulk of that deficit is in trade with advanced countries not covered by the multi-fibre arrangement; indeed, £1,248 million of the adverse balance is with such countries, leaving in all probability only a little over £200 million with MFA countries. I have explained the safeguards that the EC will try to negotiate in the GATT round for the textile sector. Of course, when dumping is suspected, cases are pursued, and sometimes action is taken when those cases establish that dumping has occurred.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to help the textile industry, and any other industry in the United Kingdom in the export market, is to ensure that we do not indulge in practices such as sanctions which prevent our exporters from benefiting from the markets of people who want to buy from us?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. Open trade is the best of all worlds. It creates prosperity for all who accept its disciplines. It has to be negotiated through GATT to ensure that everyone agrees with it. There are examples of great success within the textile industry. I pay tribute to the wool textile industry where exports are up 10 per cent. to record levels of £673 million in the last year and where there is a favourable balance of trade. Companies such as Courtaulds, Coats Viyella and Dawson International are among our leading exporters and I wish them every success in exporting still more.

Extradition Decision (Dublin)
3.30 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on extradition between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom following the decision of the Supreme Court, Dublin, on 13 March.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): The Supreme Court in Dublin yesterday overruled orders for the extradition to Northern Ireland of Dermot Finucane and James Pius Clarke. Both men are convicted terrorists who escaped from the Maze prison during the mass breakout in 1983. Clarke was serving 18 years for the attempted murder of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and Finucane was serving 18 years for possession of firearms and ammunition. Upon their apprehension in the Republic of Ireland, extradition of both was ordered by the district court. Appeals on behalf of both men were quashed by the High Court but were yesterday upheld in the Supreme Court, their last court of appeal. The Government are deeply disappointed at that decision.
Details of the judgments, which I understand are lengthy and complex, are not yet available to us, but I believe that the main ground of appeal was that their rights under the Irish constitution would be infringed by the treatment these prisoners would be thought likely to receive in the prison system of Northern Ireland. That this was upheld by the court is both disturbing and difficult to understand. It is an unacceptable slur on the professionalism of the men and women of the Northern Ireland prison service. I shall study the full judgment as soon as it is available and will pay particular attention to the references to Northern Ireland prisons. The conditions in the Maze prison, indeed throughout the prison system in Northern Ireland, are widely regarded as among the best in Europe.
Both the British and Irish Governments have pledged themselves to ensure that effective arrangements are in place for dealing with fugitive offenders. Extradition is a vital factor in this. I remind the House that it was the Irish authorities who originally sought these extraditions on our behalf and who have continued to make strenuous efforts, at every level of their judicial system, to bring these cases to a successful conclusion.
I shall obviously also be studying the full judgment carefully to see what implications it has for other cases. It is clearly right that each case should be considered on its merits. But our principal concern, shared with the Irish Government, is that the system as a whole should work effectively, as well as fairly. We will pursue this with the Irish Government.
Mr. Kilfedder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dublin Supreme Court decision yesterday causes widespread anger and dismay among the people of this country, especially the people of Northern Ireland, who have suffered death, mutilation and agony at the hands of the terrorists for 22 years? More importantly, it generates disbelief and sadness—I wish, even in the anger of this moment, to emphasise the sadness—since the United Kingdom Government constantly stresses that the Irish Republic is whole-hearted in the fight against the IRA.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the decision seems to provide a bar to the extradition from the Irish
482
Republic of terrorists who commit their atrocities either in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, so long as those atrocities are part of their brutal campaign to bomb Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland republic?
Finally, will the Secretary of State ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to arrange an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr. Haughey, to ensure that the next six wanted men will be extradited from the Irish Republic to face justice in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Brooke: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in much of what he has said, but I should reiterate that it was the Irish authorities that brought these cases on our behalf and it was the Irish court, which is independent, that ruled in the matter. Until the judgments of the Supreme Court have been received and studied, any comment on the effect on other cases would be merely speculative. However, if the judgments affect only cases involving Maze escapees, the immediate impact will be limited, as there are at present no other such cases before the Irish courts.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State share my bewilderment over the virtual suppression in the news industry of the earlier Supreme Court ruling of 1 March, that the claim to a united Ireland is no mere aspiration but a valid legal claim? Does he agree that that judgment discredited all the assurances given in the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Does he further agree that it provided grounds for yesterday's decision by the same Supreme Court, which probably felt that, having established its legal claim without any challenge from Her Majesty's Government, it was free to argue that it could not be expected to transfer or extradite its citizens from one part of what it considered to be its territory to another part?
Mr. Brooke: I am conscious of what the right hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his question, and he will recall that we had the opportunity for an exchange across the Floor of the House on Monday. As to the supplement to his question, I see no basis for the assertion that the Supreme Court's decision on the Finucane and Clarke extradition case is related to the McGimpsey judgment, which concerned the constitutionality of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, or for the right hon. Gentleman's inference that in the light of that judgment, the Irish authorities could no longer extradite persons to Northern Ireland. I am aware of no evidence from yesterday's judgments to suggest that the Irish now refuse to extradite people on the grounds that they consider that they have a legal claim to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the failure last year to extradite a suspected terrorist, Mr. Ryan, and the failure yesterday to extradite two convicted terrorists reveals—in the most awful way—the unsatisfactory nature of our extradition arrangements with the Republic?
Does not my right hon. Friend understand that those two whose extradition was refused yesterday are convicted terrorists who are likely to return to their terrorist organisations and maim and murder others? Will he undertake to the House that, as a matter of the highest priority, he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will put forward views and proposals to

483
the Government of the Irish Republic on how we can achieve proper arrangements for extradition between our two countries?
Mr. Brooke: The disappointing results in the Finucane and Clarke cases yesterday, to which my hon. Friend refers must be set against the generally satisfactory working of the extradition arrangements between our two countries over the past two years. Since January 1988, 13 persons have been returned to the United Kingdom, and orders for delivery in respect of a further six persons are currently the subject of appeal proceedings before the Irish courts.
Additionally, the Irish state has successfully appealed against the decision of the district court not to order the return of a further two persons. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment at yesterday's decision, but it should be seen against a generally satisfactory working of the arrangements over the past two years.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State agree that, contrary to the reaction in some quarters of the press and of some of his hon. Friends about the future of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the forthcoming conference is all the more desirable to enable the Irish side to discuss coolly with him the fact that the judiciary is independent of the Executive and that the Supreme Court is specifically obliged to protect the constitutional rights of citizens?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Anglo-Irish Agreement offers a valuable framework within which the two Governments can discuss issues of mutual interest and concern, such as the one that we are debating this afternoon. Once we have had the chance to examine the Supreme Court's lengthy judgment more fully, we will make our response within the framework of the agreement. We have already made our representations through the secretariat.
Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom are disgusted at the failure of the southern authorities to extradite the two convicted terrorists? The judgment in the Supreme Court in Dublin has given great succour and joy to the terrorists' organisation. Can the Secretary of State understand the feeling of terror in my constituency, given that one of the terrorists was convicted of terrorising the people of my constituency along the border? What happened yesterday was another kick in the teeth for the Government.
Mr. Brooke: I have already registered our disappointment in the outcome of the case. However, we should respect the independence of the Irish judiciary in the same way that we would expect them to respect ours. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brooke: I draw the attention of the House to the silence of the Irish Government in the context of a judgment in the House of Lords last week.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that most people in the United Kingdom will be very disappointed by his reply to the House this afternoon? For him to say merely that he is disappointed will come as a shock to most people. He should have said that he was outraged at the Irish court's decision.
484
Is the Secretary of State aware that, in addition to the reason given by the Supreme Court, which he mentioned—its suspicions about warders in the Maze prison—there was an even worse reason, which has not yet been mentioned in the press? I refer to the second judgment given yesterday, by Mr. Justice Walsh in the Supreme Court. As far as extradition is concerned—we are talking about convicted IRA men, not suspects—he said:
"political exemption … should not apply to persons charged with politically motivated offences when the objective of such offences was to secure the ultimate unity of the country."
So long as people kill outside Northern Ireland and so long as they do so in the interests of a united Ireland, it is allowed by Mr. Justice Walsh. That is the situation under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Does the Secretary of State recall that, when he and his colleagues tried to gain support in this House for the Anglo-Agreement, the headlines said, "It will bring normality into extradition"? Does he believe that normality exists in extradition?
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the language that I used today. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the sense of outrage at the implicit slur, which played a part in the judgment, on the Northern Ireland prison service. I endorse that, and referred to it in my statement.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the judgment of Mr. Justice Walsh. I was aware of that aspect of the case. We shall examine that aspect of the judgment, together with all others, to see whether it moves the law forward from the Dominic McGlinchey case.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable disquiet in Eire about the decision, that Mr. Alan Dukes has expressed his view on the subject and that we have every reason to question how the judiciary arrived at its decision?
Mr. Brooke: I am aware that politicians in the Republic of Ireland have made comments about the case. I especially noted that they recommended that it should he handled at an early stage within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that, until we know the raison d'etre of the judgment, we cannot make constructive comments? Would not it be wiser to wait until we know the reasons for the decision? Discussions may then take place with the Irish Government about possible improvements to the existing state of affairs.
Mr. Brooke: I hesitate to say this to the hon. Gentleman, but I am answering a private notice question. I was not volunteering a statement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that a private notice question is an extension of Question Time. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side, and then we must move on.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Since it is clear what reasons were given by the Supreme Court in Ireland yesterday, and since the court was dealing with convicted terrorists, does not it sound suspiciously like an excuse for a court to do something that it would otherwise be wrong

485
for a court to do? If terrorists get the impression that courts of law are leaning towards their side, what chance have we of defeating terrorism?
Mr. Brooke: My hon. and learned Friend is right to enter that consideration. We would regard with horror any comment that encouraged murder in any part of the world.
Mr. David Winnick: While I personally found the decision odd and unhelpful in the fight against terrorism, would not it be unfortunate if a judicial decision in the Irish Republic—the Secretary of State stressed that it was a judicial decision—led to a state of hysteria in the House of Commons? Will the Secretary of State be frank enough to admit that some Members of Parliament—we know who they are—will do anything to create the maximum ill will between the Irish Republic and this country?
Mr. Brooke: I do not think that anything approaching an air of hysteria exists in the House. Hon. Members have expressed their understandable concerns about a decision which they found disappointing.
Mr. W. Benyon: May I follow the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), and emphasise the sadness caused by the Court's decision? This decision and a previous decision made by the Supreme Court seem to render null and void article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which will have to be reconsidered.
Mr. Brooke: I think that my hon. Friend is confusing the particular circumstances of this case with the other case to which he alluded. But I join my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) in saying that there are unfortunate aspects to this case which we shall pursue through the framework of the agreement.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: We share the surprise and disappointment at yesterday's decision of the Supreme Court in the Republic of Ireland. But to echo what the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday—on the day when a politician could institute prosecutions, the rule of law would end. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would support the Supreme Court's desire to remain impartial, detached and free from all political or diplomatic pressures in its objective determination of the issues involved. However, the court's decision is still very disappointing.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, until the announcement of the court's decision, arrangements had been set in train for handing over the two men at the
486
border? Secondly, can the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act 1976 be invoked to bring proceedings against the two men in the Republic?
Thirdly, on the advice that the right hon. Gentleman has now received, does the decision apply only to this case or to cases that were decided before the Irish Republic incorporated into its domestic law the convention against terrorism? When the case was presented before the Supreme Court, were any steps taken to try to contradict the evidence produced to support the appellants who based their case on Chief Justice Hutton's decision in the Pettigrew case? Was evidence produced to show how much the Irish prison service has improved over the years?
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Irish prison service for doing a job that none of us would undertake willingly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Northern Ireland prison service?"] One would pay tribute to the work of the men and women of the prison service, whether in Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom, because none of us would want to do that job.
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that both Governments still regard extradition as an important weapon in the fight against terrorism and that he will raise those matters at the next Anglo-Irish Conference? If it did not exist, decisions such as this one of the Irish Supreme Court would more than justify the Anglo-Irish Conference and the decision to establish it under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman's first question related to yesterday's arrangements for handing over the two prisoners at the border. He is perfectly correct—it was visible to everyone on television—that massive arrangements had been made on both sides of the border for the reception of the prisoners. In that respect, the court's judgment was a surprise.
Extra-territorial prosecution would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but he would consider that only after having had the opportunity to study the judgment in full. The hon. Gentleman asked also about the effect of the convention on the suppression of terrorism. That would depend specifically on the particular charge in each case, and one would have to examine it on a case-by-case basis.
The Government provided substantial evidence to the Irish courts on the central issue of the behaviour of the Northern Ireland prison service, not least to the effect that any such treatment would be a crime in the jurisdiction of the North. The hon. Gentleman's final question was about the importance of extradition in the joint arrangements. We have discussed that matter before in the Anglo-Irish Conference and I confidently expect that we shall discuss it again at our next meeting.

Points of Order
3.53 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At about 1 pm today, the Evening Standard reported a horrifying near-collision between two underground trains at King's Cross. This information calls into question the one-person operation on the tube and has revealed serious signal faults.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: This is not a point of order.
Ms. Ruddock: The information came to us when the House was sitting and prevented me from applying to you, Mr. Speaker, for a private notice question. The matter is of such great concern to my constituents and to the constituents of all hon. Members representing London constituencies that I must ask whether you have any information that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement to the House on this matter, which could have been another horrifying tragedy at King's Cross.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House is anxious about such accidents, but fortunately there was no injury to people in this case. I have received no information from the Government, but I am sure that those on the Front Bench heard the hon. Lady.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have not we today been hoist by our own petard? Was it not the much-praised prison service of Northern Ireland that allowed the prisoners to escape?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. Furthermore, I do not know what a petard is.
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of an extremely important matter. The Standing Committee that is considering the Broadcasting Bill has now reached its 36th sitting. I apologise for not raising the matter earlier, but I was given the courage to do so when I noticed that the Committee that considered the legislation that became the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 had 58 sittings before the matter of its hybridity was raised.
I want you to consider, Mr. Speaker, whether the Broadcasting Bill is hybrid and should follow another course of action, such as a referral to examiners or to a Joint Select Committee. The accepted definition of hybridity is that of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, who said that a hybrid Bill was
"a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class."
That relates to the problems that have arisen in Committee.
The matter was brought to our attention when the Government tabled new clause 42, which was entitled
"Duty to provide advance information about programmes".
It affects only two journals in Britain. I refer again to Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's words:
"other persons or bodies of the same category or class".
The journals are the TV Times and Radio Times. The nature of their copyright possession on scheduling of programmes was to be changed. Without that element of control, the parent ownership of the Radio Times was left
488
at the mercy of other competitors who could reschedule accordingly. Furthermore, the basic business of the TV Times and the Radio Times,which are both private companies—one is owned by BBC Enterprises Limited and the other by Reed International—was strongly affected.
My second reason for believing that the Broadcasting Bill is a hybrid Bill is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into detail about what is going on in a Committee. That does not concern the House.
Mr. Buchan: I am giving a truly factual account of an amendment to the Bill. I am not concerned with what has happened in the Committee but what has been incorporated in the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of the matter, and I have been able to consider it in some detail. I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House. I believe that the new clause and the amendment to which he has referred have not yet been disposed of in Committee. It is not out of order for a Committee to make amendments that make a Bill hybrid, but I should not wish to make a ruling on such a matter before the Bill has been reported.
Mr. Buchan: In that case, I shall stick to the second ground why I believe that the Bill is hybrid. I have also given you notice of that in my letter.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I cannot rule on the matter until the Committee has reported.
Mr. Buchan: I understand that, but, according to the precedent, which I examined with care, the earlier such an issue was raised, the better. On the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, 1977, the apology was begged for 58 sittings and I have already apologised for 36 sittings. The matter should have been raised on Second Reading, but it came to our attention only when new clause 42 was tabled.
Mr. Speaker: What, then, is the hon. Gentleman asking me to do?
Mr. Buchan: I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to undertake to report, presumably tomorrow, to the House, as happened on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, on whether you think that there is an element of hybridity in the Bill. If there is, a course of action other than proceeding with the Bill in its present form is then open to you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot undertake to do that tomorrow but I shall certainly undertake to do that with the greatest care when the Bill has been reported to the House in the usual way.
Mr. Buchan: Would it not be more sensible and in the interests of everyone if that could be rectified? That is why I should like to proceed and it is important that I should proceed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has not yet been concluded. As I understand it, the new clause is currently under discussion. It has not yet been disposed of by the Committee.
Mr. Buchan: What I am trying to make clear is that I have two distinct grounds. This having been brought to my attention yesterday, I examined the Bill to deal with the second ground, which is—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot rule upon it now. It is not in my power to do so. I must wait until the Bill has been reported. That is the moment when I shall look upon it with great care. If the House agrees to the timetable motion, our debate today must end at midnight. It is taking a lot of time to deal with a matter that I really cannot rule upon.
Mr. Buchan: I am proceeding according to the precedent set when the previous Bill was dealt with. I will have to find other means of drawing attention to the peculiar case of Mr. Murdoch, who is being exempted from the operations of the Bill. If that does not create hybridity, I do not know what does. We are now told that the Bill will not apply to one individual, although it affects everyone else. The Minister said that it was not for the Government to pull the plug on a venture that was already running and had cost Mr. Murdoch vast amounts of money. It therefore also means—this is why it is so serious—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman has asked me now to pre-empt a decision which I shall have to consider with the greatest care at the appropriate moment. I cannot do that in the middle of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is taking time from other hon. Members.
Mr. Buchan: If the Bill is hybrid, this is the exact moment to raise the matter, so that it does not go through any more useless consideration by the Committee and we can follow the proper procedure. There is a different procedure for hybridity. That is why I must make the case to you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether you can prevent the Government from wasting their time and the House from wasting its time in Committee and later on Report. It would take me two minutes to finish, so that you could consider the matter.
The position of Mr. Murdoch and his holdings—above all, Sky Television—has apparently been exempted from the Bill, which means a lifting for him of those barriers to people possessing other groups and bodies. The maximum 20 per cent. holding rule for those who have other press holdings does not apply to Mr. Murdoch. He owns 35 per cent. of the national press of this country. The requirement
490
to be a British citizen or a citizen of the EC will not be a barrier to Mr. Murdoch and Sky Television. He is an American. This puts him in a different position from all others who may compete for the licence. The Bill is hybrid. We should examine it so that we will no longer waste time on what is, in any case, a pretty inadequate Bill, and can treat it in the proper way.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There can be nothing further to it, because I have already made a ruling that I shall look at it with the greatest care when the Bill has been reported.
Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House a few moments ago that he had not volunteered a statement on the issue which was raised in the private notice question. Surely the matter is of such importance that we should have a statement, if not from the right hon. Gentleman, certainly from the Attorney-General. Have you any information, Mr. Speaker, about whether he will make such a statement? Furthermore, often when the business for the week is given on a Thursday, we are told that the necessary documents such as those relating to the EC will be printed in the Official Report so that we will have an opportunity to study the documents before the debate comes up. Could that general policy be followed before any statement is made or any debate takes place in the House regarding the two judgements of the Supreme Court in the Irish Republic, so that all hon. Members could study the judgments and form their opinions on them?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench. I granted today's private notice question, but I have no knowledge of a statement.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a matter of mutual assistance, Mr. Speaker. Would you, as an ex-military man, care to know what a petard is? I feel sure that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has no idea. Would you, Mr. Speaker, be interested to know?
Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I would—but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me later over a cup of tea.

London Local Government
4.5 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law to enable parish and community councils to be created within Greater London.
In one respect, London is uniquely disadvantaged. Wales, Scotland and the rest of England all have, wholly or in part, parish local community councils. Although London is based on the parish structure, as is the rest of the country, it cannot have parish councils.
When local government reform at a lower level last took place 20 years ago, there was a series of mergers between small local authorities, to form much larger authorities. Subsequently, we saw the removal of the countywide authorities—so in London, below central Government, there is only one level of lower local government—borough councils. There are 32 of them, plus the City of London. Below them there is nothing, and communities as large as my own of 215,000 people have no local form of assembly, democratic representation or decision-making. They have no true local authority.
There is provision for parishes to be created elsewhere than London. Under the Local Government Act 1972, a procedure exists for the creation of parishes other than in London. To my own knowledge, at least three attempts have been made in this House and in another place since 1972, on a cross-party basis, to remedy the disadvantage that London has suffered since the abolition of the smaller borough councils 25 years ago. The late Graham Page introduced the Urban Parishes Bill in 1978, and in another place Lord McIntosh of Haringey introduced in 1984 the Urban Parishes Bill, which, after completing all its stages in the Lords, fell in this House only because it came here for its Second Reading towards the end of the Session.
In 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), with support from hon. Members of four other parties, introduced the Directly Elected Neighbourhood Councils Bill to allow places such as London elsewhere in urban Britain to have, at the behest of ordinary people, the opportunity to establish the parish councils that people elsewhere take for granted.
The Bill will allow the process of creating parish councils to be instigated by the people in the areas that those councils would represent. London, like many other cities, is a collection of villages, not one unbroken metropolis. When people are asked where they live, they answer Willesden, Bromley, Bow or Walworth. They do not say that they live in Haringey or Brent. The place in which they live is much smaller than the boundaries of its borough council. People associate themselves with ancient communities having names that have come down through the ages and have their own histories and established traditions.
I seek to give the people of London the opportunity to petition the Boundary Commission for England, so that it may discuss with local people and their local authority the appropriate boundaries for a parish council—and then, in a short, time-limited period, make a proposal for a precise area in which parish council elections could take place.
The Bill would allow a proper democratic structure for representing the views of the local community to the borough council or to other authorities. There is no doubt
492
that it would enhance community spirit, participation and pride. It would be an advantage, because some decisions could be made at the lowest possible level. It is certainly needed to counteract the remoteness and alienation that many people feel from local authorities throughout London.
There are very low turnouts at many local elections, largely because people neither know the candidates nor feel that the authority is near enough to be likely to do anything for them. As a matter of justice, if other places can have parish councils, I do not understand why we should not have them, too. Would it not be a good thing to build into our democratic structure the possibility of electing people to councils that represent the places where people feel most naturally at home?
What would such councils be able to do? They would be able to take part in planning consultation and possibly make devolved planning decisions. They would be able to provide community facilities such as community halls and street lighting and improve parks and benches. They might be able to take on the local management of schools and be the forum for police authorities and for the funding of community groups and act as a consultative network between the higher borough authority and the local community.
How would they be funded? They would not need to raise any money, but otherwise, like all other parish councils, they would precept a penny or two which the borough council would collect and they would be able to spend. All sorts of places would suddenly have the possibility of having recognised democratic community authority.
The Government have said that they do not receive much correspondence requesting that such councils be set up. That is what the Minister said when a similar Bill was last debated in the other place. I am in no doubt that, if people believed that they could have parish councils in London, the establishment of those councils would have enormous support. Certainly, in the boroughs of Bermondsey and Southwark, people would like them tomorrow, because they do not feel that they can relate to local government. I believe that parish councils would be as popular in London as the poll tax is currently unpopular, and that three out of four people would probably support them.
People would ask whether such councils would be just another layer of bureaucracy. The answer is no, because most parish councils have one part-time clerk, and that is often an honorary post. They do not have their own buildings or offices; they work out of a community building or community hall. There is no need for them to be bureaucratic or in any way to have the disadvantages of government at a higher level. They need not even be political bodies. Many parish councils have people elected as independents because they are known and respected arid willing to give their time to the community.
Of course political parties would not be banned, but they would not have to take a predominant role at that level of local government.
On all other occasions when such a Bill has been introduced, it has received widespread support. I believe that good local government requires real local government. It is time to bring to an end the anomaly that London cannot have the parish councils which the rest of the country enjoys.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Sir Rhodes Boyson and Mr. Ken Livingstone.

London Local Government
  LONDON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law to enable parish and community councils to be created within Greater London: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 April and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

National Health Service and Community Care Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.14 pm
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the guillotine motion on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I have received three manuscript amendments—two in the name of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and one in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—and I have selected them all.
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that I intend to move the second, not the first, of my amendments as I understand that we can divide on only one of them.
4.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

National Health Service and Community Care Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days.
  (2) The proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the first allotted day.
  (3) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
  (4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply.

  Dilatory Motions
  2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  3.—(1) On an allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill, but on the first allotted day it shall apply only for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) On the first allotted day, any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Estimates
  5. Proceedings on the Bill or on any private business taken under paragraph 4 of this Order shall not be interrupted for the purposes of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting on estimates etc.) and if on an allotted day Mr. Speaker is directed by that Standing Order (as modified by the Order of the House [12th March]) to put questions at Ten o'clock he

  495
  shall put those questions at Ten o'clock or at the conclusion of the proceedings on the private business, whichever is the later.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  6.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put (so far as they are applicable and notwithstanding any Order of the House relating to the order in which the Bill is to be considered) the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question that such of the amendments 139 to 141, 158, 256, 275, 276 and 341 as remain to be made be made to the Bill;

  (d) the Question that the new Schedule (amendment 269) be added to the Bill;

  (e) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the government be made to the Bill;

  (f) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order. stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order. are to he brought to a conclusion after that time shall he postponed for a period equal to the duration of t he proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to he brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  (7).—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  8. Nothing in this Order shall

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  9.—(1) References in this Order to proceeding on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  10. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I deeply regret the necessity to move a timetable motion given that the House has made such reasonable and rapid progress so far. There is so much interest in both parts of the Bill that, in the interests of Parliament and of both parties, it would have been an extremely good idea to have continued on a satisfactory basis until the end of the Bill's passage through the Commons and thus to have allowed hon. Members on both sides of the House to air all the matters that they wished to air.
  It has to be conceded that we were well on course to make that agreed progress until the events of last night. I believe that my desire to avoid a guillotine if we possibly could was amply demonstrated by the Government's behaviour. Hon. Members will recall that we began by making two days available for the Second Reading debate. That is not unprecedented, I know, but only major legislation receives such treatment, which involves the concession of a day of Government time. The Bill then entered its Committee stage—we discussed it in part this morning—during which, we are all agreed, reasonable progress was made. We succeeded in debating an enormous number of amendments covering provisions from the beginning to the end of the Bill and allowing us a full discussion. We then returned to the Floor of the House.
  I acknowledged this morning that the Bill's progress was facilitated by the agreement made through the usual channels—the best accompaniment to legislation—giving rise to an agreed timetable. We played by the rules on that agreed timetable. I always think that when the Government agree a timetable, we concede to the Opposition the whip hand when it comes to deciding how much time is devoted to each part. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said this morning, the Opposition were keen to devote four days to the community care part of the Bill. We reached the end of the Committee stage in a highly satisfactory fashion, but thereafter something appears to have gone wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "You."] No, what went wrong was revealed this morning. We had an agreement that we would have two whole days for Report and half a day for Third Reading, which again was a generous provision of time.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way later, although I should remind hon. Members that the more time we spend on the guillotine motion, the less time we shall have on Report.

  497
  The hon. Member for Livingston revealed this morning the reason for the sudden change in our hitherto smooth progress. It is true that I had said in public what was factually correct—that we had made smooth, steady, satisfactory progress on the Bill. I repeated my view—I shall do so again before I end my remarks—that one thing that has sped us along is that, although the detail of the Bill is extremely complicated, much of the political debate on it conceals wide agreement that the Health Service needs better financial management, quality control and many of the reforms that the Government propose. My remarks were reported in such a way as to cause a certain amount of sensitivity on the Opposition Front Bench. From time to time, we all read press cuttings that we would not necessarily have written ourselves or have had written on our behalf, but it is no good our looking at press cuttings like a debutante actress who is nervous about her write-up.
  When my comments that we were making smooth, steady and speedy progress on the Bill were drawn to the attention of the hon. Member for Livingston—in shadow Cabinet, I believe, which was perhaps an unfortunate setting—he reacted rather strongly. I shall not labour the point because I do not want to take up Opposition time, but in my opinion the Opposition made a misjudgment yesterday and decided to hold a machismo performance of the traditional kind on the Floor of the House, thereby reversing the extremely sensible conduct of debate in Committee. Given the agreement that we were to have two days on Report and half a day on Third Reading, they thereby put at risk the control over debate that they had won for themselves in Committee.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister's defence of this restriction on debate rests on the fact that some agreement between Front-Bench spokesmen has not been kept. I understand that the Labour party denies that, but I shall let it speak for itself. How does the Minister's point cover the many parties in the House that are not covered by formal arrangements through the usual channels; and how does he defend stopping contributions by my colleagues and me, who are not covered by the agreements that the Minister claims have been broken?
  Mr. Clarke: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to our proceedings 130 hours into their duration. I was here for part of the Scottish debate in the small hours of this morning and I cannot recall whether he was present—
  Mr. Salmond: I was.
  Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the agreement, although conducted through the usual channels, provided ample time for discussion of all the issues in the Bill. Had we proceeded last night as we did in Committee we should by now be well advanced in consideration of the Report stage of the Bill, without disruption of the timetable of the House—
  Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
  Mr. Charles Kennedy rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way once more and then I shall give an illustration of what I think happened last night to justify this motion.
  Mrs. Mahon: The Minister has said that he thinks that we were highly satisfied with the Committee's proceedings. I draw his attention to at least three amendments that I moved—one on enrolled nurses who cannot train; another on the lack of protection during staff transfers; and a third on care plans, about which the Minister for Health said that she was not particularly interested in doing anything that might harm the private sector. Far from being satisfied, I was bloody mad on all three counts.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady made it clear on a number of occasions in Committee that we had unfortunately failed to satisfy her with our replies. My point is that she had ample opportunity to deploy her arguments, which were considered and given reasonable replies. We could have resumed those sorts of exchanges today—and we have, but in a very slow and protracted fashion.
  Mr. Kennedy: I do not think that the Secretary of State's recollection of the Committee is accurate. We hit the buffers in the House last night because we reached, on a large-scale, the issue of income support for people in residential homes, and saw a repeat performance of what happened in Committee. Conservative Member after Conservative Member stood up to disagree with the Government's position. That was what took up so much time and it is why the debate ran so late last night. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is looking to apportion blame, he need only look behind him at his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Clarke: I have no complaint about new clause 1. I did not like the result, but I accept that what happened was a perfectly proper parliamentary procedure. Three Conservative Back-Benchers and quite a number of other hon. Members spoke against us last night, and I agree that we were making satisfactory progress until the vote at about 10 pm. Thereafter, it rapidly became clear that things had changed dramatically.
  I understand the choice that the Opposition have to make—I have been in opposition myself—of whether to filibuster or make reasonable progress—
  Mr. Alun Michael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was guilty of a disgusting display of filibustering last night.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall do it again if the hon. Gentleman is not careful.
  When I turned up at the Scottish debate the warning signs were already apparent, but a reasonable debate appeared to be in progress on what I have no doubt was a serious issue. It took two hours. I could see the warning signs immediately, however, when we reached the Welsh debate on an undoubtedly important matter—the number of community health councils in Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who is not in his place—not surprisingly—made an extremely pithy contribution. He pointed out that the Opposition were saying that they thought the number of community health councils in Wales should be the same as the number of Welsh district councils, whereas the Government were saying that they should be the same as the number of health boards. In one sentence my hon. Friend expressed an idea which it took the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) half an hour to expound repeatedly. The hon. Gentleman's point was so profound that it was repeated by every Welsh Member of

  499
  the House, who seemed to consist of a large proportion of the Welsh parliamentary Labour party, most of whom vanished from the Chamber the moment the debate concluded and who have not been seen from that moment to this.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I ask the Secretary of State to do one thing: will he tell us what is going to happen this evening? When does he expect us to have the opportunity to begin the debate again on Report? I understand that agreements have been reached and that people have made suggestions as to what should happen, but at what stage during the evening will certain clauses be taken? What will happen to the hundreds of amendments and dozens of new clauses that may remain outstanding at the end of the evening? We should like to know. Let us get off all this rubbish about what happened yesterday.
  Mr. Clarke: I confirm what I have already said—Report stage will begin as soon as the debate is concluded if the House agrees with the motion before it. I will not detain the House for long, but I insist on beginning by explaining why we are tabling a motion which I had no wish to table, especially as it is about to be challenged by the hon. Member for Livingston.
  We reached the end of the Welsh debate last night. I am not going to relay everything verbatim—
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way, but, as I keep saying, this is encroaching on Opposition time.
  Mr. Michael: It is not satisfactory for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to try to write mythology into the record. Yesterday's record will show that the Welsh debate was conducted in an excellent manner by Opposition Members, but that the contribution from Conservative Members was pathetic. That debate showed that the Government have abandoned the consumer and the community. That is in the record and that will be noted by people and communities throughout Wales, whatever mythology the Minister tries to write into today's debate.
  Mr. Clarke: I find that judgment of the Welsh debate as predictable and partisan as most of the hon. Gentleman's contributions. I am talking only about the length of time it took to debate what seemed to me, as an English observer who was waiting to debate the Bill, a rather simple point.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Let me just consider last night's proceedings, and then I shall draw a veil over them. Those proceedings are the sole explanation for why we are now debating the motion.
  About 12 hours after we had begun the debate—some of that time was no one's fault because of new clause 1—we started to discuss the English National Health Service. For more than 12 hours I had maintained total silence, apart from one intervention—no doubt a blessed relief to many Opposition Members.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What does the Minister propose to do tonight?
  Mr. Clarke: We then got on to a subject that is important, but a little tired to Committee members—consultations about the new NHS trusts.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to press this, but some of us have come into the Chamber for a constructive debate. We do not give a damn about what happened yesterday; we are looking forward to tonight's business. What proposals have the Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. What is the point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Speaker selected nearly 200 new clauses and amendments—it was his decision which ones were to be called. We have five and a half hours and all that I want to know is at what stage in the evening 'will those matters be debated. That is a fair question. Let us forget yesterday and concentrate on the business tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be much better if the Secretary of State was allowed to get on with his speech.
  Mr. Clarke: I propose to make my own speech and I am not going to take advice on it from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is going to happen tonight?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly not take advice from the hon. Gentleman, who wasted the whole of the first morning of the Committee and part of the afternoon on the Floor of the House afterwards by raising a frolic of his own. So far as I can recall, he is the only person who, before last night, wasted time on the proceedings of the Bill. I am saying that, last night, when we got to the English NHS, the signs were clear when the Leader of the Opposition, who had made short, succinct speeches in Committee—
  Mr. Robin Cook rose—
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman who leads for the Opposition on this subject. I do not want to start controversy or speculation on the Opposition side of the House of the kind that burst out in other parts.
  A speech lasting one hour and 50 minutes was made by the hon. Member for Livingston which, as I said last night, was a patched-together collection of various speeches that he had made in Committee on a subject—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be far better, in this short debate, to allow the Secretary of State to get on with his speech.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The guillotine is about the arrangements for taking new clauses, amendments and Government amendments this evening.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is maintaining his record as the hon. Member who has made more points of

  501
  order in the proceedings on the Bill than any other, and probably more than all the others put together. He is merely taking up time.
  I am explaining the background of events which are in the memory of most of us who have followed the Bill. Last night, for reasons of pure machismo that I have already described, the Bill was suddenly filibustered. It is up to Opposition Members to raise whatever subjects and arguments they want, but I do not believe that we heard an argument that had not been deployed before in Committee. We heard the same arguments, largely from the same hon. Members, delivered at three times their previous length by all Opposition Members who spoke. They did not want to debate the Bill but wanted to show that they were capable of making long speeches in the small hours of the morning.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully support my right hon. and learned Friend in his opposition in principle to imposing a guillotine and I shall support the Government in the Lobby at approximately a quarter past 7 o'clock. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Government had advised the House that they would take on board the very clear message at the end on the debate on new clasue 1 that appropriate measures would be introduced in the Social Security Bill, that might have resulted in an orderly debate being held and the filibustering which went on last night would not have occurred?
  Mr. Clarke: First, I believe that we made a proper response to the debate last night. Secondly, my right hon. Friend made it clear that we will all respond properly to the vote of the House last night as soon as we can. Whatever may have been the feelings of my hon. Friend last night, I do not believe that that lay behind the Opposition's activity on the Bill thereafter. However, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support of the guillotine as I do not always get it for other measures before the House.
  If I may be allowed to do so, I shall move speedily to my conclusion. I have explained that the reason for presenting the guillotine is to get back on to the satisfactory course of debate upon which we were set until there was a daft change of mind on the part of the Opposition at about midnight last night.
  We are also amply supported by precedent. There have been guillotine motions in previous similar circumstances and reference was made this morning to the Health Services Act 1976, a major piece of legislation taken through the House by Barbara Castle. More time has been spent in Committee than on that Bill—we have had more than 100 hours in Committee. In 1976, the Labour Government guillotined both the Committee and the Report stages and did not allow matters to proceed to the point that we had reached until we were provoked into the action that we are taking today.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) can scarcely contain himself any longer, although he looks more relaxed than he did during most stages of our proceedings. He will know that the motion will allow us to proceed in a perfectly reasonable fashion. As soon as the motion is passed by the House, if hon. Members accept my arguments, we shall proceed to Report, which will be finished by midnight tonight. If the hon. Gentleman has a
  502
  copy of the timetable motion, he will see that paragraph 6 describes the conclusion of proceedings and the Questions that will be put by the Chair, if necessary. How many debates we get through between now and midnight is entirely in the hands of Opposition Members.
  Not all my hon. Friends will be precluded from taking part in the debates, but I hope that I speak for them all—certainly those who followed the Bill through Committee—when I say that I expect that they will speak briefly. If the Opposition do not want to move some of their new clauses, they can move to others. They can command the time between now and midnight as they wish, making such progress as they can.
  In Committee, much progress was made in seven and a half hours. At midnight, the proceedings will come to an end, as described in paragraph 6. Tomorrow, we shall come to the Third Reading motion, which will allow a Third Reading debate tomorrow afternoon.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Of course, I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's dilemma. But can anyone pretend that adequate consideration can be given to one of the most important pieces of legislation placed before the House in the 20 years that he and I have been here?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has been an hon. Member for exactly the same time as I have. He is an independent Back-Bencher, who puts his opinion quite frequently and is a strong parliamentarian. I hope that he will agree that, after two days on Second Reading and over 100 hours in Committee, it is reasonable to have two and a half days on Report. Our misfortune is that we are trying to make up in injury time for the eight or nine hours in the small hours of this morning when the Bill was filibustered. The Government cannot be fairer than that.
  I would like to resume a measured level of debate. I believe that there is a wide consensus on the National Health Service. There is no division between us on the principles of the Health Service, the commitment to free treatment paid out of general taxation, and the provision of a comprehensive service as good as that available under any other health care system. Obviously, when we come to the mechanics, there are detailed differences between us. But I believe that there is widespread support for a reform that will bring better financial management, better quality control, and a greater say for patients paving the way for a better patient service. There was more controversy on the care in the community part of the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It seems that my amendment No. 158 is not likely to be reached this evening. My right hon. and learned Friend knows the great importance attached to extending and clarifying the role of the Audit Commission. Is my understanding correct that, in its place on the amendment paper this amendment will now receive Government support?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I have rescued his amendment from the debris. It is up to the Opposition to see what they can rescue from the debris. The hon. Gentleman's amendment is one of those listed in paragraph 6(1)(c) of the timetable motion and it will be put to a vote at 12 o'clock. It will be debated, and my hon. Friend can deploy the arguments that the Government

  503
  would have accepted had he had the opportunity of moving the amendment—if we make proper progress on Report between now and midnight.
  There is widespread agreement. Care in the community has caused controversy, but the Griffiths report received all-party support. For heaven's sake, we all accept the need to improve the system for providing care in the community to the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. Why is not the House capable of having a sensible debate on the issues of detail that divide us?
  I invite the hon. Member for Livingston to agree to that sensible procedure, allowing us to get back to where we would have been had it not been for his behaviour from about one o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. If the House decided to collapse the debate now, would it be in order immediately afterwards to debate the clauses that are the subject of the Report stage?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to that is yes. Immediately this debate is completed—it need not last for three hours—we shall proceed to debate the clauses in the Bill.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the motion, in paragraph 6(e), to delete "that all" and insert "On each of the".
  To those of my hon. Friends who do not immediately apprehend the objective of the amendment, I should explain that it would enable the House to vote separately on Government amendments on which it wished to vote separately, as opposed to the iniquitious proposal in the timetable motion, which obliges the House to vote on Government amendments as a block. I shall return to that issue later.
  I refer to the point of order of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). It may be proper for the House to find extra time for the new clauses and amendments that have appeared today in the amendment paper, but it would be possible for it to do that only by submitting without murmur or protest to such a constitutional outrage. A glance at the timetable motion confirms the contempt that the present Administration have for the right of parliamentary scrutiny and the ability to challenge legislation.
  Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I shall do so on this occasion, as I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman's observations, but other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so I shall not give way again.
  Mr. Hind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he accept that, if we were to pass the guillotine motion now, we would have two and three quarter extra hours in which to debate the clauses of the Bill, some of which are thought to be extremely important by all hon. Members? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his position in the light of that?
  Mr. Cook: If the Treasury Whip had not moved a motion to report progress six and a half hours ago, we should have had an additional nine hours of debate. It is
  504
  important for the House to consider the timetable motion. If it submits to the motion without a whimper of protest, it will happen every second sitting day.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has repeatedly asked the Secretary of State to tell us the effect of his motion. There are important new clauses still to be debated. They refer to important issues, the first of which is not within the scope of even this Government to prevent us debating. That is the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) referring to the rights of patients to appeal against the decision of a GP to delete them from his list. There are other important new clauses that I fear we will not reach under this timetable, such as the rights of staff who are transferred to self-governing trusts and the ring fencing of grants for community care, which was a central issue in the Griffiths report, and which should be central to the clauses on community care in this Bill.
  In addition to the new clauses, there are 212 amendments to 62 different clauses that still stand selected. The Secretary of State said that the motion would provide a perfectly reasonable way of handling the new clauses and amendments, but he has proposed 285 minutes in which to debate 252 new clauses and amendments. There is no way in which we can cram debates about those new clauses and amendments into such a finite time. There is no way in which the House could even vote on all those new clauses and amendments without any debate. There is not even an attempt in the timetable motion to pretend that it is possible to timetable that for useful debate on the new clauses.
  This is not a timetable motion; no times are fixed in the motion. This is a simple, unadorned guillotine that falls at midnight. The Secretary of State said that it would enable the House to finish the Bill. We will not finish the Bill at midnight; I doubt if we will even have started consideration of amendments to the Bill by then. What happens at midnight is that the Government get their Bill, and they will get it without any debate on the clauses on community care.
  I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, who served with me on the Committee, that, had I any doubt about the importance and correctness of our strategy in approaching the Committee sittings, and in seeking agreement to ensure that we had adequate days in which to air the issues in the Bill, that doubt would have been removed by a timetable motion that shows that, given half a chance, this Administration would block any debate on those clauses.
  Among the 212 amendments there are 100 Government amendments. The effect of the timetable motion—an effect about which the Secretary of State was rather coy—is that those 100 Government amendments will be put to the House in a single Division. I have checked with the authorities and have been advised that there was no parallel with such a proposal before this Government took office.
  There are a number of significant and important Government amendments, including an amendment to permit officers of health authorities to serve on health authorities and Government amendments relating to the transfer of assets to self-governing trusts. There is even a Government amendment on the restrictions on GPs. The House is being denied not only a debate on the amendments, and the opportunity to scrutinise them; it is even being denied a Division on them.

  505
  I turn from the effect of the motion to the observations by the Secretary of State. I assure the House that I shall be as brief as I can in dismissing them, but first I express some anxiety on behalf of all hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee. There is growing anxiety in our midst about what has become of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). I do not recall seeing him on the Treasury Bench since the Division on new clause 1. I hope that he has not vanished down whatever oubliette is reserved in the Whips Office for the failed Whip.
  The Secretary of State was good enough to say—I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, North has the message brought to him wherever he is incarcerated—that he had no complaints about the debate on new clause 1. That debate lasted five and a quarter hours. I differ slightly from the interpretation put by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on the length of the debate. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the debate was long because large numbers of Conservative Members spoke against the Government.
  I believe that the debate, if it was unduly long, was so for the simple and self-evident reason that the House received no response from the Treasury Bench to what was patently the will of the House. If, throughout our proceedings, we had had Ministers who were willing to listen to the points of debate, and to take the sense of the debate and the will of the House, it would have been possible for us to make more rapid progress.
  Throughout the entire proceedings on the Bill, both in Committee and on Report, the Opposition have received not one concession. Indeed, if there is one thing that infuriates us more than not getting a concession it is the fact that we cannot even get the Secretary of State to agree that we disagree with him on the content of the Bill.
  Having said that, I have to say that the timetable motion is a fitting end to the proceedings on the Bill. It was conceived in secrecy, in a furtive review, behind closed doors, through which only Ministers were admitted. Those Ministers took no evidence, and held no consultations on the review; they issued no Green Paper to stimulate debate.
  This is a fitting end to a Bill that will centralise in Richmond house the powers of control of the Health Service. On Second Reading, I drew attention to the Bill's 127 references to the Secretary of State, all of which gave him powers to regulate, to order and to instrument. Each of those 127 references survived Committee, and each of them will now survive Report, without debate.
  It is fitting at this stage of the Bill that one of the four debates that we were allowed—before being muzzled—was one that exposed just how anxious the Government are to avoid democratic debate within the Health Service, and their determination to avoid people having a say in whether their local hospital opts out of local health authority control. The Government are terrified that they would not win a single ballot.
  This is a fitting end to a Bill for which the Government had no mandate in the previous election. The proposals have not gained support since then. The Bill enjoys more unpopularity in the opinion polls than the poll tax Bill did at the same point during its passage through Parliament. But although the timetable motion provides an appropriate end to our proceedings, it will not quite be the
  506
  end of the Bill. There is one ballot that Ministers cannot guillotine—the ballot that will take place in the forthcoming general election. Democracy will then take its revenge for the way in which the Government rammed the Bill through the House.
  From now until that election, we shall set the agenda on health. We shall measure and broadcast each shift to a commercialised marketplace in health care. We shall log and publicise each patient who is refused treatment. Each speciality that is forced to the wall by competitive contracts will be recorded and remembered.
  Each of those issues will be put in the reckoning on the day of the general election. I am confident that that election will return a Government who will re-create a Health Service that will give patients the treatment they need, not the treatment that they or their doctors can afford. As a result of the motion, the Bill will leave the House tomorrow. At that point, the Secretary of State's problems will start. The Bill will be leaving the one place in Great Britain where it could find a majority. It has no majority in the world outside. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot dragoon a majority for it by putting the Whips on to the world outside.
  The guillotine motion is the last throw of the discredited doctrine that "No. 10 knows best"—a doctrine of which the nation is heartily sick. When the electorate has its next turn to speak, the Bill that that doctrine seeks to protect will be rejected, along with the Government who imposed it.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I think that I have voted in almost every guillotine debate for the past 20 years, but for reasons that I shall explain, this guillotine is one guillotine too far.
  Much humbug is spoken by those on Conservative and Opposition Front Benches when guillotine motions are introduced. The sort of speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, for whom I have enormous respect and regard, is made from every Government Front Bench whenever a guillotine motion is introduced. I am delighted to see in his place the father of all guillotines, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). When he was Leader of the House, he entertained us hugely and introduced more guillotine motions than any other right hon. Gentleman.
  We owe it to ourselves and to our constituents to consider what we are about in this place in a way that we have not considered it so far. Those of us on the Back Benches have rights and duties. One duty is carefully to scrutinise legislation. Our constituents expect us to examine Bills seriously and in detail. This Bill affects vast numbers of our constituents. It could be said, without great exaggeration, to affect each one of them directly or indirectly.
  No doubt all of us have attended meetings in our constituencies, as I have done, with general practitioners and others who have been worried and sometimes alarmed at the Bill's contents. Many such worries have been based on misconstruction, and many alarms have been grossly exaggerated. There has been mischief-making against the Bill by those who should have known better. Nevertheless, this is a serious matter. The Bill affects all of our constituents and contains controversial elements that demand careful and detailed scrutiny.

  507
  Our debate this evening calls into question not only the Bill but how we deal with all legislation. It is time seriously to consider that aspect. We let down our contituents by our perfunctory approach—[Interruption.] It would be good if the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) listened, because my argument is serious. We should get away from our perfunctory examination of all legislation.
  Let us consider what happens. A Bill comes before the House and has a Second Reading. By the very nature of things, even if it is a two-day Second Reading, few of us can pronounce on the general principles. The occupant of the Chair has an impossibly difficult task in knowing whom to call so that the various strands of opinion and parties in the House are represented. Few right hon. and hon. Members have the chance to take part in Second Reading debates.
  Next, a small number of Members go into Committee to debate the Bill in detail. As a Chairman of Committees, I know full well that Government Whips often exercise a certain persuasive power to curb the eloquence of Government Members, so that the Bill has a reasonably speedy passage through Committee. I do not point the figure at any particular Minister or Government. It happens, as all right hon. and hon. Members know.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cormack: Not at the moment. I am trying to develop a serious argument, but I may give way later.
  The Bill then comes back to the Floor of the House, often lucky to have escaped a guillotine. The vast majority of us have had no chance to examine it in detail, to speak about how its provisions affect our constituents or to consider its implications for the country as a whole.
  We then come to the Report stage. Today, we have a grotesque example of what can then happen. It seems generally expected that this debate will last until 6 o'clock or thereabouts. We shall then have between five and six hours in which to consider hundreds of amendments and dozens of new clauses to a Bill that affects everyone in the land. That will not be debate, consideration, scrutiny or what our constituents expect us to do. It will be another perfunctory gallop. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak will have little chance to do so. Those who are called to speak will have to truncate their remarks. Tomorrow, after a brief Third Reading debate on generalities, the Bill will go to another place. It will come back to the House only in so far as their Lordships make amendments to it, which I trust they will; but we must wait and see.
  What does it all mean? I do not criticise Front Benchers on either side of the House, but the House of Commons must consider how we go through our legislation. I believe that every Bill needs a proper timetable, not one agreed through the usual channels, nor cooked up at dead of night or in the early hours of the morning to cope with a crisis. What is needed is a proper timetable that is worked out by a scrutiny of legislation Committee of the House.
  We should consider setting up such a Committee at an early date. It should consist of senior and experienced Members from both sides of the House, not just Privy Councillors but those such as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and me and others who have experience of chairing Committees, who can consider
  508
  a Bill without regard to partisan points. They should consider what the Bill seeks to do, and its length and contents, then decide how reasonably it should be divided so that each clause can be properly debated. That is what our constituents expect us to do, and we let them down because we do not do it.
  At the root of the matter is the amount of legislation before the House. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that few of us have the chance to understand even a fraction of the Bills before the House. They come thudding from the Vote Office on to our desks or doorsteps. They are complex and affect the lives of people all over the country—I am speaking not only of this Bill.
  Let us consider the past Session or two and think of the reforms that have been introduced in this House. How many hon. Members can say that they have truly been able to understand and to follow the complexity of the legislation? I was privy to a Tea Room conversation only yesterday. A distinguished member of the Labour party was having a snack with me and a member of the other place came along and said, "Did you realise that that Bill which went through without a Division the other week had this measure in it?" He did not realise it, and neither did I. Frankly, I do not believe that any other hon. Member sitting round realised it.
  There is too much legislation. Every party that goes to the country aspiring to government promises to bring in less legislation, not more. It is a pledge that is repeatedly broken. We need a ration which allocates time properly between Government and Opposition, which must have time for proper debate of the policies and approach of the Government of the day, whichever party forms the Government.
  There should be time, far more than there is at present, for Select Committees. Select Committees labour away and produce far-reaching, stimulating and important reports which are frequently put into pigeonholes and never discussed on the Floor of the House. We do not have enough time for private Members, and legislation crowds out other things. Even the legislation itself is not fully and properly considered. That is highly unsatisfactory, and it is time that we put a stop to it.
  Today's proceedings are particularly unsatisfactory. From those unsatisfactory proceedings, I would like to see emerge a Committee of Members of the House, first perhaps even setting themselves up spontaneously and unofficially, to consider ways and means by which our procedure could be improved to ensure fair distribution of time between the separate interests and issues before us and the detailed discussion of every Bill.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am listening to my hon. Friend with great care. I agree with what he said about the advisability of having less legislation. My hon. Friend appears to be saying that every Bill should have its Committee stage on the Floor of the House, with all hon. Members involved in it. That troubles me, because, if hon. Members are interested in a particular subject, it is easy, through the Library or by reading the Official Report, to find out all that they need to know. I cannot envisage a House of Commons in which all the Committee work is done on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Cormack: I apologise to my hon. Friend. If that was the impression that I gave, I must correct it immediately. I am grateful to her: if there were ambiguity

  509
  in my remarks, I should not like to sit down and leave that ambiguity in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members. I believe very much in the Committee procedure; I believe that all Committees should be properly timetabled, so that there is no risk of a suddenly imposed guillotine, and that matters are properly discussed in Committee.
  My point, which I obviously did not make as well as I should have, is that, for every piece of legislation—whether it be on student loans, the reform of the National Health Service, the privatisation of an industry or the introduction of the community charge—the vast majority of us are, inevitably, not on the Committee. When a Bill returns to the Floor of the House on Report, we should not run the risk of the sort of nonsense that we now face. There should be a procedure worked out by a scrutiny of legislation Committee, which would allocate a proper portion of time—for this Bill it should be at least four days—so that the legislation could be looked at properly and at a decent hour.
  Mr. William Cash: I am intrigued by what my hon. Friend—who is a neighbour of mine—is saying, because I am a member of the Committee that is considering the Broadcasting Bill. How much attention did members of the Committee that considered this Bill pay to the allocation of time to consider questions that might arise? We are often in danger of spending too much time waffling in Committee when we should be concentrating on important questions, some of which are arising now. [Interruption.] I accuse the Opposition—including the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who is muttering from a sedentary position—of waffling in Committee to precipitate the very situation that we are facing now: a guillotine. That happened when we considered the Telecommunications Bill, and it has also happened in this case.
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend is merely making my point for me. If there were proper timetabling in Committees, there would be no temptation to waffle, there would be no self-induced—or Whip-imposed—vow of silence by Government Members, whichever party formed the Government, and there would be true debate in Committee.
  Mr. Rowe: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says in so far as it applies to my experience of other Committees. However, on this Committee, Government Members were given as much freedom to speak as they wished. Because our speeches were almost universally short, every one of us had the chance to say as much as we wanted.
  Mr. Cormack: I am gratified to hear that. It is unusual, but my hon. Friend was on the Committee and I was not. I accept what he says and it is good to hear it.
  I was about to mention the time at which we hold our debates. People outside think that it is absurd that we go through the night. I saw a distinguished Secretary of State at lunch when we were attending the same function. It is ridiculous that he should have been up until 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock this morning when he has extremely important work to do in his ministerial capacity on behalf of everybody. The same applies whether it be a Labour or a
  510
  Conservative Secretary of State. For a few to keep their colleagues up through the night, often talking endlessly about nothing, is ridiculous.
  I should like to see a system whereby we finished our substantive business at midnight and no votes were taken after midnight. We owe the nation a quality of administration which, frankly, we are not providing. We must meet head-on the question of the procedure of the House, particularly now that we are under closer and more detailed scrutiny ourselves. I would say that whether we had a Labour or a Conservative Government. I am speaking without fear or favour when I say that, unless and until we do that, we shall not do our job as well as we should or earn the esteem which any legislator in a democracy ought to earn.
  I have just come back from a few days in Romania, where people are desperate for the sort of things that we take for granted. They face their first election for 50 years, desperately hoping that it will be free and fair. I am sure that I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members in devoutly hoping that it will be both free and fair.
  The Romanian people look to us to provide models. They look to this country as the mother of Parliaments. Although I much enjoyed trying to explain what we did here, I was conscious of the imperfections that riddle our procedures. I earnestly beg right hon. and hon. Members, especially my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, to think seriously about changing our procedures.
  Because the Bill's consideration tonight will be a travesty, I shall have no part of it in the Division Lobbies. I do not propose to vote any more on the Bill today.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I agree with his comments about the quality of the legislation that has passed through the House of Commons in recent years. There has been a considerable debasement of the quality, but my reasons for saying that are different from those of the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's cure would be any good. It has been suggested in many other quarters and would be grabbed immediately by the Treasury Bench. The Government would love to have a system under which any measures presented to the House would go through according to a timetable which was understood. The Government would be certain of getting measures through at particular times, but it would not be good for the House of Commons and it would not guarantee any improvement in the quality of legislation.
  I should like to correct the misleading remarks that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South made about me—quite unconsciously, I am sure—at the beginning of his speech. He called me the father of guillotines. I may be very old, but I am not so old as that. The father of guillotines can be traced back to the Liberal Benches and the pre-1914 Government. To discover who introduced guillotines, the hon. Gentleman would have to go back and have an argument with Mr. Gladstone's son, if not with Mr. Gladstone himself. The Liberals introduced the guillotine motion to deal with a House of Commons which would otherwise have prevented their legislation from being passed. Some of the people who were creating the biggest row were the predecessors of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, although they were not all on the

  511
  same side of the Conservative party, as he would have liked them to be. The origin of the guillotine therefore goes back a long way.
  The hon. Gentleman should also not say that I was responsible for more guillotines than anyone else. Many more guillotine motions have been introduced in the past five or six years than in any previous parliamentary period. They have been introduced in the most objectionable manner at a late stage in the consideration of Bills such as this one to deal with immediate crises.
  The previous Leader of the House did not seem to care at what stage he introduced fresh guillotine motions—he just introduced more and more of them. I am sorry that the present Leader of the House is not here to speak on this, although the Minister for Health—the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley)—is a good substitute. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in Chile, no doubt polishing up his methods by talking to Mr. Pinochet, to whom he gave so much support when he was at the Foreign Office. They probably have much to talk over, though not how a Parliament should be run. If the Bill is to be pushed through in this way, it is a pity that the Leader of the House has not been present throughout the proceedings. When I was Leader of the House, I considered it my duty to be present almost all the time and to be responsible for any proposals.
  I am glad to come along on these occasions, partly for the sake of auld lang syne and to remember what used to happen, but also because there is always the danger that some blithering ignoramus—I am not referring to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South or to the Secretary of State for Health—will suggest that, as Leader of the House, I did something similar to what the Government are attempting to do today when in fact they are doing something quite different.
  There is the important question of the mandate. The Government cannot claim that it is not important. Whenever the Prime Minister is forced back to the House, as she frequently is, to defend measures such as the poll tax she refers to her mandate, saying that there was a mandate for the poll tax. The measures on which I asked for a guillotine, and which would not have had a chance of getting through the House without a guillotine, all figured in our party manifesto. The country had been able to vote on them and was familiar with many of the arguments. That is important for high quality legislation. Such was the quality of the five measures on which I introduced the guillotine that most of them are on the statute book today. People may not have liked the contents of those measures, but no one ever complained about their quality. Before introducing proposals in the House, we did our best to ensure that they were properly drafted and considered. We also wished to ensure that they were properly investigated by the House of Commons, which is at its best in Committee.
  People often deride the House and say that time is wasted late at night or that few Members of Parliament are present. In my long experience, I have found that some of the worst features of bad Government legislation have been dealt with on the Floor of the House, often on Report, and sometimes late at night. That is one of our great protections.
  One such debate took place last night and the Government were defeated. Even if they had not been defeated, the discussion would still have been beneficial. No one who listened to that debate could deny its quality.
  512
  The result was good for most of the country. It showed the House really working properly and it was not under a guillotine. Last night's debate could not have taken place under a guillotine or under the permanent guillotine that some Members desire. A debate such as last night's debate can take place only when the House is at its best. Great credit goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) who put the case so well, but a range of other speeches came from other quarters, which did not immediately change the Government's mind but which will do so eventually.
  No Member of Parliament who was present last night would deny that at the very moment when the House showed itself at its best the Government chose to bring down the guillotine and to say, "We will have no more debates like that. Look what happens—we actually get defeated. We must have no more of that, so we shall stop it right away." Under such a procedure, we shall have no more great debates. The way in which so many debates are jammed in together is a disgrace to the House of Commons.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, the crucial aspect of the debate is the origin of the Bill. Had the Bill been an item in the Conservative party manifesto and been debated during the last general election campaign by the general practitioners who now oppose it and by the hospital workers who are now affected by possible opting out, things would be very different, but we all know that there has been no investigation. When Aneurin Bevan carried through the National Health Service Act 1946, he said that there should be fresh discussions about it in the years to come. He did not claim that it was perfect in every way—he wanted a five-year clause in each piece of legislation to require people to re-examine it. Nothing like that has happened with this Bill, as the Minister for Health must know even if she cannot admit it.
  This measure started with the fatal decision at No. 10 to do for the Health Service what has been done already for education and social security. It is now being pushed through without proper discussion. That is especially disgraceful, given that the Government have spatchcocked another major Bill into the legislation by amalgamating two Bills. The future of compassionate care is a matter of major discussion throughout the country. Every hon. Member knows that that debate is real and no one would dare deny what I say. Yet the Government decided to manacle another measure to this highly unpopular, undiscussed Bill, and the two measures are interlinked. The Secretary of State could not come to the House to defend the Bill yesterday—his junior Minister had to do that—which further aggravates the offence of not allowing the House of Commons to discuss either measure properly.
  Great arguments about the poll tax are raging at this very moment. The poll tax is bad enough, but it was at least mentioned as a sidewind even though it was not discussed properly. The Government have become so arrogant that they think that they can push through any measure whatever. To return to the points of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South, that is the real reason for the debasement of the quality of the legislation going through the House of Commons.
  The Prime Minister knows nothing of the House of Commons. She did not spend years on the Back Benches—the best place to learn about the House. I have had experience of both Front and Back Benches. The Prime

  513
  Minister simply hears of uproar in the Chamber. She arrived yesterday without even knowing what had happened. The guillotine decision on the Bill was made in the middle of the night. Yet the Bill touches the lives of people perhaps more than any measure since the National Health Service was set up. The Secretary of State occasionally dares to compare himself with Aneurin Bevan, but Aneurin Bevan had endless debates with doctors and invited them time and again to discuss his proposals. He constantly asked for debates in this House. Before that Bill was introduced, when there was so much pretence that it was unpopular, he suggested that there should be another debate in the House of Commons. No one believed more strongly than Aneurin Bevan that the best way to get a decent measure on to the statute book so that it lasts not just a few years but for generations is to have a decent debate in the House of Commons.
  That is how we got our great National Health Service, but on the orders of the Prime Minister the Government are injuring and destroying the National Health Service and the very process whereby we can maintain these proper institutions. What is happening is a disgrace to the House of Commons. The Secretary of State should go to Downing street and resign, like the Secretary of State for Wales. He should follow the example of some of his predecessors, pluck up his courage and say that he is not prepared to force such a measure through the House.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). He is a man of great experience and an outstanding parliamentarian. As he said, he is wonderfully comfortable on the Back Benches, whether his party be in government or in opposition. I thoroughly endorse much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), in my 19 years in the House, I have never tasted ministerial office or preferment of any sort. Like my hon. Friend, I sit on the Chairmen's Panel, which is a tremendous challenge and a highly responsible and very enjoyable task.
  I said in an intervention at the beginning of the debate that I shall support the Government in the Division Lobby, but with great reluctance. Sadly, I do not believe that any timetabling of clauses, new clauses and amendments would make it possible to have a meaningful debate on this critical Bill. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent pointed out that the issues involved are vital to practically everyone in the country. I shall vote with the Government only with great reluctance.
  When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State introduced the timetable motion, I intervened to say that, if my views were of any importance, the House could have debated these vital matters constructively and positively if the Government had responded properly to the result of the debate on new clause 1. Conservative Members expressed their anxiety about care in the community and the dreadful problems that were occurring in all our constituencies, whether we be Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative Members, about the growing gap between the amount of income support that elderly
  514
  people in private residential or nursing homes receive from the Department of Social Security and the fees for those homes.
  I am unhappy that matters that relate to ring fencing will probably receive no coverage in later debates today. We shall face grave problems because, as a result of a decision that was made not by the House but by the Government, geriatric accommodation in the National Health Service is being phased out. Almost all the provision for those who require such accommodation and care will be provided in private nursing and residential homes. Thus, an increasing number of people will be dependent on the income support that they need to pass their final days receiving the care and consideration that they need and merit. For that reason, the debate later today will be unsatisfactory.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South, whose view was shared by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, that we have too much legislation and not enough debate. I was not here, as the right hon. Gentleman was, when the National Health Service was introduced in 1948, so I did not have the privilege of attending the great debates that took place leading to the formation of the NHS, which is cherished by 99.9 per cent. of the British people.
  I wonder whether, if timetable motions had been used then as they are today, we would have got the Health Service that we all admire and respect and which, having travelled throughout the world as a member of the Social Services Select Committee, I can report is the envy of the world. I do not know a cheaper, better run or more comprehensive health system anywhere else.
  I am saddened by the Government's response to the outcome of the debate yesterday on new clause 1, which perhaps set the House on a trail which I deeply regret. It has meant that no meaningful debate can take place on one of the most critical Bills now before Parliament.
  In many Standing Committees, Back Benchers are beginning to exercise their rights over the usual channels. I have the privilege at present to be a joint Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill. I am pleased to say that Back Benchers on both sides of that Committee are exercising their full rights to debate the measure to the full. I am anxious that the occupants of the Government Front Bench note my claim that hon. Members should be able on the Floor of the House to debate properly the legislation that comes before us.
  I have in mind, for example, new clause 73, which will receive no more than scant mention in the short debate that will take place under the guillotine. That clause relates to the funding of local authorities and the demand of the Select Committee on Social Services that money allocated for community care should be ring-fenced. That is not simply the overwhelming view of that Select Committee, which looked into the matter in detail and took evidence from experts. It is the view of Sir Roy Griffiths, who produced the Griffiths report, on which the community care provisions of the Bill are based. He urged that the money should be ring-fenced and proposed:
  "Central Government should provide directly to social service authorities by a specific grant a substantial proportion of the total funds it estimates are needed to meet national objectives."
  The Government are departing from a main proposal made in a report which they asked Sir Roy Griffiths to undertake, and the House is not being given proper

  515
  opportunity to debate the issue. I know that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is on the Select Committee with me, shares my view on that important matter.
  I make no apology for raising a constituency matter, because it greatly concerns me that we should be proceeding to a situation in which health authorities can ensure, through their senior management, all of whom are politically appointed, that hospitals should decide to opt out. There is in my constituency a small hospital called the Alderley Edge cottage hospital, which was founded and built by donation and public subscription. It was taken into the NHS when it took over the provision for health care in Britain in 1948. That facility is much valued by the people of the area, but what is happening there is not democratic and there has been no meaningful public consultation.
  My district health authority has decided to implement a temporary closure of the GP beds at that hospital—it is primarily a GP hospital—pending consultation. When I heard about this development from people in the NHS—people who know that they can come to me and get an objective hearing—I was appalled. I contacted Mr. Holt, the district general manager, who told me, "We have adopted this procedure before." I asked Mr. Holt, "Can you tell me of any hospital that has been reopened once a temporary closure has been imposed?" He hesitated and replied, "We have used that procedure before, but in respect of a hospital ward." I told him that hospital wards might reopen, but I could not discover a hospital on which a temporary closure order had been imposed and which had reopened.
  The people of my area are outraged, and the majority of them are Conservative supporters—
  Ms. Diane Abbott: At the moment.
  Mr. Winterton: I will allow that remark, made from a sedentary position, to pass.
  We are creating a situation in which the public, democratic representatives, those who are concerned for the NHS and those who serve in it, are having a decreasing influence over the decisions that are being taken. That is why I say that to have so many amendments, all selected for debate, discussed in just a few hours, with no set procedure for vital new clauses to be debated individually, is appalling.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: Why, then, does the hon. Gentleman intend to vote for the guillotine?
  Mr. Winterton: I said that I did not believe that, at this stage of the Bill, in view of what happened last night, we could have a constructive or meaningful debate. I hope that we shall have a considered Third Reading tomorrow. But, above all, I believe that the measure will receive a good hearing in the other place. Some Members of this House—although not the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent—fought hard for the preservation of the other place and for the amending opportunities that exist there. That Chamber can have a moderating influence on hastily considered legislation that has been forced through this House. I now have considerable trust in what may happen to the Bill in that House.
  Mr. Cormack: Trust in the Lords.
  Mr Winterton: Yes, I trust in the Lords, and in the Lord. My answer to the hon. Member for Peckharn (Ms. Harman) is that, sadly, I do not believe that we shall have a constructive, meaningful debate on the Bill as it proceeds through its remaining stages in this House.
  Mr. Tony Favell: Nobody has taken a greater interest in the Health Service over many years than my hon. Friend. He and I served together on the Select Committee on Social Services. Nobody takes a greater interest in things local and taking decisions at a local level. Is he for or against self-government of hospitals? He has been talking about the Alderley Edge cottage hospital, which is outside my constituency, but not far away. Its decision is being interfered with by the district health authority. Would it not be better if that hospital was running its own affairs, free from outside interference?
  Mr. Winterton: I can best respond to my hon. Friend, whom I regard with considerable affection, in the following way. He does a magnificent job in his constituency and has taken great interest in health care over many years. I was one of the few Government Members who opposed the Bill's Second Reading because I do not like the major proposals contained in it, not least that of self-governing hospitals, which will remove the comprehensive nature of our National Health Service, which is one of its major, most compelling and advantageous facilities.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South on one matter but I wonder whether I might have the support of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. All major Government legislation should be referred to the appropriate Select Committee before coming to the House, so that some of the major problems in the legislation can be discussed by an all-party group. That is certainly a feature of legislation in a number of other democratic western countries.
  Legislation put before this place could only be improved by being considered by an all-party Select Committee before it was presented to us. That might well shorten some of the debates in the Chamber, and those that did take place would be more realistic, constructive and rewarding because they would deal with the major issues that came through the scrutiny of a Select Committee.
  Mr. Cormack: How did my hon. Friend know that I disagreed with that sentiment? Although I did not address myself to it, I do not necessarily disagree with it.
  Mr. Winterton: I thought that my hon. Friend might disagree, because he put forward another proposition in his earlier contribution to this debate.
  I shall reluctantly go through the Government Lobby tonight. Sadly, the House cannot claim much credit for what occurred last night. How right the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was—a magnificent debate took place on new clause 1 yesterday. That is how the House works best.
  I shall correct the right hon. Gentleman on one matter. New clause I is an all-party new clause. It was moved with great ability by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but its sponsors also came from among Government Members. We had a magnificent debate on it, because all those contributing had some knowledge of I he subject and had made a careful study of it. They spoke

  517
  with experience—sadly, that does not always occur in this place. Therefore, it is with sadness that I support a Government who are prepared to abuse the House in the way that they are doing today.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Time is at a premium, many other hon. Members want to express their sense of outrage about the motion and I shall be brief. This really is a quite shocking and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, a wholly disgraceful motion. Parliamentary shoddiness was never more shoddy. The Bill is not one Bill, but four: two about the NHS and community care in England and Wales and two Scottish Bills. That is why the Secretary of State's comparison of it with the Health Service Bill in 1976 so utterly falls apart. The making of that comparison was proof positive of the bankruptcy of his case in this debate.
  In Committee Ministers were tripping over themselves as a consquence of trying to squash too much legislatiton into one Bill. I shall give just one example. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) had some amusement at the expense of his hon. Friends in Committee, since the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, introduced an amendment substantially the same as one previously resisted by the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), the Minister for Health. That may have been amusing in Committee, but it excites only incredulity and very deep concern among the disabled people who protest to right hon. Members on both sides of the House that these four Bills in one do not tackle key issues related to their well-being.
  The guillotine motion makes it virtually certain that my amendments about community care and, in particular, the problems and needs of disabled people will not be given even a moment's consideration by the House. Similarly, amendments tabled by Opposition Members will be pushed aside without debate. They are amendments that were inspired by the all-party disablement group in the House and it is contemptuous of the efforts, not only of the distinguished officers of that important group, but also of some of the best known voluntary organisations of and for disabled people in this country. The Association of Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes has put to me its deep concerns about this legislation; so has the Spinal Injuries Association. But since my amendments will not be debated, their submissions, along with many others, must go by default.
  Can we at least have an indication of the Government's response to new clauses 58 and 59, amendment No. 59, new clause 63, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and the other new clauses and amendments that are so very important to disabled people, their families and carers? The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) talked about ring fencing, which is a profoundly important issue. Will there be a statement about the Government's attitude to that recommendation in the Griffiths report? Will there be any mention of the compelling need now fully to implement the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation
  518
  and Representation) Act 1986, which was so ably promoted and piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)?
  The Secretary of State, himself no innocent when it comes to speaking at length, has talked of filibustering, yet perhaps the longest debate on Report so far was that on an all-party amendment, so well and non-controversially moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). New clause 1, dealing with income support and residential care, produced a most impressive debate. It was a parliamentary occasion and, in fact, some of the longest speeches—none the less good for all their length—came from those on the Government Benches. The Government were defeated—their first such defeat for four years—and it is much to the honour of Conservative Members, as well as hon. Members on this side of the House, that the claims of needful people were put entirely above party considerations.
  I applaud the intervention during the Secretary of State's speech by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). His sense of fairness is an example to other Conservative Members. As he said, it is preposterous that debate on legislation of such importance should be so truncated. Let us hope, for the reputation of Parliament, that the hon. Gentleman's words will have had some effect on other Conservative Members. It will be a stain on the reputation of the House of Commons if the motion is not strenuously opposed across the Floor of the House as well as by Opposition Members. There is still time for the hon. Member for Macclesfield to rethink his position. I hope he will do so, and vote with us tonight.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is not in his place. I wanted to tell him about a dream that I had last night. I must have nodded off for a moment, and I dreamt that time was 1,000 years into the future and that a fossil skeleton had been found. The anthropologist instantly recognised it as homo sardonicus—in other words, the hon. Member for Livingston. The fossil's jaw was very highly developed and, at first, that was thought to be because the animal was clearly carnivorous. However, after a great deal of scrutiny it became apparent that it was just the result of over-exercise. I was alarmed when I woke up and discovered that that skeleton was fully clothed and in the middle of a speech lasting almost one and a half hours.
  The guillotine motion owes a great deal to the efforts of homo sardonicus. He spoke at inordinate length throughout our proceedings, so the Opposition cannot complain if some attempt is made to move forward. During the late 1970s, the only matter under debate in the establishment was that Britain was ungovernable. It was assumed that Britain had gone over the edge into some sort of abyss and that it was no longer possible to govern it. During the past decade the Conservative Government have shown that to be a myth.
  The second great debate, which took place during the middle and late 1980s, was about the defects of the National Health Service. We could not go anywhere in the country and speak to an audience about the NHS without there being paraded a catalogue of those defects. All the journals discussed how to prioritise, how to finance, how to control, how to organise, how to give general

  519
  practitioners a proper place in the system and so on. As a result of that longstanding, widespread and universally indulged-in debate, the Government introduced proposals to alter and improve the way in which the NHS is delivered to the consumer. The moment that they did so, everyone who until then had denigrated the old-fashioned, archaic way in which the NHS operated tried to pretend that it was working perfectly and that all it required was the injection of a little more money and it could go on exactly as before, with just one or two cosmetic improvements.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to be controversial but, apart from brief absences for cups of tea, about six hon. Members have been in the Chamber for twenty-seven and a half hours. We are here to discuss a guillotine motion that will mean amendments being lost. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is not speaking to that motion; he is giving a poor Second Reading speech. So that we may all have an opportunity to discuss the motion, perhaps he would try to debate the matter before us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is in order. However, once again I appeal for brief speeches so that more hon. Members can participate in the debate.
  Mr. Rowe: I have been on my feet for three minutes. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) may have been so anxious to make his own speech that he did not notice that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spent a long time blaming the Government for introducing proposals to reform the NHS without a debate. There has been a massive public debate about the defects of the NHS which has spread from John o'Groats to Land's End.
  Mr. Kennedy: If the debate that the hon. Gentleman claims started in the mid-1980s was such a burning issue and a priority for the Government, why did none of that appear in the Conservative manifesto?
  Mr. Rowe: My recollection is that the manifesto contained a statement that the NHS would be reformed. That was all that was said because we were trying to work out the detail. Since then, there has been a massive public debate about the proposals, in many cases fuelled by disgraceful misrepresentation by the British Medical Association and other groups. They have used every means in their power—they had plenty of them—to misinform large numbers of our constituents by telling them considerable untruths. However, that gave us the opportunity to discuss these matters in our constituencies. It is absurd to suggest that there has not been a debate about the issues.
  In the short time that the guillotine motion allows for debate, I wish to raise a number of issues in which I have an interest. One is the suggestion to open district health authority activities to public scrutiny. As is set out in new clauses 55 and 56, it is appropriate that health authorities come under the same discipline as local authorities and hold their meetings in public and open to public scrutiny. I hope that that proposal will be considered.
  It is also important—I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will give me some comfort on this issue—that local authorities can give, without anxiety about whether they might be breaking the law, cash assistance to the disabled to organise their own affairs. That is the ultimate
  520
  in consumer power, and a great deal of the Bill is designed to strengthen the position of the consumer within the system.
  I have also tabled an amendment about costs in rural areas. There is no doubt that the delivery of community care in rural areas is, in many respects, more expensive than in the inner cities. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will agree that one issue that we need to canvass—if not in this debate, in the wider community outside—is the whole question of advocacy. It is improper to expect confused, vulnerable, disabled and frightened consumers to take an active part in the assessment procedure unless they have someone with them who can put their point of view and help them to understand what the process is about.
  The role of the voluntary organisations, whether in the delivery of health care or community care, is absolutely central to the way that those services must develop. Unquestionably they will be major contractors. They will continue to be major suppliers. I suspect that every hon. Member has been approached by voluntary organisations that are torn between their desire to become effective members of the contracting organisations that deliver care and their wish not to lose their freedom of action and their spontaneity, by being swallowed by public providers calling the tune. That is a central issue and I am sorry that there may not be time to debate it tonight.
  The motion is reasonable, given the extraordinary lengths to which the Opposition went to make their point during the long debate in our earlier proceedings.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: As quite a few hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, I shall be brief. One comment arises out of the latter statement of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). In a sense the debate on the guillotine motion resembles the debate last night on new clause 1. With the sole exception of his speech—even he expressed hesitation about it—there does not seem to have been any strong argument in favour of what the Secretary of State for Health has put forward on the guillotine motion. The Government seem to be as isolated on this mechanical issue as they were on the issue of principle about income support and residential homes.
  It is sad also that, if the guillotine is passed, there may not be proper debate on another issue where we might have had a rerun of what happened last night, which was itself a rerun of the proceedings in Committee. I refer to the question of ring fencing which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). A proper, full-scale Report stage debate on ring fencing would probably draw out speech after speech from Conservative Back-Bench Members who would find themselves at one with Members of all Opposition parties. That would act as a useful lever on the Department of Health, if not at this stage in this House, certainly in another place. I can only hope that the signal sent last night at least on the income support issue, will find an echo elsewhere and that the Government will be forced to compromise on it.
  The attitude of the Secretary of State for Health was epitomised by a phrase used in another political age—a period of silence would frequently be much appreciated. When he became more silent on the ambulance dispute we

  521
  suddenly found that there was progress and a settlement. His lack of belligerence at certain times in Committee made for smoother progress than might otherwise have been the case. It was only when he could not contain himself any longer and started saying that the constructive co-operation of Opposition Members in Committee represented a cave-in on the principles of the Bill that he got people's backs up. What he said was a crude misrepresentation of what had happened.
  The Secretary of State is on extremely thin ice in trying to refer to events during the night as filibustering after the dozens of hours spent on the Bill in Committee. It was wrong of him to talk about filibustering when, in last night's debate and consistently in Committee, the proceedings were distinguished by regular contributions from Conservative Back-Bench Members, unlike proceedings on many other Bills when Government Back-Bench Members are clamped. We had constructive contributions frequently from the hon. Members for Mid-Kent, for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who spoke to great effect in last night's debate. Other Conservative Members also contributed to the debates, so there is no basis for saying that there has been filibustering or procedural nonsense. The Secretary of State, with his Jekyll and Hyde character, could not contain himself any longer and had to get belligerent and abusive about the Opposition. We all know what happened as a result. If he is looking for someone to blame, he should look no further than himself.
  The Bill is really composed of four measures. No doubt my colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), would echo my view that we should have had separate Scottish legislation. For the proceedings on the Bill to be guillotined compounds the problem. Members representing Scottish constituencies cannot give the legislation proper scrutiny at the all-important Report stage when they should have an opportunity to contribute. For the Secretary of State to say at the Dispatch Box, as he did in opening the debate, that things began to go seriously wrong during the Scottish section of the debate was ludicrous. Apart from Second Reading last autumn, that was the first time that Scottish Members other than the four who served in Committee had an opportunity to speak about the impact of the Bill on Scotland. It ill behoves an English Secretary of State to criticise the Scots for time-wasting when they were taking their first opportunity to talk about the implication of the Bill for Scotland.
  I echo the comments about the need for proper timetabling procedures for legislation. Procedure could be much improved if half the legislation which takes up time into the wee small hours at Westminster was hived off to a democratically elected Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, where it could be properly scrutinised and debated. In the words of Lord Home, which should commend themselves to a Conservative Government, we want more decisions about Scotland taken in Scotland by Scots. The farce of the guillotine and the completely inadequate way that the remainder of this flagship of Government legislation will proceed underscore the need for root-and-branch constitutional reform.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: "Parliament exists for no other object than that of wasting time". Those are not my words, although I have frequently thought that since I arrived here in 1983; they are the words of the great-grandfather of my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Lord Randolph Chuchill said that when he was a Member of the House, albeit after the disillusionment of having resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer from Lord Salisbury's Government when he seemed to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the Prime Minister, should run the Government. That fact remains; it was ever thus.
  I have to register my disquiet at the timetable motion which was moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Visiting Parliament here at the beginning of the 18th century, Peter the Great—incidentally, he introduced the poll tax in Russia in 1717, but it did not last—[Interruption.] In response to those comments, I might also say that he was the father of the Russian navy. I happen to believe that when a ship is in stormy waters, the ship's captain should not be thrown overboard while the crew argue among themselves about who should take the helm. There might be a case for removing some of the cargo.
  I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), already repeated in this brief debate, who said that there is too much legislation. I believe that it is my function as a Conservative to reduce government rather than have legislation all the time. There is far too much legislation and it is not examined closely and carefully enough.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is not here because, reluctantly, I have to pay tribute to his speech when moving new clause 1. It was one of the most powerful speeches that I have heard on the Health Service. I found the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in support of new clause I very moving. It was backed up by irrefutable logic when she talked about the lack of cost-effectiveness. I understood the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in response. I understood his difficulty and I went along with him reluctantly on the losing side in the vote.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will agree that both those powerful speeches related to defects in the present system of delivering care which the Bill is trying to improve.
  Mr. Carttiss: I wonder how many other defects in the present system could have been talked about to the benefit of the Bill if we had had more time. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who moved this deplorable motion, is not present in the Chamber to hear my remarks. Of course, I understand that he has been on duty all night. However, I cannot agree with his comments about the debate on the Scottish parts of the Bill.
  I was present in the Chamber for most of that debate. Although I did not agree with Opposition Members, I do not believe that they can be accused of being particularly long-winded. They had points that they wanted to make, and they made them. Although the charge of long-windedness might be more attributable to Welsh Members, I do not believe that any of them were wasting

  523
  time when they debated Welsh issues in the Bill. I did not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he referred to the Scottish and Welsh parts of the debate as though they were a waste of time. There is not much point sitting through the night on these matters. Indeed, I am not anxious to sit through the night once more and possibly lose my Adjournment debate on Thursday on the uniform business rate in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) lost her Adjournment debate earlier today.
  Doctors who make life-and-death decisions will be working all through the night this week—they did so last week and they will do so again next week. We are introducing proposals to change their working conditions radically. The least that we should be prepared to do is to give four days and, if necessary, four nights to what the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has already described as the most radical reform—which I support—of the Health Service since its establishment.
  I am glad that I am not a Parliamentary Private Secretary. However, my brief sojourn as deputy for my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) assisting my hon. Friend the Minister for Health has not deflected me from voting according to how I think. I believe that it is a disgrace that discussion on the Bill has been cut short.
  As the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said, there were nearly 250 amendments to the Bill. It cannot be right to try to squeeze those in during such a short time. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made some interesting observations about the way in which we should timetable our business and that point often crops up. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) raised a point of order in which he explained that if we did not debate the guillotine motion we could spend more time discussing the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West has now left the Chamber. However, the fact remains that not taking time discussing whether we should be cutting short consideration of an important piece of legislation negates the parliamentary democracy that we are here to defend and support.
  A very high-powered Cabinet committee was rightly chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. She showed her absolute commitment to an improved National Health Service which provides care free at the point of delivery. In parenthesis, I must state that I am sorry that we do not provide eye tests and dental inspections free at the point of delivery, too. If we had had time, perhaps I would have moved an amendment to that effect.
  When a Government are temporarily on the ropes, coming back for a knock-out blow that will floor Opposition Members at the general election to which the hon. Member for Livingston referred earlier, it is a good idea to come out fighting. The Government should not say to the referee, "Let us cut out the next 10 rounds."
  We have a first-class coast—I am sorry, I meant to say first-class case. I always talk about the coast because that is where I come from and I never miss an opportunity to refer to that excellent place. We have a first-class case for National Health Service reforms and the community care legislation.
  The James Paget hospital that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter)—whom I
  524
  am delighted to see in the Chamber now—has suffered particularly from the system of financing hospital services that dates back to a Labour Government. That system of financing hospital services penalises the efficient provider. By catering for far more patients than it is financed for, the James Paget hospital must cut beds and operations at the end of each financial year. It is a victim of the system of financing hospital services which the Bill will help to correct with its proposals for self-governing trusts and the policy of ensuring that funds follow patients.
  I have received many more letters over the past two years about the National Health Service reforms than about any other issue since I became an hon. Member. Opponents of Sunday trading sent me the second highest number of letters and the community charge, although generating a lot of mail, by no means compares with the concern expressed in numerous letters about the NHS, from patients, elderly people and doctors in my constituency.
  Earlier I went off at a tangent and declared my allegiance to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whom I regard as second to none. I was about to refer to the fact that for a year a Cabinet committee considered ways of improving what Opposition Members must admit is a service that needs significant improvement. Those improvements are not achievable just by pouring more money into the service.
  We all agree that the NHS should be improved. That high-powered Cabinet committee deliberated for a year and produced a White Paper in January 1989 entitled "Working for Patients". After a year of video performances the like of which have never been seen before—I cannot imagine what Lord Randolph Churchill would have thought of them—there has been a massive consultative campaign. However, we are now told that, because we had two days on Second Reading and many hours in Committee, we should limit ourselves now to a two-and-a-half day debate on Report and Third Reading of this vital legislation. We could win many arguments in the debates if we were prepared to have them here where they should take place.
  Reluctant as I am to join Opposition Members, particularly in view of the behaviour of a handful of them at the end of this morning's proceedings, I must vote against the timetable motion, because in reply to all the letters that my constituents have written to me, and having advanced the reasons why I consider that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is right to want to reform the National Health Service, I have told my constituents that in the Houses of Parliament there will be the opportunity to move, consider and debate amendments to the legislation. Even if I do not agree with Oppostion Members, we should debate the points that they raise in the Chamber. If not here, where else?
  If we have a debate of only two and a half days limited by the guillotine, I cannot honestly face my constituents and say that amendments to and consideration of this important Health Service reform have received the time that my constituents have every right to expect.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be as brief as possible. I have tabled an amendment to the allocation of time motion which simply extends the time on the first day, that is today, for an hour. It is a gesture for all those

  525
  wavering Conservatives who will go into the Government Lobby with what they describe as a heavy heart. If they have the chance to vote, they can give us at least another hour without going boldly and courageously into the Opposition Lobby, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) said that he would. He is scandalised by the way in which this elective dictatorship guillotines parliamentary and, indeed, party rights.
  The Secretary of State alleged that new clause 4 was the subject of delay. Four Members could not speak in the debate on that new clause, because the Government moved the closure. It was an important debate about proper, adequate and democratic consultation on the opting-out procedures for hospitals, which will affect so many of our constituents. To suppose that such a major item could simply be disposed of in two or three hours is to live in cloud cuckoo land. Every constituency is affected by the proposals for opting out, either now or in the future.
  I wanted to speak to new clause 4. The Westwood hospital for the mentally handicapped in my constituency is set in beautiful rolling acres. A trust is being set up by some officials without the consent of the staff or people in the area. A tiny clique of politically motivated people are setting up the hospital to become a self-governing trust. I believe that they intend to sell off the land to property developers because the hospital is set amidst many rolling acres of great value.
  The legislation now involves capital charges and a capital register. It will propel even people of good will who want the NHS to succeed and do not wish to shift out of it through the opting-out proposals to examine their capital assets with a view to flogging them off. In the case of the NHS, valuable potential development sites may be sold.
  I wished to speak in the debate, but I and three other hon. Members could not do so.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Five hon. Members.
  Mr. Cryer: Yes—in total, five hon. Members could not speak in the debate. They all had genuine reasons for wishing to participate. That shows the falsehood of the Secretary of State's suggestion that there were attempts to delay the legislation.
  Other new clauses will inevitably be curtailed by the fearsome guillotine motion. One deals with controlling excessive charges by private hospitals. We do not like the principle of the Bill, but the Opposition have to make a decision. It is a fairly grey area. Should we continue to oppose the principle or try to ameliorate the worst effects of the legislation by attempting to inject accountability?
  We are trying the latter course, but we have been denied the opportunity to pursue that course, not because we have taken a long time but because of the Government's absolute determination to cram the legislation through Parliament just as they have crammed Bill after Bill through the House.
  The Clerk's Department and Hansard are overloaded with work. Hansard Committee reports are being delayed because the whole system is strained by this wretched Government trampling on parliamentary rights. Not only Opposition Members take that view. Several Conservative Members have seen how the legislature is being abused. I shall not take up too much time telling you about it, Mr.
  526
  Deputy Speaker, but the Government are overstretching the House not only in primary legislation but in secondary' legislation. They pour out more statutory instruments than the Labour Government did. The Government are trampling through the legislature powers to enable Ministers to produce delegated legislation. The Minister for Health smiles. I inform her that such pieces of legislation now exceed 2,500 a year. Often they have criminal sanctions, which are signed and authorised by Ministers. Inadequate time is provided on the Floor of the House to deal with delegated legislation. Parliament is stretched and strained. It is time that we re-examined secondary legislation, because the Government have abused the system.
  We should have had time to debate private hospital charges. When the business statement was made, I suggested that the guillotine motion should include a little time for us to discuss the fact that some 22 Conservative Members have shareholdings in medical concerns that seek to make a profit out of people's pain and suffering. That is what it boils down to. I suggested to the Chief Whip that it would be handy if we had some time set aside to examine how P and O, British and Commonwealth Holdings, Trusthouse Forte and BET have all put their dirty fingers into privatisation. Such companies have given £1 million to the Tories since 1983. We should put that on the record to show that some hon. Members' votes are not as objective and neutral as might be supposed.
  New clause 8 deals with junior doctors. It would limit their week to 72 hours to give them an easy time.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Easier.
  Mr. Cryer: I was being ironic. I know that I should not be ironic, because irony does not show in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman is right. I should have said "an easier time." Junior doctors are strained beyond endurance. Life and limb is at risk. On Boxing day, I joined a group of junior doctors outside Bradford royal infirmary who were demonstrating that they were reaching the point of going beyond endurance. I expect that other hon. Members met doctors in their constituencies on the same day. The doctors told me that lives are at risk.
  I feel slightly seedy today because I have not had any sleep during the past 24 hours, but junior doctors go without sleep for two or three nights. They deal with the most intricate—
  Mr. McCartney: Parts of our body.
  Mr. Cryer: Well, human beings are the most intricate items on our planet.
  The skill and dedication of doctors is a rare combination, yet we inflict such long hours on them. I wanted to debate new clause 8, because I had discussed the difficulties of junior doctors with those whom I met that day. It is because of the Government's action that junior doctors have to endure that penance for their professional determination. The new clause was another opportunity lost because of the Government's attitude of elective dictatorship. That phrase was used by Quintin Hogg about the Labour Government, who did not have a Labour majority. Yet a Government with an overall majority of 150 is abusing their powers in parliamentary legislation. It is time that that was stopped. I hope that many Members, including Tory Members, will vote against the guillotine motion.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) added little to the debate. Whenever he is on his feet, he seems to compete with junior doctors to see who can work the longest hours.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) compared my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to Jekyll and Hyde, but surely the comparison is more appropriate for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). In yesterday's debate, which I think we all felt was a good debate, he started by saying:
  "I stand at the Dispatch Box under the novel burden of speaking to a new clause that has attracted the signatures of more than 30 Conservative Members. I respect their support, in return for which I shall seek to be as non-partisan as it is possible for me to be. I may have to compensate later tonight for that non-partisan spirit."—[Official Report, 13 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 197–8.]
  The hon. Gentleman is the Jekyll and Hyde; that is the reason why we are having to debate the guillotine motion now, which we are all sorry to debate, to curtail the Bill, which is what we want to discuss as it contains so many important issues. This gives us a chance to consider the important matter of how the House does its business.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) commented on the work of Committees. Amendment No. 158 is tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). Perhaps I can remind him of the book "Lobby Fodder" written by the former Member for Gedling, Sir Philip Holland, shortly after he left the House. In it he referred to the history of Standing Committees and said that the original Standing Committees had a membership of only one. That must be the way to proceed rapidly in Committee. There is certainly no opportunity of waffling.
  Amendment No. 158 refers to the need for the Audit Commission to have greater involvement. On Second Reading, I pressed for greater involvement of the Audit Commission. I was aware from constituency experience of the need for the Audit Commission to look at the costs and quality of service provided in community care. Bolton faces a crisis in community care because of a £440,000 shortfall in funding for the neighbourhood network homes. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State is shortly to visit Bolton, when I hope that he will have an opportunity to look into that. I should have liked time to discuss these problems and how the Audit Commission should address them.
  The North-West regional health authority is fixed with a model for how community care should be conducted. It says that the dowry of £18,900 a year which it provides is perfectly adequate to care for people and to provide a reserve, so that those who cannot go into institutions, as they would have done in the old days, can also be cared for. The costs in Bolton are working out much higher, at £22,000 a year, so there is no spare provision to take people in, although there is a desperate need for that facility.
  I should like the health authority to consider alternative models. I have pressed for the chairman to visit Brookvale in the neighbouring constituency of Bury, South and see the high standard of care provided there, on a larger scale than neighbourhood network homes, but at a lower cost. It provides the ample therapy services which are so badly needed, within a total cost of £10,000 a year. Admittedly
  528
  the capital facilities are provided by voluntary donations. I should like to see a similar facility in Bolton, where is desperately needed as it has an historic lack of provision.
  It has not been possible to provide people with care in Bolton, and they have had to be moved elsewhere. Parents, some of whom are frail and elderly, are at their wits' end, unable to care for children who are now in their twenties. They are looking for the provision of those services in Bolton. I should have liked time to discuss that need and the reason for the Audit Commisssion to look closely into why there should be such variations in costs.
  Why should the costs be so high for Bolton's neighbourhood network homes when they are so much lower in Brookvale, where the standard of care is so high? The regional health authority says that there is a cushion for costs in its figure of £18,900. If that is so, what is it, and is it adequate to meet the great demand for care from families who need respite services and daytime therapy services? I am disappointed that the debate developed in a partisan way, as the hon. Member for Livingston clearly wanted. It has denied us the opportunity to discuss many of the positive aspects of the Bill and the need for the Audit Commission to look at a whole range of factors in the NHS and community care. For all of us, the Health Service must be a priority issue in our constituency. Clearly, in the next year or two, community care will have a high priority while we work out how the new arrangement will come into place.
  I welcome yesterday's debate. I should like more occasions like that and fewer when we are forced to debate a timetable motion to save us sitting up all night. Such behaviour is little understood by the public, who want us to discuss the meat of the issues.
  6.35 pm
  Mr Jim Cousins: The problem facing the House goes right back to the Bill itself. It puts a whole range of new bits of political and institutional machinery in place, but it does not spell out how they are to be used or paid for. That is why, after four days of discussion of community care in Committee, we identified two central issues, both of which have to do with money, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out. One related to income support rates, which are a basic building block of the system, and the other to ring-fencing grants. Yesterday evening we spent a further five hours debating income support rates. I doubt whether a single Member feels that even that issue has been sorted out. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield says, we shall not reach ring-fencing.
  Other issues emerged in Committee. On the last day we found that these NHS contracts could, through the back door of the medical negligence system, have some legal status. We were wholly unable to explore the implications of that, although that important point, which also leads back to cash, was there to be resolved.
  We discussed the issue of planning agreements, which is the Government's term for the connections between health services and local authority social services. We were unable to establish in Committee how that system was to be put in place. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales kindly offered a little note that he had done to clarify the position in Wales, but we were not told how the system would work in England.

  529
  Then we had the whole business of NHS contracts. Throughout the Committee stage we pressed for examples to show what those contracts would be like, so that we could see the new creature and sniff it. Finally, the document emerged after the Committee stage was concluded. That is why many more important issues must be discussed and why there are all these new clauses and amendments.
  The Secretary of State made a truly remarkable speech starting at 6.45 am. The bluster to which we have become accustomed was there in his style, but the language was entirely of retreat. Markets were out, prices were out and commerce was out. The whole language of the new system that we have spent many months discussing—all of that was out. The whole thing was going to be need-driven and quality-driven. We discovered that the entire financial system of the NHS that had been rejected was to come back in. In a series of throwaway remarks we discovered that there would be safety-netting for the teaching hospitals, that there would be a special deal for London, that there would be a whole series of special procedures to deal with matters that, having been bundled out through the front door, would be brought back in through the back door. And all that we learnt at a quarter to seven this morning in a speech that lasted for an hour.
  The interesting thing is that, because of the guillotine, we shall now be unable to explore with the Secretary of State the implications of those very important remarks. Was this a U-turn, or was it simply a giddy fit brought on by the hour? We shall never know. Possibly the Secretary of State himself does not know. Had we had an opportunity to explore the new clauses and the other amendments, we—the Secretary of State and the whole House together—might have clarified the position. With our assistance, we might have learnt what he thought. But we shall not now have that opportunity.
  It is interesting that as the Secretary of State was speaking at a quarter to seven this morning I was receiving a message that ward 1 of the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle is about to close. The unit general manager at the hospital is assuring the world that the patients in ward 1, some of whom are seriously ill, could become day patients. That is care in the community with a will.
  That brings me back to the fundamental point: will we have an NHS that is refocused on the new needs that all of us, on both sides of the House, are now willing to recognise? I refer to the needs of the disabled and the elderly—needs that go not so much with life itself as with the quality of living. Are we to build on that? Shall we meet those needs by an entirely new means and drive the cash forward on that basis, or shall we go back to the old system of cash limits? This we do not know, and at a quarter to seven this morning the Secretary of State himself was somewhat confused. Perhaps, given the time, that was understandable.
  The debate about whether the NHS is to be need-driven or cash-controlled, and about what are to be the priority issues—elective acute surgery or the problems that I have just described—will continue. Those issues will remain to be resolved. The Secretary of State, by this guillotine and by other measures, may eventually get his Bill. He may have all these institutional toys to play with, but it is clear
  530
  that he has no answer to our question. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the people have the answer, and they will decide.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate. It has been obvious to all hon. Members on the Government side that progress during the Committee stage of this Bill was excellent. The issues were being discussed. But then my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a remark that Front-Bench members of the Opposition interpreted as criticism of their handling of the position. They did not want to give their trade union paymasters and supporters outside the impression that they were fighting in Committee on a trench warfare basis; they wanted to give the impression that they were fighting a fierce battle. But what we saw after 10 o'clock last night was nothing more than an attempt to filibuster and, for the benefit of people outside, to place on the Government the blame for the shortage of time. Opposition Members have been trying to indicate that they are fighting this Bill much harder than they really are.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hind: I will give way in good time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will get his chance.
  As I looked round the Chamber earlier, it was clear that everybody wanted to debate the issues that are contained in the thick bundle of amendments, which no doubt we have all read carefully. But last night we had a filibuster. We had a two-hour debate on the changing of boundaries. We had a debate about matters in Scotland. We had debates about all sorts of things, including a speech of one hour and 48 minutes by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) who, no doubt, was trying to restore his reputation as a doughty fighter for the Health Service. I am afraid that it came too late.
  To me and, I think, to my colleagues it is very sad that if the obvious had not had to be recognised at 4.15 pm today by a decision that the filibustering tactics—the attempts to prevent reasonable debate on many of the items in these amendments—should be ended, we could have had an extra three hours' debate on many of these important issues. But that was not to be. When the hon. Member for Livingston gave way to me, I gave him an opportunity to agree with that. But he was not prepared to accept the inevitable; he wanted to carry on and to state his objections. Consequently, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), we have been denied the opportunity to deal with the issues of junior hospital doctors, contracts with private hospitals, registers of private contractors, joint financing, contracts of competitive tendering, and the provision of residential care. These are all items contained in this bundle of amendments which, with reasonableness on both sides, could have been debated more than adequately in two and a half days. Now the Opposition do not accept the two and a half days that was agreed through the usual channels, whereas at the beginning they did agree. Now their supporters outside are asking them why they agreed to a timetable, and they have had to demonstrate their parliamentary virility by fighting these matters tooth and nail.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Let me point out, for the hon. Gentleman's information, that there was no agreement. Secondly, in two and a half days there are 60 hours, not 17 hours.
  Mr. Hind: Clearly the hon. Gentleman and the Government Whips are in dispute over that agreement.
  It is a matter of deep regret that, because of last night's tactics, we are being denied the opportunity to debate some of these matters. I am afraid that last night the House of Commons, in the eyes of the public, did itself no good. The public will have seen for the first time the kind of tactics that lead to the need for the guillotine. I hope that they will recognise that, unfortunately, the guillotine is occasionally necessary. I shall go into the Lobby tonight to vote for this guillotine because I know that, by doing so, I can guarantee that, from this point, there will be a sensible debate on important issues.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Daily, the House of Commons does itself no good in the eyes of the public. Last night was one of the few occasions when it has done itself some good in the eyes of the public.
  I shall be brief because other hon. Members will wish to take their only opportunity to comment on the remainder of the legislation. I wish to refer to the arrogance with which the Government have presented the guillotine. The Patronage Secretary and the Secretary of State said that the reason for the guillotine was a breakdown between the usual channels. What commitments were given, if any, is a matter of dispute. For many parties, never mind Members, the usual channels are irrelevant. We are not party to discussions between the usual channels. The Government's argument that we must be punished and denied our rights to comment on part of the legislation because they believe that there has been a breakdown between the usual channels is the ultimate insult to Members who are not responsible for the secret backroom deals between the two Front Benches.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to the procedure that we are asked to authorise, whereby some 100 Government amendments will be taken together, thus depriving us of the right not only to debate them but to vote on them.
  There is another pernicious aspect of the guillotine which is without precedent—the nomination of seven favoured amendments among the 100 or more on the amendment paper. The Government, by some mysterious process, have chosen seven amendments to push through without debate. I should like them to say exactly how those seven amendments were chosen. What was wrong, for example, with new clause 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)? Was there any discussion on the Government Front Bench as to why that modest measure should not be given the favoured treatment given to the seven other amendments? That new clause provides for a commission to offer protection, in terms of quality control of community care in Scotland, for the most vulnerable sections of the community—the mentally handicapped.
  Obviously the force of the argument behind the sever. amendments cannot have caused the Government to accept them, because no argument will be deployed.
  Mr. Battle: New clause 12 has also not been chosen, It concerns last night's debate on residential homes and income support. The Minister promised us that we should return to that issue today. Is he afraid to have such a debate because the Government would suffer the same defeat today as they suffered last night on that issue?
  Mr. Salmond: The point is well made, and I well understand why the Government are frightened. Even in this debate on the guillotine motion, few Conservative voices have been raised to defend the truncation of debate.
  Scottish Members have long since lost the right to decide. On one Bill after another, we have expressed our view of what we believe and what we have learnt from our experience but have found that view swamped by English Members who often, with one or two honourable exceptions, do not even listen to Scottish debates. There is no better example of that than the poll tax legislation, when even the English Tory rebels did not vote against the Scottish legislation because they were not there to hear the arguments. We have lost the right to make decisions on legislation affecting Scotland and we are increasingly losing the right to debate it.
  The Bill is an example of Scottish and English legislation being coupled together denying Scottish Members the opportunity to make their points. We are increasingly losing the right even to register our protests on particular aspects of the legislation. What is so pernicious about the guillotine motion is that Scottish Members will not even be able to register their opposition to specific Government proposals or their support for specific Opposition amendments. That is not only intolerable and insupportable—I suggest to the Government that it will not be accepted by the Scottish people.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I have only about a minute in which to make a quick point. As a member of the Standing Committee, I remind the House that this important Bill has been discussed in Committee, line by line and clause by clause. I hope that no one will suggest that the Opposition's antics to force the guillotine on us means that the Bill will not have been properly considered in the House. It has been properly considered.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) knows precisely why he has chosen his tactics on Report. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) talked of 60 hours being two and a half days, but he knows that that was a delusion. He knows what parliamentary days are because he is a very experienced Member. He should not deny that there were discussions between the Front Benches on how long the Report stage should last—[Interruption.] The hon. Member shakes his head, but I have seen letters written by an hon. Member who is sitting on the Labour Front Bench which expressed that conclusion.
  6.55 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: The guillotine motion is simply a Government attempt to extinguish debate on this most important of Bills. It is a fitting, if grubby, end to the Bill's passage through the House of Commons. The Government's conduct has been marked from the outset by obstinacy and irrationality. I should like to remind the House of the genesis of the Bill—in a cash crisis in the

  533
  National Health Service. Instead of responding to public opinion and the demands that the Government should invest sufficient resources in the Health Service to end the waiting lists and rebuild crumbling hospitals and community services, the Government's response was to set up a review. It was a closed review, undertaken by people with closed minds behind closed doors. There was to be no consultation. The Government were not prepared to enter into a debate.
  The White Paper was published with the announcement that there was to be consultation on the detail. The Government were not prepared to talk to anyone who had anything to say, except those who could suggest how to make these unworkable plans workable. They talked only to people who would agree with them. Even the presidents of the royal colleges were sent packing. The Bill and the White Paper were deeply unpopular among people who worked in the NHS and above all, among the public. That was the case in every region, in Scotland and Wales and among people from all walks of life.
  The Government's response to public opinion was to embark on a campaign of smears and misrepresentation.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.
  Ms. Harman: Yes.
  Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House should know also of the smears offered by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) in her bogus press releases which were issued throughout the land—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I thank the hon. Member very much, but that is nothing to do with the Chair.
  Ms. Harman: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). What he says certainly does not agree with what the Secretary of State would have us believe, which is that the Committee stage was uncontroversial. Perhaps I could tell Members who were not on the Standing Committee that those press releases merely informed the constituents of members of the Committee of their representatives' actions to damage the the Health Service.
  The Government's response to the overwhelming tide of public opinion against the Bill was a campaign of smears and misrepresentation. Let me remind the House of those misrepresentations: that people who were opposed to the Bill must be stupid—they did not understand the Bill; that people who were opposed to the Bill must be dishonest—they understood the Bill but misrepresented it; or that people who were against the Bill must be reactionary and against any change in the Health Service.
  The Government tried to back up that campaign of smears and misrepresentation with £2 million-worth of public money spent on videos, travelling road shows and leaflets to try to dislodge from the public's mind its conviction that the Bill's proposals were profoundly against the public interest.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that the reason why Labour filibustered and disrupted the House last night was that its paymasters in
  534
  COHSE and NUPE were unhappy with the Opposition for not fighting the Bill in Committee, and gave orders that they had to do so last evening?
  Ms. Harman: If the hon. Gentleman was really in touch with the views of voluntary, patient and medical organisations, and with the relevant unions, he would know that they cared as desperately as we did that we should not play into the Government's hands and risk having vital clauses on community care guillotined. We had the support of all those organisations.
  The opportunity was presented on Report for right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland and Wales who did not serve on the Committee but whose constituents are crucially affected by the Bill to make their contributions. Much has been said about the speech of one hour 40 minutes made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but the speech of the Secretary of State lasted one hour 10 minutes. When the Government's campaign of smear and misrepresentation failed, they resorted to cynical assurances and promises that they never intended to keep.
  Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me, as a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in the north-west that is also affected by the Bill, and who has also been denied an opportunity to participate in the debate.
  There is before the House a report by the Select Committee on Social Services which was prepared especially for the Bill's Report stage, but which has not yet been debated, despite attempts by members of that Select Committee over the past two days. The Secretary of State has made no attempt whatsoever to introduce that Committee's recommendations into the debate.
  What are we to do if the topics coverd by that report are guillotined out of debate tonight? What is to be done if the work of the Select Committee can be so positively ignored after it has been directed by the House to prepare a report for specific consideration at the Report stage of a Bill?
  Ms. Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The guillotine will prevent the House from hearing the views of members of that Select Committee and from voting on an amendment from those hon. Members that has been selected by Mr. Speaker. The Government are anxious to impose the guillotine because it will serve as a fig leaf to cover the Government's trail of broken promises and abandoned assurances that was exposed in Committee. We are to be denied an opportunity to insert into the Bill any of the safeguards promised by the Government.
  Last night, the House was given five hours to debate income support. It voted to give protection to the elderly, but it will not have an opportunity to register a similar vote in favour of safeguarding patients who will lose because of the cash limits on drug budgets. Nor will right hon. and hon. Members be allowed to vote on the cash limits on practice budgets, which will also severely harm patients.
  The House will be denied an opportunity to write into the Bill the safeguard that patients should have access to local services, or the Government's promise that patients will have a choice of hospitals. Right hon. and hon. Members will not be allowed to vote on the provision of adequate funds for making care in the community a reality. Nor will the House be able to write into the Bill the choice for people entering residential care of whether that care will be in the private or public sector.

  535
  The Report stage should give right hon. and hon. Members a chance to participate in debate on important issues on the Floor of the House if they were unable to do so in Committee. The guillotine denies them that opportunity. By doing so it also denies their constituents a voice in a matter of great importance to them. For the Government to take that action when they have no mandate to do so, and when there has been no consultation, is a stain on Parliament and on the Government. We shall vote against the guillotine.
  7.4 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): By the time this 62-clause Bill leaves this House, we shall have completed 160 hours of debate. It is an important Bill and one about which right hon. and hon. Members feel deeply, and I shall respond to many of the points made during the debate on the timetable motion.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) argued that no accommodation had been made for many of the points raised in Committee. I dispute that assertion, because many of the suggestions made in Committee have been incorporated. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked for consultation with the medical practices committee before it is given directions, and two Government amendments to that effect have been tabled today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) sought to extend the definition of pharmaceutical services, which is also covered by one of the Government amendments that will be allowed today. Incidentally, I appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye concerning the value of many contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. Certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made a very forceful contribution. He spoke of the importance of consultation on community care plans, as did the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
  It was pointed out that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is well known for his enlightened and benevolent social policies, had written into the Bill a requirement to consult to safeguard the interests of the disabled and the vulnerable. That is contained in an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton which will be supported.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) spoke of the importance of the Audit Commission, and that point was also taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). Again, we have taken note of the views expressed in Committee, and such a provision will be included in the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Tayside, North produced clauses on charitable trust funds, which were also accepted by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton raised the question of university medical academic staff, and his proposals will also be reflected in the Bill.
  One proposal made in Committee that it has not been possible to translate into an acceptable amendment at this stage was from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for a cash payment for the disabled. I anticipate that such a provision would meet with the approval of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. The
  536
  suggestion that there should be a system of empowerment certainly received the support of the hon. Member for Monklands, West in Committee. We shall return to that point with an amendment at a later date. As to the establishment of a complaints procedure, we also agreed to an amendment which will be incorporated in the Bill at a later stage.
  The question of improving assessment was raised several times in Committee, as was the desirability of linking housing and health services. Again, at a later stage we shall introduce amendments covering precisely those aspects.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised the question of the transfer of staff between the National Health Service and local authorities. Again, we shall be bringing forward proposals in that area.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members will feel that we have responded to a great number of the concerns expressed in Committee. As was made clear then, much of the advice and guidance that has been made available is now being translated into further guidance for the benefit of local authorities and others.
  Mr. McCartney: The Minister refers to the advice and guidance that is being taken up. Will she give an assurance that when the Bill goes to another place it will incorporate amendments reflecting the recommendations in the Select Committee on Social Services report?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know that we shall be responding to the Select Committee report. Resources are important, and we have made it clear throughout that adequate resources will be made available. Detailed discussions are taking place between the Department of Social Security and local authorities about the precise nature of the resources. However, it is a misunderstanding of the importance of community care to think that it depends only upon the size of the cheque book. We are seeking to establish assessment, community care plans and inspection units—a framework of care for the frail and the vulnerable which will translate and transform the position of many people who in the past had only the perverse incentive of residential care rather than the range of support in the community for which many hon. Members have campaigned for so long. It is outrageous for hon. Members to argue, as some have today, that there are somehow two Bills which are not closely related. For how long were hon. Members arguing that it was time for the Government to produce proposals implementing the Griffiths report? We now have an ideal opportunity to ensure that people can benefit from enhanced care, better quality patient care and more efficient and effective services in the Health Service and in the community as it is enormously important that local authorities have the opportunity to take up that challenge.
  Returning to the points raised by hon. Members, my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South, (Mr. Cormack) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) all spoke about procedure and the use of timetable motions. I shall of course ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is made aware of those concerns and thoughts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent asked particularly about new clauses 55 and 56 on access to

  537
  information. Although we cannot meet those precise proposals at this stage, we support the objective of openness. The precise nature of the local authority arrangements compared with health authority arrangements are not entirely transferable, but we hope to incorporate some of the ideas in guidance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) spoke warmly about the health proposals and the implications for hospitals such as the James Paget hospital in his constituency. Many hon. Members feel most strongly that under the new system of money following the patient virtue should be rewarded, and that by having a virtuous circle rather than a vicious circle we shall be in a much better position to provide the care that we of all Governments have provided the resources to achieve.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), speaking to his amendment, mentioned the concerns of junior doctors and new clause 8. There has been considerable progress in reducing the hours that junior doctors work, but we are determined that all those involved in the deployment of junior doctors—the consultants, the doctors, the royal colleges and the management—should make further improvements in the hours worked by junior hospital doctors, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that we cannot support his amendment.
  A timetable motion is always regrettable. However, we have had a lengthy and detailed debate on the Bill. Our discussions in Committee have not properly been recognised for providing many constructive and detailed opportunities to examine the clauses line by line resulting in a number of changes and developments which we are incorporating into the Bill. It is a major Bill which provides a major opportunity to ensure that patients are better cared for and that the endeavours of those who work in the Health Service are properly rewarded and that often monopolistic and monolithic health services are devolved and made responsive to patients. It provides general practitioners with an opportunity to influence far more closely the care that they provide for their patients, and, above all, it is a patients' charter.
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary for the disposal of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills).
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 292.

  Division No. 123]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Blair, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Blunkett, David

  Alton, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Buckley, George J.

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Beggs, Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Beith, A. J.

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Carttiss, Michael

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

  Cartwright, John

  538

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lamond, James

  Clay, Bob

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clelland, David

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lewis, Terry

  Cohen, Harry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Coleman, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cousins, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Cox, Tom

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Crowther, Stan

  McCartney, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  McCrea, Rev William

  Cummings, John

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dalyell, Tam

  McFall, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McGrady, Eddie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McKelvey, William

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Madden, Max

  Dobson, Frank

  Maginnis, Ken

  Doran, Frank

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marek, Dr John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martlew, Eric

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Meacher, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meale, Alan

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michael, Alun

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fisher, Mark

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foulkes, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Nellist, Dave

  Galloway, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  George, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pendry, Tom

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Prescott, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Graham, Thomas

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Radice, Giles

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Randall, Stuart

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Richardson, Jo

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Robertson, George

  Henderson, Doug

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Howells, Geraint

  Salmond, Alex

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hoyle, Doug

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Sillars, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

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

  Janner, Greville

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kennedy, Charles

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Kilfedder, James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  539

  Stott, Roger

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Wilson, Brian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Wallace, James

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. John Battle.

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alexander, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Allason, Rupert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amos, Alan

  Dover, Den

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Atkins, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Favell, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baldry, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forman, Nigel

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Benyon, W.

  Franks, Cecil

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gardiner, George

  Boswell, Tim

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bowis, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gorst, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Gow, Ian

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

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

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gregory, Conal

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Grist, Ian

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Ground, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Grylls, Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Hague, William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cash, William

  Hannam, John

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Alan

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

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Conway, Derek

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hill, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Couchman, James

  Holt, Richard

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dlord)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  540

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Irvine, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Janman, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, Sir David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Key, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Rost, Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knowles, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knox, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lang, Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Peter

  Speed, Keith

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Speller, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stern, Michael

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stevens, Lewis

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Madel, David

  Sumberg, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Marlow, Tony

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thorne, Neil

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mellor, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Trippier, David

  Mills, Iain

  Trotter, Neville

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Moate, Roger

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walden, George

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Ward, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wilkinson, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wilshire, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Paice, James

  Wolfson, Mark

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wood, Timothy

  Patnick, Irvine

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  541

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 210.

  Division No. 124]

  [7.27 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Allason, Rupert

  Dunn, Bob

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amos, Alan

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Favell, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkins, Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baldry, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Franks, Cecil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gale, Roger

  Benyon, W.

  Gardiner, George

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gorst, John

  Bowis, John

  Gow, Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gregory, Conal

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bright, Graham

  Grist, Ian

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

  Ground, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grylls, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hague, William

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Chris

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayward, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Conway, Derek

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Irvine, Michael

  Curry, David

  Irving, Sir Charles

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

  Jack, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jackson, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  542

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Key, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rost, Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knowles, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lang, Ian

  Shelton, Sir William

  Latham, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sims, Roger

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Speed, Keith

  Lilley, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin

  Lord, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Madel, David

  Sumberg, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Marlow, Tony

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thorne, Neil

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mellor, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Trippier, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moate, Roger

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walden, George

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Waller, Gary

  Neale, Gerrard

  Ward, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Neubert, Michael

  Watts, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wells, Bowen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Wilkinson, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wilshire, David

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wolfson, Mark

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wood, Timothy

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Pawsey, James

  Yeo, Tim

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Portillo, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Price, Sir David

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  543

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Allen, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Alton, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Anderson, Donald

  Gould, Bryan

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Graham, Thomas

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Barron, Kevin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Henderson, Doug

  Beggs, Roy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Home Robertson, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Blair, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Blunkett, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Boateng, Paul

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Caborn, Richard

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kilfedder, James

  Clay, Bob

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clelland, David

  Lamond, James

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cohen, Harry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Coleman, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Livsey, Richard

  Corbett, Robin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cox, Tom

  Loyden, Eddie

  Crowther, Stan

  McAllion, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cummings, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Darling, Alistair

  McFall, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  McKelvey, William

  Dewar, Donald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Doran, Frank

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marek, Dr John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martlew, Eric

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Meacher, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meale, Alan

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michael, Alun

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fisher, Mark

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foulkes, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Nellist, Dave

  Galloway, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  George, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  544

  Pendry, Tom

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Soley, Clive

  Prescott, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Randall, Stuart

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

  Redmond, Martin

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Turner, Dennis

  Richardson, Jo

  Wallace, James

  Robertson, George

  Walley, Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wilson, Brian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sillars, Jim

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. John Battle.

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

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days.
  (2) The proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the first allotted day.
  (3) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
  (4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply.

  Dilatory Motions
  2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  3.—(1) On an allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill, but on the first allotted day it shall apply only for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) On the first allotted day, any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Estimates
  5. Proceedings on the Bill or on any private business taken under paragraph 4 of this Order shall not be interrupted for

  545
  the purposes of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting on estimates etc.) and if on an allotted day Mr. Speaker is directed by that Standing Order (as modified by the Order of the House [12th March]) to put questions at Ten o'clock he shall put those questions at Ten o'clock or at the conclusion of the proceedings on the private business, whichever is the later.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  6.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put (so far as they are applicable and notwithstanding any Order of the House relating to the order in which the Bill is to be considered) the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question that such of the amendments 139 to 141, 158, 256, 275, 276 and 341 as remain to be made be made to the Bill;

  (d) the Question that the new Schedule (amendment 269) be added to the Bill;

  (e) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

  (f) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20
  546
  stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  (7).—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required or a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  8. Nothing in this Order shall

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  9.—(1) References in this Order to proceeding on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stage, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  10. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

Orders of the Day

  National Health Service and Community Care Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  [Relevant documents: Eighth Report, Session 1988–89, Resourcing the National Health Service: the Government's plans for the future of the NHS (House of Commons Paper No. 214-III); Second Report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Future funding of Private and Voluntary Residential Care (House of Commons Paper No. 257); Third Report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Funding for local authorities (House of Commons Paper No. 277); Minutes of Evidence taken on 17th, 24th and 31st January 1990 (House of Commons Papers No. 148-i, 173-i and 194-i); and the Government's Reply to the Eighth Report of Session 1988–89 (Cm. 851).]
  Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that, in the light of the vote, it is not our intention to move new clause 7. It might also be convenient to the House if we grouped new clauses 9 and 11 together, as they relate to competitive tendering.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is most helpful and certainly acceptable to the Chair and, I am sure, the House.

  National Health Service and Community Care Bill
    New clause 6

      FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITIES AND HEALTH BOARDS (APPEALS FUNCTION)
      '(1) A patient who is removed by a general medical practitioner from the patient list of that practice shall have a right of appeal to the Family Health Services Authority.
      (2) On receiving an appeal under subsection (1) a Family Health Services Authority or a health board in Scotland shall determine whether:

      (a) the decision to remove the appellant was based on a breakdown of the relationship between patient and general practitioner or

      (b) the decision to remove the appellant was based on financial or other reasons.

      (3) Where the Family Services Authority determines under subsection (2) above that a breakdown of relationship with the patient was not the sole or main reason for removing the patient they shall require the general medical practitioner to restore the patient.'.—[Ms. Harman.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      7.39 pm
      Ms. Harriet Harman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the new clause is to protect patients. Under the new business ethos imposed on the family doctor service, every patient will have a price tag on his head. For some patients, that price will be too high for their doctor and they will risk being culled from their general practitioner's list.
      The tragedy is that the new clause is necessary because there will be pressure to jettison uneconomic patients, which will be exerted in three ways. First, the pressure will come from the new GP contract imposed on the family doctor service. Secondly, pressure will come from the cash
      548
      limits on the amount of drugs that family doctors can prescribe, and, thirdly, because of cash limits on the funds of those GPs who opt to hold their own practice budgets.
      The GPs have been doing their sums, and they have discovered that, in some cases, the removal of a family that refuses immunisation for their children could make a difference of more than £3,000 to them. Doctors are also discovering that they could be better off if they removed from their lists some women who, possibly for perfectly good reasons, do not want or do not need a cervical smear. They have also discovered that they could be better off if they removed from their lists elderly and chronically ill patients who might need night visits.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Some GPs have discovered that, if they exclude a convent from their lists, they would no longer be penalised for failing to meet cervical smear targets, which would be wholly inappropriate and unnecessary for such patients.
      Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the inflexibility of the target system.
      Doctors have done their sums, they know how things are working out and we must listen to them. Patient organisations share the fears expressed by doctors because they will be made vulnerable in a situation in which they have no rights. At the very least, the Government should accept the new clause, as it would give such vulnerable patients at least some legal protection.
      The Government are also making patients vulnerable through the cash-limited indicative drug budget. There is no doubt that that budget will be cash-limited, because the aim of that budget, as stated by the Government, is a downward pressure on spending. The Government refused to accept our amendment that would have meant no cash limits on indicative drug budgets and that no patient would be denied a necessary drug as a result of such cash limiting. For all their assurances, the Government refused to accept our amendment; therefore, their assurances are in flat contradiction of the intention behind that indicative drug budget and their refusal to accept our amendment.
      Patients who need a large number of drugs, such as those who suffer from cystic fibrosis, whose drugs can cost as much as £1,000 per month, or patients who need hormone replacement therapy or fertility treatment may find that their GPs overspend their drug budgets and thus risk having their pay docked. In such circumstances, those who use many drugs will soon turn into uneconomic patients—GPs have already expressed their fear about that. Given that the indicative drug budget is a mechanism for downward pressure on spending, it poses a threat to those whose continued presence on GP lists creates an upward pressure on spending.
      The Government are also making patients vulnerable through cash limits on fund-holding practices, as those doctors who opt to become fund-holders will have their budgets cash-limited. The Government have repeatedly denied that, but the British Medical Association believes that that is the Government's aim. The White Paper said that the accident and emergency departments of hospitals would be monitored to see whether the patients in those departments are genuine cases instead of refugees from practices where the budget is running out and the doctor has advised patients to avoid a cash limit on the budget by going to casualty in an attempt to be taken in as an accident and emergency case.

      549
      With a cash limit on drugs, hospital tests and treatments, the elderly or chronically sick patient could soon become uneconomic for the GP who is a practice budget holder. The Secretary of State and other Ministers have said that hundreds of applications have been received from GPs who want to become budget holders. The least that the Secretary of State could do would be to place the names of the relevant practices in the Library, so that patients depending on those practices will know whether their GP is planning to opt out.
      7.45 pm
      I note that the Secretary of State smiles, but why should there be anything to hide? I also want to know about the nature of the applications: are we talking about a vague expression of interest or something much firmer? We should know the details. It is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make assertions and then laugh when we ask for further and better particulars.
      The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Lady has said that I was laughing, but my immediate thought was how she would react the moment she got the list of the particular doctors. Given her approach to the Bill from beginning to end, she would circulate the areas of the practices involved with leaflets giving her broad-brush descriptions of our proposals, as she has just done, to try to frighten the patients about that prospect. I disapprove of the approach that the hon. Lady has consistently adopted to our proposals. Those doctors who have expressed an interest in being fund holders—850 practices have done so—would deeply disapprove of the hon. Lady's campaigning style being brought to bear on their patients.
      Ms. Harman: The Secretary of State should allow the patients and the community served by those practices to judge for themselves whether they accept our fears or whether they are prepared to accept the Secretary of State's assurances. He does not want us to know the details, because he knows that we share the concerns of the patients and that he is out of touch with them.
      On previous occasions, the Secretary of State and other Ministers have asked why doctors would take the decision to be a budget holder if it was likely to be so damaging to their patients. Under the new NHS contract system, GPs will be caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. If they stay as they are, they will lose their most important clinical freedom and right to operate on behalf of their patients—exercising choice about where to go for tests and treatments. If doctors opt for a practice budget, it will be cash-limited, and that will have a chilling effect on the drugs, tests and treatment that they are able to offer their patients. It might even lead to doctors having to cull patients from their lists. Doctors are faced with an invidious choice, and those patients whose GPs become budget holders may be put at risk if they are uneconomic.
      Our new clause gives patients a right of appeal. If a patient is not struck off a list because of a breakdown in relations, the family health services authority will have the opportunity to reinstate the patient on a GP's list. We are not talking about those circumstances in which the patient and the GP have a genuine row, but where patients become
      550
      uneconomic because of the three reasons I have given. In those circumstances, there is a financial disincentive in keeping that patient on the list.
      When such cases come to light, it will be no good the Secretary of State blaming the doctors and saying that they represent the rotten apple in the barrel. It is no good the Secretary of State simply accusing us of scaremongering. There is genuine concern among patients and doctors. The new clause is backed by the Consumers Association.
      We remain fundamentally opposed to cash limits on indicative drug budgets and to cash-limited practice budgets. There is not a shred of evidence that the family doctor service is extravagant or bad value for money, yet the Government press ahead with a whole range of cash limits to try to cheapen the family doctor service.
      The next Labour Government will ensure that the family doctor service is free to put patients first and care before cash. The least the Government should do now is give patients the benefit of the doubt in situations where there is great upheaval in the family doctor service. The new clause would provide a safety net in those circumstances.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If I respond briefly to the remarks of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), hon. Members may be able to confine their remarks later and thereby help to deal with the shortage of time.
      I have considerable respect for the hon. Lady as a political opponent, but at times I find her political style startling, even somewhat unpleasant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] She relies on the repeated assertion, in somewhat strident terms, of alleged facts about our reforms which we have demonstrated time and again to everybody else's satisfaction—and I sometimes think to hers—are totally factually untrue.
      The hon. Lady revived yet again her usual talk about cash-limited drug budgets leading to people with serious conditions perhaps being threatened with loss of treatment. She knows that we have satisfied everybody, from the BMA onwards, that that is not the case. She used a dreadful phrase about patients being culled from doctors' lists, when we have demonstrated in all the cases that she has raised that talk about it being the consequence of the contract and so on is utter nonsense.
      The hon. Lady puts such matters forth in letters, press releases and speeches in chilling tones, regardless of the factual background to what she is talking about and with the deliberate intention of trying to whip up fears, particularly among patients, about the consequences for them of things which she says are in reports.
      When the hon. Lady cannot bring herself to make a totally untrue assertion yet again, she has started using the phrase, "Doctors have said that." The Daily Mirror is fond of that sort of statement. I am reminded of those cheapjack advertisements making ridiculous claims for some fringe product which say, "Doctors have said that," and then a startling and unsupportable proposition is made on behalf of some dubious product.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that the underlying impression given by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) about doctors disposing of patients and so on is that doctors are money-grabbing and uncaring. The bottom line of such remarks must represent a deep criticism of doctors, casting

      551
      doubt on their dedication and veracity. Not only do I believe her to be wrong, but there is no reason to believe that doctors would behave in the way she suggests.
      Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. As for doctors culling patients, the hon. Lady once cited a case on the Floor of the House which I was able to identify and follow up. She knows that the doctor concerned made no claim that the removal of the patient from his list had anything to do with our review or with the White Paper. I imagine that the hon. Lady has seen the correspondence in that case.
      I looked into a similar case in Burnley. After the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) raised the case with me, the doctor concerned persisted in allegations, although he was unable to substantiate them. In the case cited by the hon. Member for Peckham, the doctor made no attempt to claim to me that the incident that she was exploiting had anything to do with my White Paper or with the contract proposals.
      Ms. Harman: Publicity was attracted to the case to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, my having raised it in the House. I am afraid that the doctor withdrew the comments that he had originally made—[Interruption.] My assistant telephoned the doctor and asked him to give his version of why the patient in question had been struck off, and he told my assistant that the woman was an uneconomic patient because of her requirement for night visits. He patiently explained to my assistant how the new deputising rules would work and how the patient would mean him being out of pocket. My assistant took a verbatim note—I asked her to take such a note, being myself legally trained—and when the matter was raised in Parliament, the doctor changed his story. That is an honest description of the position.
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady now knows that he withdrew it because he could not substantiate the claims that he had made to her assistant. The hon. Lady alleged that the patient—who turned out to have had a long history of a somewhat difficult relationship with the doctor—would be more costly because she required night visits. As the hon. Lady knows, under the former arrangements, for each night visit the doctor concerned received £20·25. Under the new contract, from the beginning of next year he will receive £15 if he uses a deputising service but £45 for each visit made personally or made by a colleague from his practice or from a local group.
      In that case, the doctor did not persist in the claim because it was plainly not true. It was clear that the claim that there was some financial motive for removing the patient from the list was a fiction. From the doctor's point of view, it was probably a polite excuse to a patient whom he wished to get removed from his list because patient and doctor were not getting on well.
      If the hon. Lady wishes to persist in such matters, she must look at the consequences of the new contract, which she knows, above all else, places obligations on doctors to extend their services to their patients in many cases, for example, by offering initial check-ups, check-ups every three years, and annual contacts for the over-75s and so on. It increases the payments for patients over 65 and 75 compared with the previous position and pays doctors for services that they may choose to offer or targets that they may seek to attain.
      552
      We have debated the contract. It is nonsense for any doctor to seek to demonstrate that a particular patient is being removed from the list because the financial attractiveness of that patient is less than it was under the old contract. Only the Daily Mirror still pursues that campaign and only the hon. Lady seeks to give it some credibility by persisting in the matter.
      If I were to go over the whole question of cash-limited drug budgets, I would encroach on the time available to other hon. Members. It was a total invention from the word go to suggest that drug budgets would be cash-limited. We rely on the White Paper and everything that has flowed from it to disprove that. We have made it clear all along that in no circumstances would any patient ever be refused the medication or equipment that he or she used and that no doctor would be exposed to any risk of penalty for giving drugs or equipment to a patient who needed them. The hon. Member for Peckham knows that those assurances are reliable and have been accepted by everybody. She just likes, for campaigning reasons, to keep a heavy emphasis on cash-limited drug budgets. with references to other patients.
      Underlying all that is a problem which hon. Members might seriously wish to address, and that is what happens when the relationship between doctor and patient breaks down or becomes troublesome to one or the other, without necessarily there being any fault on either side. I am not talking about pharmaceutical treatment. It may be, in conversational terms, that the chemistry does not work between a doctor and patient.
      Since the NHS began, a doctor has always had an absolute right to ask a patient to withdraw from his list without giving any reason.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If what the right hon. and learned Gentlemen says is true, why did he not include in the Bill a simple clause saying that a general practitioner shall not do any of the things that we are suggesting a GP might be in a position to do? Had he done that, we would not be having this discussion.
      Mr. Clarke: I am not sure that it is right to take away from the doctor the right to say to a patient, "I would rather you left my list", or "I would rather your family left my list." The trouble with the new clause is that it will present the doctor with serious difficulties because it insists that a patient can go through an appeal process and get on to that doctor's list. There is no doubt that the doctor-patient relationship should, wherever possible, be based on a good relationship of confidence and trust on both sides. There may be occasions where a responsible GP has perfectly good reasons for not wanting a patient any more. It is seriously debatable whether it would be in everybody's interests to introduce such an appeal process.
      The snag is that, as every doctor knows, there has always been a small minority of doctors who, over the years, have been reluctant to take on certain patients. There is no doubt that under whichever system—it has nothing to do with my reforms or the new contract—some patients impose a much greater workload on the doctor and the practice than others.
      8 pm
      If there are many chronically sick and elderly patients and patients who have intensive courses of care, there is no doubt that those patients make up the doctor's workload. Most doctors are lucky enough to have their work with

      553
      those patients compensated for, to some extent, by a raft of patients on the list who are never ill from one year to the next and whom they never see. The method of paying doctors has always included capitation and a combination of other factors so that the list as a whole is the basis of the GP's remuneration.
      There have always been some doctors who have been extremely reluctant to take on to their lists elderly people, the chronically sick and people who might make demands on them at night. The British Medical Association and I would describe as unscrupulous any doctor who took this policy too far. The vast majority of doctors are not like that and accept that it is largely chance that determines their workload. They accept that it is their professional duty to give the best treatment that they can to their patients, in line with their needs. Recently, a few doctors who want to shed their workload and have had difficulty trying to find a reason for shaking off a difficult patient have slipped into the habit of blaming the reforms or the new contracts. I regret that they are being encouraged in that by the hon. Member for Peckham.
      The idea that in future we should announce a formal appeal mechanism to allow patients who do not want to be removed from the doctor's list to get on to that list is debatable. In the last resort, if a patient cannot get a doctor—there are some patients who have been on every doctor's list and there is no longer a doctor left who is willing to accept them—there is a provision whereby the family practitioner committee can require a nominated doctor to take the patient on to his or her list.
      It is difficult to improve on that system. Sometimes one feels sorry for a patient who has been removed for no apparent reason, and there is nothing that one can do about it. However, I say on behalf of the Government, and personally, that I am not attracted to a full appeal mechanism whereby patients can try to force themselves back on to the list of a GP who may have perfectly good personal or professional reasons for not wanting the patient.
      I rose early in the debate because I felt that this issue should be disentangled from the Bill. To campaign and frighten elderly patients by saying that they will be "culled"—that was the word used—from their GP's list because of our proposals is distasteful, disreputable and takes campaigning against the proposals much too far.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that we are debating this issue under tight time constraints.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to be called immediately after the Secretary of State, who constantly amazes me. I always think of him as a decent man somewhere inside a less decent man, and the decent man is sometimes trying to get out. He had a cheek to talk about unpleasantness on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) as he has not been at all pleasant in the way in whch he has dealt with medical and ambulance matters in the past few months. I have twice attended debates in the House about the ambulance service from which the Secretary of State has been absent. I am glad that he is here today. His last contribution was more in the line of the decent right hon. and learned
      554
      Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who, I am sure, uses his best bedside manner on the patients who come to his surgery, as they come to all of us.
      I agree immediately with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the relationship between the general practitioner and his or her patients is absolutely fundamental—just as there is, or should be, a fundamental relationship between any of us who aspire to be reasonable Members of Parliament and our constituents. The analogy is not that far from the truth. The trouble is that the Secretary of State has misunderstood the inevitable overall effect of the Bill, when enacted, on that relationship. As I understand it, he has accurately outlined the present position—any GP can ask any patient or tell the family practitioner committee that a patient will no longer be on his panel. Similarly, patients can remove themselves from doctors' lists. The reserve power that he mentioned works quite well psychologically, and doctors and the officers of the FPC keep some sort of equilibrium. Until two days ago I was unaware that that was the system.
      Why do my hon. Friends and I feel it necessary to support an amendment which adds to the system? Is it not true that the relationship between a patient and a doctor is extremely personal and crucial? In another context we use the phrases "in sickness or in health," and "for better, for worse". We all know that at some time any of us might have an interview with our GP which could have the gravest implications for us and our families. We know of friends and relatives who have gone through that.
      The Bill could potentially—I believe that it will—transform the fundamental relationship between GPs and our constituents. That means that 60,000 to 80,000 people per hon. Member—perhaps 60,000 or 70,000 of the Secretary of State's own constituents—could be affected. The conditions in which all general practitioners function will be greatly changed. Those conditions will be changed from a structure which many doctors who are middle aged and older have experienced, and in which they were brought up. The younger ones believe that the framework of their chosen profession may not be perfect but it should not be primarily a business concern, involving constant calculations about costs, time and choice of hospital, in the structure presented in the Bill and about which we have heard ad nauseam in the past few months.
      The attitude of mind that all GPs must bring to their profession could be transformed by the Bill. If that did not happen, the Government would consider the Bill a failure. Therefore, the circumstances in which doctors meet patients, organise their daily lives, work out their accounts, relate to partners in the same practice, relate to the FPC and consultants in this, that or the other type of new hospital together with other changes that will rapidly come about as a result of the Bill, will transform their attitudes.
      The attitude of the patient to the doctor will inevitably change. The Secretary of State has said,—he may be absolutely sincere in this,—that there will be no element of disincentive to dissuade doctors from taking on patients. He upbraided my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham for suggesting such a thing. However, there has been sufficient evidence in Committee, in the House and from general practitioners to show that many patients will not believe that. The Secretary of State is a politician, as we all are, and he knows that it is not a matter of what it is, but what the voters think that it is. That is real politics as we know to our cost and sometimes to our benefit. If there is

      555
      a scintilla of suspicion by any patient that the doctor's attitude is being influenced or even controlled by some force that is beyond the doctor's professional opinion, the relationship between them will be ruptured or at the very least it will not be so good as it is under the current system.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, but does he agree with me that he should discourage those members of his party who run campaigns suggesting that doctors will wish to cull elderly patients from their lists? That gives the individual elderly patient a feeling of unease. He wonders, "Will my doctor throw me off his list? Am I somehow an expense to my doctor that he does not want?" That is a fiction, but it is the kind of political campaign which causes unease to patients and damages the relationship between patient and doctor.
      Mr. Spearing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is repeating what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham. I understand that organisations representing vulnerable people have said virtually the same thing. We do not know the details and consequences of the structure being erected because there has been little experiment or trials with it. General practitioners view that structure with considerable apprehension. On that fact alone, I suggest that my remarks are accurate.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman's premises are fundamentally wrong because the Bill does not necessarily support what general practitioners regard as good, professional medicine and practice. If he had asked them in what way they wanted to improve the medical service, he might have come up with something better.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. The fears of doctors and patients are not thought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and the Daily Mirror in some Pied Piper of Hamlin conspiracy to mislead everyone. We can all look across the water to the United States of America where doctors no longer make house calls because they are compelled to have a commercial attitude. In this country, thank God, someone can still ask for a house call without worrying whether he will be thought to be a burdensome patient. We want to preserve that system, but doctors and patients are worried that it may be lost. That fear has not been dredged up by the Daily Mirror—it is deep in the consciousness of all who value the NHS.
      Mr. Spearing: I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall conclude with two facts which illustrate both what he has said and the case that I am making.
      A few months ago a man came to my surgery. He was ill and he was also nursing a sick wife. He was concerned because he thought that his general practitioner was not providing sufficient medication. He said that his wife was sometimes screaming with pain because painkillers were not available. I thought that he was right. I made inquiries of the City and East London family practitioner committee, which said that some sort of monitoring was taking place and that the doctor in question had been given a communication on the matter.
      The doctor's judgment may have been correct—I take it from the FPC that he is a humane and considerate doctor—but the position that I have outlined exists today under the present structure, even before the other criteria proposed by the Secretary of State are introduced.
      556
      My second fact, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot deny, is his view—as I understand it from general practitioners—that there will be some movement between good general practitioners and less good general practitioners. I understand that a good general practitioner thinks that about 2,000 patients on a mixed list is about right, given some sort of balance. Is it not a fact—the right hon. and learned Gentleman can deny it if he so wishes—that, as with the hospital structure, he foresees that the good general practitioners will attract more patients and that the not-so-good ones will attract fewer patients?
      8.15 pm
      I understand from doctors that, once over that figure, time is taken up, pressure raised and the job becomes difficult to do. Market forces do not operate in a doctor's surgery as they do on a production line, but unless doctors have misunderstood the position, they believe that to be the assumption behind most of the legislation—which is at its worst in respect of the opting-out provisions for hospitals that we debated earlier. Time and again we have heard that the most effective and efficient unit will attract more so that unit costs will reduce and everybody will gain—even if they have to go up the motorway in an ambulance. That is the Government's philosophy. It will not work for general practitioners and it will not work for the NHS.
      The Government are undermining that tracery of human relationships on which most medicine works and they stand in danger of taking away the nerve trains within the Health Service. It is fatal for the body when the nerve trains are attacked. The Government should have ascertained more about the problems. If they continue with their proposals, the Health Service as we know it today, which has been built up over many years with the support of professional organisations, will be ruined. That will be the responsibility of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who lies behind that dreadful market philosophy.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall be brief. As both the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) acknowledged, there is a difficult balance to be struck. Articles about general practitioners have appeared in the Daily Mirror from time to time. My concern is not the concern expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about general practitioners. He has proved himself adept in and enthusiastic about doctor bashing, so it is rather ironic for him to rise to their defence like a knight in shining armour.
      If too much emphasis is placed on the suggestion that doctors will want to shift patients from their lists—I do not accuse the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) of doing that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did—there will be genuine anxiety. However, my political concern is that it helps to add to the rhetoric in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has invested so much time, not least about the contract.
      I recognise the practical problems outlined by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but some reassurance is needed. A nod in the direction of an appeal mechanism would be at least a step forward. However, the problem lies rather deeper than that, in the practical impact of the contract. We have debated contracts with the Secretary of State both in Committee and in the House, and I repeat the

      557
      point that it is only logical, given the financial underpinning of the new contract, that, if there is to be an incentive for doctors to move to larger lists, many patients may find treatment inadequate. In areas such as mine, the Borders, and other rural parts, the right of appeal raises the legitimate question whether, as the list sizes of GPs grow to such an extent, the practices will be viable in terms of patient care.
      What is the equivalent right of appeal for a patient who may want to move to an adjoining practice but in an area which is sparsely populated or geographically spread? We might be talking about a practice which is 20 miles away. That would not offer people without access to transport facilities the kind of patient choice which the Secretary of State tells us he is anxious to establish through the Bill. Therefore, does the Secretary of State feel that there is a deficiency in the legislation because it does not deal properly with appeals? Although he may not be sympathetic to the right of appeal outlined in the new clause, he may feel that the principle should be enshrined in the legislation.
      Two basic points are not adequately addressed by the Bill. The first relates to the resources put into general practice. The Secretary of State outlined how GPs can benefit financially from the range of services offered, the number of voluntary calls, spot checking and so on. If we are advocating a preventative medicine approach, I do not think that enough emphasis has been placed on public campaigns and on public involvement. A golden opportunity has been missed.
      In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke about the practical idiocy involved in the new contract when we consider the circumstances of key categories of patients. As the Secretary of State will be aware, that has given rise to much concern.
      The extreme example of cervical testing in convents has been mentioned, but there have been many examples, as I am sure the Secretary of State has seen, of single female patients having had unfortunate experiences in trying to establish virginity. We can think of the effect that that would have on the doctor-patient relationship. I hope that that will be taken into account by the Secretary of State, however dismissive he is of the clause as drafted.
      Patients should have a greater say and should be conversant with their rights. They should have an input to the range of services and options for treatment offered by their GP. If there is not to be an appeal system, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have taken the new clause as a green light for a proper patients' charter. The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) has played a distinguished role in furthering the issue in recent years, and there has been cross-party support for a charter.
      The opportunity has been missed to introduce a patients' charter, whatever the BMA might have said. The Secretary of State has accused those on the Labour Front Bench of using foul means. On a constituency basis, he must be aware that many people are concerned, because uncertainty and change always create concern among patients. Surely he recognises that much of the sting could have been taken out of the issue by the introduction of a
      558
      charter. Although the Secretary of State dismisses the clause as drafted, many of the issues raised by it are legitimate and highlight deficiencies in the legislation and in the contract which could have been remedied, but sadly have not been.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I cannot support the new clause, because the concept behind it is improbable. If my general practitioner did not want me on his list, I could not see myself appealing to remain on it, because the doctor-patient relationship is one of trust and confidence, and if that is damaged the object of having an appeal is unimportant.
      If I could catch the attention of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), I think she strayed, perhaps inadvertently, on to a subject which deserves more consideration than it has been given. I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that there should be targets for things like cervical smears and immunisation. He is right to set target figures at which the maximum remuneration will be paid.
      The question that worries me was addressed in an article in The Daily Telegraph only last week by Dr. John Lockley. He put a simple case: if a doctor asked all his women patients whether they would agree to a cervical smear and 79 per cent. agreed, but the effective I per cent. said no, he would lose perhaps as much as £1,000 in remuneration because of one or two patients whom another GP might not want on his list.
      By the same token, if a GP offered immunisation to mothers of young children and if 89 per cent. agreed to immunisation but the essential 1 per cent. refused, the doctor would lose the remuneration which he might reasonably expect to get because the service had been offered. It would not be the unwillingness of the doctor to provide the service that denied him the remuneration, but the refusal of the patient to take up the service that was on offer. Therefore, it seems difficult to sustain the argument that that will not affect the attitude of doctors or will not put a strain on doctor-patient relationship unless we can find another way of satisfying the requirement of the target.
      Dr. Lockley offered a solution. He suggested that, if a lady patient refused a cervical smear, the doctor should be allowed to ask her to sign a form confirming that he had offered the service but that she did not want it. If a doctor could show that he would have crossed the target line, he should be able to obtain the maximum remuneration because in effect he was offering a service which was not taken up. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to address that point in his reply.
      On drug budgets, I have no difficulty in supporting the concept of a GP having a cash-limited drug budget. The medical profession should be as answerable as any other on how it spends money. I declare an interest as a kidney patient and as president of a kidney charity. I am fortunate enough not only to be on dialysis but to receive a drug called erythropoetin as a dialysis patient. That drug has made all the difference to my haemoglobin level, my energy level and, indeed, to my general well-being. Any kidney dialysis patient suffering from anaemia, a very common problem with kidney failure, will want to be on EPO if possible.
      My consultant told me that he did not have enough money to afford to give all the renal patients in his ward that drug. He wondered whether I would mind asking my

      559
      GP whether he would prescribe the drug for me. I duly wrote to my GP with that request and my GP came to see me. He said, "Of course I'll prescribe it. I know you, and I have treated you ever since your kidneys failed." However. he told me that he was worried because he said that he was not my consultant and the drug is not licensed. He said, "I don't know its side effects, but I have been asked to prescribe it for you wondering to myself whether I am entering into a commitment which may have some unforeseen results." He questioned whether that was calling his professional judgment to account. He wondered whether he should be indemnified or whether he should ask the Department to give a ruling to clarify the position.
      8.30 pm
      If a consultant can do that with an unlicensed drug, why can another consultant not do the same? Will the GP, with his cash-limited drug budget, be able to absorb that cost which originally belonged to a hospital, but which the hospital is passing to the GP to enable the hospital to provide the drug to more people? That is an important point, although I admit that it affects only a small number of people in terms of kidney patients. However, that is an example of what might happen in future.
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: I will be very brief. When the Secretary of State said that the only people who were raising alarm were people like my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), he was misleading the House.
      Many organisations representing ill people or people who need special services have produced for hon. Members on both sides of the House briefs expressing their fears. I want to refer to a very respected association—the Family Planning Association—which has expressed fears similar to those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham.
      There have been many reports in the media about patients being struck off a GP's list. Three of my constituents were struck off in as many months. I am very concerned, because they belong to a particular category of people. They were all women with young children, and arguably they would all take up a lot of a GP's time.
      In its brief, which it sent to hon. Members on 21 February, the Family Planning Association states that it is
      "deeply concerned that women requiring certain treatment due to reproductive health problems could either be at risk of being dropped from their existing GP's lists or find it hard to register with another practice. These women need the security"
      of the proposals in the new clause
      "which place a legal obligation on … authorities to ensure that all people within it's registered population have access to a GP who can meet their needs."
      The Family Planning Association refers also to women who need treatment for infertility or for chronic gynaecological complaints such as endometriosis, which require expensive drugs or referrals. Many consultants and GPs consider the profitability of the patient. We cannot get away from that.
      The Family Planning Association is also concerned that women between the ages of 25 and 64 who do not want a smear test or have the test elsewhere, such as at a family planning clinic, may find themselves unwelcome because their presence on a GP's list affects the doctor's payment for carrying out the tests. That could also apply to people with HIV or full-blown AIDS, and they could experience difficulty.
      560
      I have referred only to a brief from the Family Planning Association because I am deeply concerned that women's health problems will be affected by the Bill. I am sure that other hon. Members could pick a dozen others which stress the same problems. That is not scaremongering: it is telling the truth. Those organisations are responsible, and the Secretary of State should take note of them.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I must declare an interest as I have been married to a general practitioner for 30 years and I am also an adviser to two pharmaceutical companies.
      I do not think that the scenario painted by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is likely to happen initially. However, I emphasise "initially". If it happens, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have to live with it because he included the provision in the contract in the first place.
      I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson). My hon. Friend referred to articles that appeared in the Daily Mirror. Articles also appeared in The Daily Telegraph, as my hon. Friend for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) said, and I would be happy to pass a copy of it to my right hon. and learned Friend if he has not seen it.
      The article has a sub-heading
      "Pity the doctor who looks after a convent—or a hostel for the handicapped".
      We should also pity the GP who has a large ethnic community of women who, for religious reasons, might not want to have smears. The article is considered and understandable. There must be some provision whereby a conscientious objector should not form part of a target. I understand why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State produced a target that was not 100 per cent. because that allows for some slippage.
      However, the distribution of difficult patients is not perfect. However hard a GP tries, in some cases he will not be able to make his target. He will then have to choose. For the moment, the vast majority of GPs will accept those people, but my right hon. and learned Friend will have to address that problem when he considers the pricing and re-pricing of the contract. If not, all hell will be let loose again and that cannot be in anyone's interest.
      I made a note on my memo pad of the drug erythropoetin for kidney patients. As I understand it, there is a scandalous situation in the North West Thames regional health authority where that product is on a limited licence and consultants are being told that they can use only a certain amount of the drug on a limited number of patients. That blows apart the whole idea of drugs budgets at the hospital level.
      We are all aware of what has been happening in recent years. Hospitals have told people that the minute they leave hospital they will not get any supplies and the GP will have to provide the medicine. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will listen with care to the marvellous case history outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury.
      I was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered this Bill. However, I wonder why clause 18 on indicative drug budgets is still in the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is on the record as saying that no patient will go without his or her medicine. However, he has not told us what happens if the

      561
      regional health authority has overspent once all the GPs have finished prescribing. He has not told us whether that money will come from supplementary provisions or from some other health service. My right hon. and learned Friend has had the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, which has worked perfectly well. He can normally use PACT—prescribing analyses and costs—although I cannot understand why we have not had any PACT for the September to December quarter at level I. It is extraordinary that the Department of Health, its underlings and its subsidiary and ancillary organisations are falling down. That is another example where something that had been running reasonably smoothly has stopped running for some reason.
      I hope that either my right hon. and learned Friend will drop clause 18 altogether or that it will be dropped in another place. We never learn. Some interesting work has been done in the United States on formularies by some people called Moore and Newman. Research in 47 states showed that not only did the states with formularies fail to achieve savings in prescription drug expenditure but they were required to spend more on other services. Against that background, one would think that we would not introduce formularies into this country.
      The hon. Member for Peckham spoke about budget holders. I understand that there has been a statement that there will be 850 practice budget holders. The hon. Lady has a point. As sure as eggs is eggs, the names of practices that are budget holders will get out. The Health Service is not exactly the most secure service. It would be far better if practices which wish to take part in pilot schemes openly admit to doing so. The fact will get out, so they might as well say it up front.
      It is no surprise to anyone who knows anything about general practice that people are applying for practice budgets. One need only examine the attractive administrative bonuses given to everyone who applies. It is a highly profitable area. Some might phrase it differently, but either way it is not surprising.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was right when he said towards the end of his speech that the relationship between a GP and the patient is special. If, for one reason or another, it breaks down, it is right for both parties that the patient should go to another GP. The allocation system has always worked well to the benefit of both parties. To that extent, the new clause is unnecessary.
      Mr. Tom Cox: As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, (Ms. Harman) said, the new clause is important. The speeches of the last two Conservative Members who have spoken show the breadth of concern on the matter. The Secretary of State should start paying attention. He claimed that all the anxieties and problems raised on this issue have been built up by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, but that is not true. Several Opposition Members have given examples of the problems, but the Secretary of State can be in no doubt that many Conservative Members could also give examples of the same problems.
      I dealt with the case recently of an elderly constituent who rang her doctor and asked him to visit her. She was told that she was no longer on his list. She was given absolutely no reason. Even the Secretary of State can understand the great fear that that created in her and her
      562
      family who said, "Look, Mum, don't complain—don't be a nuisance". Is that the way in which our Health Service is developing? Will it develop under the conditions outlined by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have spoken about the costing of drugs?
      8.45 pm
      The Secretary of State says that the problems that we have described do not exist. I have sent several letters in recent weeks to the Secretary of State from medical practitioners in Wandsworth health authority expressing deep anxiety about what is happening. I received a letter yesterday dated 9 March from the chair of the South West Thames regional health authority. She says:
      "I know how difficult things are in Wandsworth. If you would like me or the officers to meet with you we will be only too happy to do so."
      That was from the chair of the regional health authority which covers Wandsworth. Does the Secretary of State believe that she would write such a letter if she were not worried about the circumstances of that health authority?
      I wish to make some specific points about the problems of my constituent. It is all very well to say that if there is a breakdown in the relationship between patient and doctor, the best thing is for the patient to find another practitioner who will take the patient on to his or her list, but how is that done? In the case of my constituent, it took a considerable time to find another doctor who would take that elderly lady on to his list. The new clause is important because no one should be removed from a list until they have been given a reason for their removal and a list of other doctors prepared to take the patient. Otherwise who is supposed to look after patients until they are put on another list?
      There should be a right of appeal. We often hear about the rights of working people, as affected by many issues, but where are patients' rights? Why are they not given the right to say that they are not happy with the attitude adopted by their GP and that they want the right to appeal? Patients need more than the right to appeal. Often we are dealing with elderly, disabled people who, sadly, do not always understand procedures. The procedures should be made clear to them and help and advice should be made available so that if they wish to appeal they have the opportunity to do so. If we are really committed to the rights of patients, the conditions outlined in the clause are essential. They should be supported not only by Opposition Members but by Conservative Members who have participated in the debate.
      Mr. Hind rose—
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the Secretary of State have the leave of the House to speak again?
      Mr. Clarke rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman needs the leave of the House.
      Ms. Harman: I thank my hon. Friends who spoke in support of the new clause and the two Tory Back Benchers who made important speeches. The best way to deal with the matter would have been to have no financial disincentive for GPs to keep expensive patients on their lists. Then we should not have to worry about an appeals procedure. Because those legal safeguards are not written

      563
      into the Bill to protect people from becoming uneconomic patients, we intend to press the new clause to a Division. I hope that hon. Members who expressed reservations will either vote with us or at least abstain.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 264.

      Division No. 125]

      [8.47 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fyfe, Maria

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Galloway, George

      Allen, Graham

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Alton, David

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Anderson, Donald

      George, Bruce

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Gordon, Mildred

      Ashton, Joe

      Gould, Bryan

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Graham, Thomas

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barron, Kevin

      Hardy, Peter

      Battle, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Beggs, Roy

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Beith, A. J.

      Henderson, Doug

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

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

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Blair, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Blunkett, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Boyes, Roland

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Bradley, Keith

      Howells, Geraint

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hoyle, Doug

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Illsley, Eric

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Ingram, Adam

      Cartwright, John

      Janner, Greville

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Clay, Bob

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clelland, David

      Kennedy, Charles

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kilfedder, James

      Cohen, Harry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Coleman, Donald

      Lamond, James

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Corbett, Robin

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cousins, Jim

      Lewis, Terry

      Cox, Tom

      Livsey, Richard

      Crowther, Stan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cryer, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cummings, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dalyell, Tam

      McAllion, John

      Darling, Alistair

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McCartney, Ian

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McFall, John

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

      McGrady, Eddie

      Dewar, Donald

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dixon, Don

      McKelvey, William

      Doran, Frank

      Maclennan, Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Madden, Max

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Eastham, Ken

      Marek, Dr John

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Martlew, Eric

      Fearn, Ronald

      Maxton, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Meale, Alan

      Fisher, Mark

      Michael, Alun

      Flannery, Martin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Foster, Derek

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Foulkes, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fraser, John

      Morgan, Rhodri

      564

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Sillars, Jim

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Soley, Clive

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Patchett, Terry

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Pike, Peter L.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prescott, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dennis

      Radice, Giles

      Wallace, James

      Randall, Stuart

      Walley, Joan

      Redmond, Martin

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Richardson, Jo

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Robertson, George

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wilson, Brian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winnick, David

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rowlands, Ted

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Short, Clare

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Alexander, Richard

      Churchill, Mr

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Allason, Rupert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Amess, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Amos, Alan

      Colvin, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Conway, Derek

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Couchman, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Cran, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Batiste, Spencer

      Curry, David

      Bellingham, Henry

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

      Bendall, Vivian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Day, Stephen

      Benyon, W.

      Devlin, Tim

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dover, Den

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dunn, Bob

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Boswell, Tim

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bottom ley, Mrs Virginia

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Favell, Tony

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bowis, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forman, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bright, Graham

      Forth, Eric

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

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Franks, Cecil

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Freeman, Roger

      Budgen, Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Butler, Chris

      Gardiner, George

      Butterfill, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Carrington, Matthew

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Cash, William

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      565

      Gorst, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gow, Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moate, Roger

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Grist, Ian

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Ground, Patrick

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Grylls, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hague, William

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hannam, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Norris, Steve

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hayward, Robert

      Paice, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Pawsey, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Portillo, Michael

      Holt, Richard

      Price, Sir David

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Irvine, Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Jack, Michael

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Janman, Tim

      Rost, Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Key, Robert

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sims, Roger

      Knapman, Roger

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knowles, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Knox, David

      Speller, Tony

      Lang, Ian

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Latham, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stern, Michael

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lightbown, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Lilley, Peter

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Sumberg, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lord, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Maclean, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Madel, David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Tracey, Richard

      Maples, John

      Trippier, David

      Marland, Paul

      Trotter, Neville

      Marlow, Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Walden, George

      Mellor, David

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Mills, Iain

      Ward, John

      566

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Wood, Timothy

      Watts, John

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Wells, Bowen

      Yeo, Tim

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Wilkinson, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilshire, David

      Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come now to new clause 8.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will confirm that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) exercised her undoubted right in refusing me leave to speak twice. Thereby she deprived me of an opportunity to reply. May I assure my hon. Friends that I will answer their points in correspondence, and may I point out that the discourtesy to the House was that of the hon. Lady, not mine?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have an apology to make to the Secretary of State. I had not realised that a right of reply is accorded to the Minister in charge of a Bill. I was quite incorrect to check him when he sought to reply. I hope that he and the House will accept my apology. I, too, can be wrong.

    New Clause 8

      JUNIOR DOCTORS' CONTRACTS
      "(1) Subject to subsections 2 and 3 below, a junior hospital doctor employed by an NHS Trust shall not be required to work or be available for work for more than 72 hours in any one working week, averaged over a one-month period.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by order reduce the working hours specified in section 1 above in stages to 60 hours
      (3) Sections 1 and 2 above shall not apply in the event of:

      (a) a state of emergency proclaimed by Her Majesty under section 1(1) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920; or

      (b) a major accident procedure or its equivalent being put into operation."—[Mr. Michael.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9 pm
      Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Before dealing with the new clause, may I say that, if there was any difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we placed you in that difficulty. However, following discussions through the usual channels, it was understood that there were to be no further speeches from the Government side.
      New clause 8 addresses the problem of junior hospital doctors, particularly in relation to new NHS trusts. Our proposal is that junior hospital doctors should not be required to work more than 72 hours in any working week, averaged over a period of one month, and that the Secretary of State should have power to reduce the working hours specified, in stages, to 60 hours. It may well be felt that even those hours are excessive, but the proposition is that the scandal of junior hospital doctors' hours should be tackled in some way in this Bill. No doubt the Government will hide behind the various circulars on this topic that have been issued, but those circulars will no longer be relevant to hospitals that opt out and become NHS trusts. This provision is needed to make sure that the scandal is tackled.

      567
      The extent of the problem is obvious. There is plenty of evidence of it. The results of a recent survey carried out in Bristol show that only 14 per cent. of the junior hospital doctors who took part said that they had made no mistakes as a result of excessive hours' work; 22 per cent. said they had made four or more mistakes; 85 per cent. were aware of one or more mistakes as a result of lack of sleep. The BMA has given evidence to the effect that it believes that figures relating to hours are inadequately represented by the Department of Health. The Department and Ministers have suggested that there has been an improvement over the years. In fact, there is evidence of deterioration.
      Long hours—an average of 67 hours on call, and sometimes up to 120 hours—are causing serious concern both for doctors' health and, extremely important, for the health of patients. One junior doctor has said, "After a weekend on duty you feel as if you have just crossed the Atlantic. It is like being jet-lagged. It is not a sensible system for us or for the patient. Would you fly in a plane on a Monday morning if you knew that the pilot had been working since Friday?" Those of us who have been assiduous in attending to our duties in relation to this Bill know exactly what that junior hospital doctor meant. Indeed, this is an appropriate stage in the passage of the Bill to be considering such a scandal.
      It may be thought that our method of dealing with legislation is less than perfect, but, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, this is an even more important consideration in the case of doctors dealing with life-and-death matters in our hospitals. The Geneva convention makes it
      "a cruel and unnatural punishment to deprive a prisoner of sleep for more than 48 hours."
      There is something ludicrous and bizarre about the fact that the hours of truck drivers are half those of people who deal with our bodies and undertake delicate surgery.
      There is considerable evidence of stress on junior hospital doctors. The suicide rate is three times the national average, and the divorce rate is twice the national average. Surely those facts give cause for concern. By definition, junior doctors are mainly people of child-rearing age, and there are special difficulties for women who wish to follow this career.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I must confess that I have never understood these hours. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to enlighten me. Why do junior hospital doctors have such difficulty in fixing their rosters? Is it because senior hospital doctors do not take their fair share of the job?
      Mr. Michael: I am sure that there is an element of that in it. This matter will not be put right until a limit on the hours worked by junior hospital doctors forces a proper regime to be arranged in hospitals. This provision needs to be made so that the administration of a hospital and senior doctors have to observe the law. The new clause allows the Secretary of State to use his good offices over a period to bring pressure to bear to make improvements on what we think is a reasonable initial limit.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a matter not just of senior consultants not taking their share of the work but of staff
      568
      shortages in a number of hospitals? I know of one place where, instead of eight staff, there are six to work the roster.
      Mr. Michael: That does happen. I am trying to speak briefly on the new clause, so that other hon. Members can take part.
      The basic principle is that there should be a limit on the number of hours worked by junior doctors. Matters such as those introduced into the debate by the hon. Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) should be sorted out by hospital administrators, by doctors and by the Department in terms of observance of regulations. As I said, the circular system will not apply in relation to hospital trusts. That is why it is not enough to ask Ministers to take care of this matter by circular. Provision needs to be made in the Bill.
      Medicine is now more invasive and intensive than in the past. Nowadays, being on call is identical to being called. It is not a matter of "perhaps" being called; it is extremely likely that doctors will be called during their period on duty. The percentage of junior hospital doctors getting less than five hours sleep shows a worrying progression between 1981 and 1985—in paediatrics, from 33 per cent. to 63 per cent.; in general medicine, from 44 per cent. to 56 per cent,; and in general surgery, from 32 per cent. to 45 per cent.
      Moving from the subjective and the descriptive, there have been objective studies, including one by Orton and Gruzelier which stated:
      "the risks to patients increase when errors are made by tired doctors, who lack agility in making decisions due to a slowing in cognitive functions. The personal lives of the doctors are compromised, which may lead to psychiatric problems, drug abuse, and broken marriages. Disillusion with hospital medicine may result, and undesirable behavioural traits that permeate future practice and lifestyle may develop. These issues are becoming more pressing as demands grow owing to the exacting requirements of modern technology, as the number of malpractice suits increases, and as pressures mount to treat and discharge patients more quickly."
      The report stated:
      "In conclusion the reduction in cognitive performance combined with the adverse changes in mood show less than desirable conditions for personal wellbeing and the practice of medicine. Superimposed night duty rosters may be a stress adversely affecting the welfare of both the doctor and the patient."
      I am aware of the pressure we face to debate some extremely important issues in the short time remaining to us, but there are few things more important and more obvious than the need to reduce the excessive hours worked by junior hospital doctors. I commend the new clause, which I hope will be supported by both sides of the House.
      The extent of the problem was brought home to me by a couple who visited my surgery recently, who said that their daughter, a junior hospital doctor, was being "drained of her life" by the work that she does and the unacceptably long hours that she is required to be on duty. I stress that that was not their daughter's complaint, as she is obviously dedicated to her profession, but the comments of parents who love her and who notice the way that the pressures of the work are affecting her. That underlines the importance of safeguarding patients and the well-being of doctors, whom we do not want to see broken and leaving the profession, and whose skills are needed for many years to come. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The case for the new clause has been clearly and admirably made, and there is little to add to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The problem has been brought to the attention of numerous right hon. and hon. Members through statistical information and press bulletins from a variety of sources. Many right hon. and hon. Members have also received deputations, personal visits, and letters from people who are directly involved.
      When I first entered the House, I received a deputation of junior doctors who were prepared to describe off the record some of the errors, including those involving fatalities, that had been made, and clearly that situation must be redressed. There is an archaic if not Victorian element in the number of hours that junior doctors are permitted to work.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Lady saying that the junior doctors she met indicated that deaths have resulted from the number of hours they were required to work? What action did she take?
      Mrs. Barnes: The doctors who visited me gave information about the hours that they worked, and were prepared to admit—without giving specific details—that all junior doctors know of errors that had been made, some of which had resulted in fatalities. That will come as no surprise to many right hon. and hon. Members. Doctors' professional code of conduct prevents them from divulging the full details of colleagues who may have been involved in such incidents, but the fact that they occur will not come as a shock to any right hon. and hon. Member who has received information on that aspect.
      In the studies that have been drawn to our attention, lack of sleep is blamed for seriously affecting a doctor's ability to make quick and logical decisions. Right hon. and hon. Members have particular reason for knowing the truth of that statement. Although we may make life-and-death decisions one step removed, we are not presented with casualties brought in off the street, a young girl dying from an asthma attack, or someone in a critical medical condition—in all of which cases a wrong diagnosis can make all the difference. Senior registrars and junior doctors in general have to make crucial decisions, and they do make errors when overtired.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: When my daughter was a junior doctor, she recounted similar stories. They work horrendous hours of more than 100 per week, and double-back 20 to 30 hours. Those working in casualty departments are subjected to violence and other forms of stress. The hon. Lady is right to say that it is difficult to make the right clinical judgments when one is under such pressure.
      Mrs. Barnes: The facts of the situation are well known to many right hon. and hon. Members, and perhaps it is not to our credit that we have allowed the situation to continue for so long. We taken measures to ensure that airline pilots and lorry drivers, for example, are restricted in the number of hours that they work, and their rest times are prescribed. The number of consecutive hours of flying or driving that they can undertake is also strictly controlled. It seems quite wrong that we have made restrictions for those jobs but have not attended to such a vital profession.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let me make a suggestion to the hon. Lady. If those junior doctors believed that they had evidence of errors and fatalities, if they had made public statements, that would have led to actions in the courts for compensation and the Government would have been bound to act by way of legislative change. On the basis of what the hon. Lady said, if the Government are not willing to move, the way to sort out the problem is for junior doctors to make that information public, as that will lead to actions in the courts for negligence against hospital authorities.
      9.15 pm
      Mrs. Barnes: Junior doctors have gone to great lengths to make such matters public. Obviously they have a professional code of conduct, but tonight's debate reflects the degree of anxiety about the matter.
      Before concluding, I should like to quote extracts from two letters. One is from a senior registrar working at the department of anaesthetics in one of my local hospitals:
      "I myself have been unable to stay awake and alert at times when working continuously through the night (often for several nights, and days, at a stretch) and you will appreciate that the life of a patient under anaesthetic depends directly on the anaesthetist's awareness.
      I have also literally fallen asleep when driving home, after a Friday morning to Monday evening weekend stint. Thankfully I was stationary in a traffic queue at the time."
      I should like to add just one more example to the conclusive evidence that has been presented to the House this evening. A letter from a constituent, after making observations about her nephew, stated:
      "It was during the week when my nephew was in greatest danger that I became aware, possibly for the first time, of the situation that Junior Doctors were trying to bring to public attention at Christmas time—namely the unbelievably long hours that they have to work on certain shifts."
      A doctor, whom I shall not name,
      "came on duty on Friday, 10th March in the morning and stayed on duty until Monday afternoon, 13th March—a total of some seventy-six hours. During this time, there were a number of emergencies on the unit (a heart-attack patient, a seriously ill post-operative patient) as well as the routine checking of my nephew's medication, the changing of his antibiotic prescription, which necessitated the most careful calculation and calibration of the various 'drips' that he was receiving and the constant monitoring of his heart, blood pressure and 'gases' because he was on a ventilator".
      Such evidence makes clear the pressures on doctors, patients and relatives observing their work, and we have overlooked it for too long.
      Mr. Michael Morris: There is a strong argument in the new market-oriented Health Service for the problem affecting junior doctors to be dealt with and the costs faced.
      The only additional point that I would make is that the foundation of the National Health Service was that it should have an equal distribution of consultants by discipline and by geographical region. If the National Health Service trust hospitals are to have different terms and conditions from other district general hospitals, resources will be skewed and we will go back to the bad old system that existed before the war, when all the best doctors, both junior and consultants, went to the better-off parts of the country and decided not to go to the inner cities or the less attractive regions.
      I shall listen carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister says in reply to the debate on the new clause, as it seems to have a great deal of merit.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: I am happy to be associated with the Medical Practitioners Union, whose relentless campaigning on this topic has ensured that it has never been allowed to disappear from view. Since 1982, the Government have introduced a series of initiatives, and some progress has been made in getting junior doctors' rosters down to one in three, 84 hours a week. But the progress has not been so marked as the Government like to pretend or as their latest figures suggest. Some of the rosters have been put out of sight by being classified as not being onerous, although they still add up to 84 hours a week, one in three. That is sharp practice. Another technique is to introduce a one-in-three, 84 hours per week roster depending on time off in lieu, which is not then made available. The apparent improvement thus lacks foundation in reality.
      It is a matter for regret that, although the Government launched their own study in 1985, they took five years to publish the information, which confused the issue and delayed progress. I recognise that the present ministerial team has made amends and ensured that it was published, but five years is far too long.
      What should we do? It is clear that the problem cannot be solved merely by reorganising rosters. We need additional manpower resources—new posts both for junior doctors and for consultants. The 100 extra consultants' posts that the Government have announced make a small contribution, but there is a shortfall in new consultants' appointments anyway and they are offset by consultants' posts which are not in fact available.
      Studies in my region illustrate the problem clearly. A northern region special study of orthopaedics, conducted to get the rosters down to the target level of one in three, 84 hours a week—which, in all conscience, is not a wonderful target at which to aim—showed that that would require seven additional junior doctor posts and seven additional consultant posts in orthopaedics. That is in one region alone, and even that will leave a further 320 junior doctors' rosters worse than the target level and still classified as onerous. It is a scandalous situation and it must be dealt with. It can be dealt with, but only by making more junior doctors' and consultants' posts available.
      I hope that the Minister will not simply say that she does not like the idea of changing the law in this way. I hope that she will declare her hand and tell us what other positive practical initiatives she proposes in order to make more jobs available.
      Mr. Terry Davis: The Medical Practitioners Union, which is part of the union to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and I belong—the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union—has campaigned for years for something to be done about the scandal of junior hospital doctors' hours. Last year, a Bill passed by the other place put a limit on the hours worked by junior doctors, but although a similar Bill that I introduced in this House received its Second Reading, it was thwarted by the Government, who put up their Whips to object to the Bill from a sedentary position. They were not prepared to come out in the open and vote against the Bill, so they abused parliamentary procedure and sheltered behind the rules of the House to prevent this scandal coming out into the open and to avoid having to stand up and be counted in the Division Lobbies.
      572
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on his clear, detailed and succinct summary of the scandal throughout the United Kingdom. As he said, it is not only a question of the intolerable burden placed on junior hospital doctors, many of whom are not newly qualified. The term can cover doctors well into middle age: indeed, everyone who is not a consultant is a junior hospital doctor. One may be a junior doctor not only for two, three or five years, but for many years. Doctors are having to bear an intolerable burden. We should not allow it, not only because it is against doctors' interests and because it is an unfair and impossible burden for employers to place on employees, but because it is against the interests of patients.
      The new clause is a modest attempt to deal with this problem in one part of the Health Service. I question whether self-governing trusts can strictly be called the National Health Service, but the new clause will deal with this scandal at least in them. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will recognise, it will still allow doctors to work 72 hours a week in one continuous shift at the weekend, which is what tends to happen now. If possible, no one should go to hospital on a Sunday, because it is possible that he will receive attention from a doctor who has been working for two days or more. He may have started on Friday morning and worked through to Sunday without adequate sleep.
      The new clause is in the interests of patients. We do not have to rely on anecdote or common sense to appreciate what is happening on Sunday evenings in hospitals. We have the recent evidence of a confidential inquiry into post-operative deaths in one region of England. It showed that people were dying because of doctors' fatigue. The inquiry was carried out not by administrators or community health councils but by the surgeons themselves. They found that a significant number of unnecessary post-operative deaths were due to doctor fatigue. Of course, people also die as a result of mistakes made by physicians, and they die in other regions. We shall never know how many people have died unnecessarily in hospital as a result of doctor fatigue. We must do something about this disgraceful scandal.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) asked whether the problem was all the fault of senior doctors—the specialists and consultants. They are partly to blame. Given their central role in the NHS, they could put their house in order if they wanted to. However, they are not the only ones; administrators must take their share of the blame. It is cheaper for hospitals to work doctors for long hours than to employ more doctors. It is cheaper to employ one doctor for 80 hours than two for 40. It would not be tolerated in industry, but the overtime rate for doctors is worse than the standard rate, which is ridiculous and appalling. The problem can be solved given the will to solve it. It was stopped overnight in New Zealand, for instance, by altering the wage structure.
      The Government are not willing to spend money where it is necessary to spend it to end this scandal. The Government rely on peer group pressure and on other doctors in the profession. The royal colleges, which have existed, not for 10 or 100, but for hundreds of years, have still done nothing about this. They shelter behind the skirts of Government circulars. But self-governing trusts will not be subject to Government circulars, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is right to concentrate first on an area which no circular will reach

      573
      —on self-governing trusts, the hospitals that will be pressurised by the Government to opt out of local health authority control.
      I commend the new clause to the House and I hope that hon. Members will support it in the Lobby.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this subject. We must recognise that there is enormous public concern about it. Many people have been deeply worried by stories of junior hospital doctors being wholly fatigued when dealing with patients, often in extremely dangerous and difficult conditions. I hope that my hon. Friend will either accept the new clause, which is modest, or say that within two years its aims will be the Government's stated objective.
      After all, most of us Members work at least 72 hours a week and we know that if we do that week after week we do not operate at peak efficiency. We should have a great deal of fellow feeling for young doctors.
      I know that my hon. Friend is an extremely diligent and hard-working Minister. I hope that from her experience she will agree that the working hours of junior doctors are wholly unacceptable and that that situation should be brought to an end as quickly as possible.
      9.30 pm
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: This is a serious problem which requires further action.
      I must clear up one misunderstanding. We have made it clear that NHS trusts must follow our guidance regarding junior doctors' hours—they are not outwith the scheme and the guidance. I hope that hon. Members will look at section 5·22 of "Self-Governing Hospitals: an Initial Guide", which makes that clear. Paragraph 6(2)(e) of schedule 2 gives the Secretary of State powers to direct NHS trusts to comply with the guidance.
      This is a long-standing problem which requires action on a number of fronts. The new clause suggests that junior doctors' hours should be limited to a maximum of 72 on call or on duty. Hon. Members will be aware, however, that in some specialties one can work onerous hours without being called out that often. I was talking to a psychiatrist to a gaol, who works a one in two and is called out perhaps once a fortnight. A legislative move as suggested in the new clause would mean that that individual could not fulfil his rota commitment even though he was called out perhaps once a fortnight. There are other specialties in which the duties are extremely onerous and the individual may be not only be on call or on duty, but working for unacceptably long hours. We must appreciate, however, that the problem is complex and multi-faceted.
      In the past, the royal colleges have felt that individual training posts might be put in jeopardy if they did not include sufficient contact with patients. If the royal colleges reconsider the matter, they may decide that a training post which deprives an individual of any sleep—let alone any capacity for training, education or research—cannot rightly or properly continue to be approved as such. If they can be persuaded to look again at the way in which they approve training posts, it might be an extra lever to improve matters.
      574
      There is a difference between the consultant who regards himself as the head of an entourage of juniors following in his wake and the consultant who believes that he has a part to play. After all, the rotas are essentially devised locally by the professionals involved. The consultant may contribute by providing cover himself. It is well known that we want the Health Service to have an increasing number of such medically qualified personnel. That is why an extra 2,500 consultants have been appointed—an increase of 21 per cent. since 1979. The management also has an input regarding the way in which the rotas are organised, the shifts worked or the arrangements for a split site. On some occasions a nurse can undertake some of the tasks that a junior doctor fulfils.
      I must make it clear that the blunt instrument of a legislative limit is not appropriate or helpful. I agree with hon. Members that working over-long hours not only makes people go to sleep at work—that may be all right for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but it is not all right for a junior hospital doctor—is not good for the patients.
      Comment has been made about whether the relevant figures are getting better or worse. I have looked at the figures extremely carefully and they are getting better. After 1982, the numbers working the most onerous rotas fell from about 5,000 to about 3,500, and following the initiative by the Secretary of State for Social Security in 1988, there was a further fall, from about 27 per cent. working onerous rotas to 22 per cent., and we think that next September about one in eight will be working the most onerous rotas. Nevertheless, I shall not be content—no hon. Member could feel content—until all such rotas are eliminated. It is not right for junior doctors to work such onerous rotas because we want them to be fit for work.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister explain why a junior pilot on an aeroplane is not allowed to work an onerous rota while a junior doctor in a hospital is? What is the distinction?
      Mrs. Bottomley: The distinction is that the junior pilot is flying—[Interruption.] When we are talking about the hours worked by junior doctors, we are talking about doctors who are not necessarily working. Junior doctors may be on call, in which case they may fall into the category that I described of a person who is on call one night in two but is called out once a fortnight. That is different from the person who is working constantly.
      Nor must we overlook the involvement of the junior doctors themselves, because the existence of long continuous rotas is an area where junior doctors can themselves play a part in rescheduling rotas, taking time off in lieu or splitting shifts.
      Mr. Terry Davis: The Minister says that a pilot is in a different position from a junior doctor because the pilot is flying. Has she never heard of co-pilots? There may need to be two pilots in the cockpit, one flying and one not flying, or one might be on call.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend accept a fact from a former professional pilot—[Interruption.] Biggles or not, I shall be happy to be called squadron leader or sir. Pilots, whether first or second pilots, when on an aircraft are flying all the time because a two-man crew requires two people to fly the plane. Pilots'

      575
      flying hours are their determining hours of work. My hon. Friend was right to say that doctors are not flying all the time, as it were, whereas pilots are.
      Mr. Michael Morris: As a former RAF pilot with a son who has recently been a junior doctor, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that he is wrong. The vast majority of junior doctors in our district general hospitals are on call and are being called out more regularly now than they were when my wife trained as a doctor. The degree of work that they must do is increasing all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is not right to talk about the first and second pilot having to be on duty the whole time. There are many occasions when the second pilot is undertaking tasks which involve him not being on the flight deck all the time.
      Mrs. Bottomley: It is clear that we are discussing a subject about which hon. Members feel strongly. The crucial element, to which I have not yet referred, is the need to achieve a balanced policy. It is not possible to legislate overnight to reduce working hours without having a mechanism to ensure that the patients are cared for. That is why the whole discussion of medical manpower must be closely tied in with the issue of junior hospital doctors' hours.
      I am pleased to report that I have now received acceptances from all the crucial partners involved in this issue to come to discuss what can be done. We must ensure that each and every element involved in the use of junior hospital doctors is committed to taking the action that is necessary. The royal colleges, the consultants, the junior doctors, the NHS in terms of the management and we at the Department of Health all have a part to play. All concerned will be coming, before Easter, to have discussions about what further action can be taken. I do not believe that a legislative limit is the right way through the problem, but I do not rule out the possibility that at some stage amending the terms and conditions of employment might be an appropriate way through, so I would not rule out that course.
      First, however, we must ensure that the progress that we are seeing is implemented. We have a commitment that the most onerous rotas will be further eliminated by next September and we must ensure that that happens. We must draw together a coherent and comprehensive strategy to bring to an end what we all agree is an unacceptable way for junior hospital doctors to work.
      Mr. Michael: It must be obvious to the Minister that her reply was as unsatisfactory to some of her hon. Friends as it was to Opposition Members. It was an extremely unsatisfactory reply which, I regret, seemed to demonstrate a commitment to do nothing. I cannot believe that hon. Members would regard the matter as safe in the Minister's hands in the light of that reply.
      As the Minister said, this is an entrenched problem. That is why it needs to be shaken free. I hope that the Government and Conservative Members will support the new clause on the basis of accepting the principle; the detail can be refined in another place. I think that all hon. Members who have spoken would agree that the principle needs to be established. It is regrettable that the Minister did not accept the principle. Therefore, I encourage my hon. Friends and Conservative Members to join us in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :—
      The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 266.

      Division No. 126]

      [9.41 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Allen, Graham

      George, Bruce

      Alton, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Anderson, Donald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Gordon, Mildred

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Gould, Bryan

      Ashton, Joe

      Graham, Thomas

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Hardy, Peter

      Barron, Kevin

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Beggs, Roy

      Haynes, Frank

      Beith, A. J.

      Henderson, Doug

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

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

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Blair, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Blunkett, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Boateng, Paul

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Boyes, Roland

      Howells, Geraint

      Bradley, Keith

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ingram, Adam

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Janner, Greville

      Cartwright, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clay, Bob

      Kennedy, Charles

      Clelland, David

      Kilfedder, James

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cohen, Harry

      Lamond, James

      Coleman, Donald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cousins, Jim

      Lewis, Terry

      Cox, Tom

      Livingstone, Ken

      Crowther, Stan

      Livsey, Richard

      Cryer, Bob

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cummings, John

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dalyell, Tam

      Loyden, Eddie

      Darling, Alistair

      McAllion, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McCartney, Ian

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

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Dewar, Donald

      McGrady, Eddie

      Dixon, Don

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dobson, Frank

      McKelvey, William

      Doran, Frank

      Maclennan, Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Madden, Max

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Eastham, Ken

      Marek, Dr John

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Martlew, Eric

      Fearn, Ronald

      Maxton, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Meale, Alan

      Fisher, Mark

      Michael, Alun

      Flannery, Martin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Foster, Derek

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foulkes, George

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Galloway, George

      Mullin, Chris

      577

      Murphy, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Nellist, Dave

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

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Patchett, Terry

      Soley, Clive

      Pike, Peter L.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Prescott, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Radice, Giles

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Randall, Stuart

      Turner, Dennis

      Redmond, Martin

      Wallace, James

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Walley, Joan

      Richardson, Jo

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Robertson, George

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Rogers, Allan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Wilson, Brian

      Rowlands, Ted

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Short, Clare

      Mr. John McFall, and Mr. John Battle.

      Sillars, Jim

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Alexander, Richard

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Allason, Rupert

      Colvin, Michael

      Amess, David

      Conway, Derek

      Amos, Alan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Couchman, James

      Atkins, Robert

      Cran, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Baldry, Tony

      Curry, David

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

      Batiste, Spencer

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Day, Stephen

      Bendall, Vivian

      Devlin, Tim

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Benyon, W.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dover, Den

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dunn, Bob

      Body, Sir Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Eggar, Tim

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Boswell, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Favell, Tony

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bowis, John

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Forman, Nigel

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Brazier, Julian

      Forth, Eric

      Bright, Graham

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

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

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Franks, Cecil

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Freeman, Roger

      Budgen, Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Butler, Chris

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Butterfill, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Cash, William

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Gorst, John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gow, Ian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Churchill, Mr

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      578

      Gregory, Conal

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Moate, Roger

      Grist, Ian

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Ground, Patrick

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Grylls, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hague, William

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hannam, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Norris, Steve

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hayward, Robert

      Page, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Paice, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Portillo, Michael

      Holt, Richard

      Price, Sir David

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Irvine, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jack, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Jackson, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew

      Janman, Tim

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Jessel, Toby

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Key, Robert

      Sims, Roger

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Knapman, Roger

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Speed, Keith

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Speller, Tony

      Knowles, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Knox, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lang, Ian

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Latham, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Lilley, Peter

      Stokes, Sir John

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Sumberg, David

      Lord, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maclean, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Madel, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mans, Keith

      Thurnham, Peter

      Maples, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Marland, Paul

      Trippier, David

      Marlow, Tony

      Trotter, Neville

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Walden, George

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mellor, David

      Waller, Gary

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ward, John

      Mills, Iain

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Watts, John

      579

      Wells, Bowen

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Yeo, Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wilkinson, John

      Wilshire, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Wood, Timothy

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 9

      REGISTER OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall maintain a register of private companies available to tender for contracts awarded under competitive tender by an National Health Service Trust, health authority or an health board in Scotland.
      (2) A company registered under subsection (1) above shall provide an annual return which shall state:

      (a) Any contracts held with National Health Trusts, health authorities, or Health Boards in Scotland.

      (b) Any penalties invoked under such contracts.

      (c) The total number of employees in post and annual staff turnover.

      (d) Any parliamentary consultancies awarded in the preceding six years.

      (3) Contracts to be tendered for under this Act shall only be tendered for by private companies listed on its register to be maintained under subsection (1) of this section.'.—[Mr. Campbell-Savours.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, I understand that it will be convenient also to take new clause 11—Contracts for competitive tendering—
      '(1) A National Health Service trust, health authority or health board in Scotland shall not award a contract for services to a private company unless it is satisfied that the cost of such a contract is less than the cost of direct provision by its own staff.
      (2) In establishing whether the cost of a private contract is less than direct provision, a National Health Service Trust, health authority or health board in Scotland shall have regard to—

      (a) any additional charge of value added tax.

      (b) any redundancy payments arising from dismissal of staff.'.

      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The objective of new clause 9 is to place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to set up a register of contractors, the effect of which would be to provide for greater glasnost in the way in which private contractors operate, wherever they may be in the United Kingdom.
      Much controversy surrounds the activities of private contractors. Privatisation is politically sensitive and, so far as the public is concerned, extremely controversial. The industrial side of the National Health Service includes catering, domestic and laundry services. When between 70 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the costs of that industry comprise wages, the only opportunity for profit taking in that industry must come from reducing wages and conditions—and in particular the wages.
      A year or two ago, the Treasury produced a report called "Using Private Enterprise in Government". That report stated:
      "most of the savings from contracting out arise because contractors offer poorer conditions of employment. Contractors in the ancillary services usually offer similar basic rates of pay ranging from 10 per cent. less to a few per cent. more in some cases, but they eliminate costly bonus schemes
      580
      and overtime working, provide little if any sick pay and avoid national insurance payments by means of more part-time working."
      The truth is that savings to generate profits in those industries in which we require a register to be set up arise because people cut labour costs and the result is discontent and a high turnover of staff.
      That is why I pursued the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in Committee. People and those Members of this House who press for contractorisation and privatisation in the NHS are pressing on Government the need to reduce the wages and salaries of people who already work in low paid areas of the NHS.
      I understand that many hon. Members have consultancies and directorships in those organisations, whether they be lobbying companies or in direct contact with contractors. I also understand that many hon. Members, and particularly their spouses who are not required to register shareholdings in the Register of Members' Interests, have holdings and are direct beneficiaries of legislation which promotes privatisation. In so far as the Bill is enabling legislation, it will ensure that many thousands more contracts will be let for services.
      Under the terms of new clause 9(a) the register would show
      "Any contracts held with National Health Trusts, health authorities, or Health Boards in Scotland."
      Members might question the need for that. The answer is to be found not in a Government document, but in a document published by the trades union privatisation unit. That document lists the authorities that have had difficulties with private contractors. It identifies the contractors and the services that they were providing.
      For example, there are well documented complaints over many months about the laundry service in the acute unit of Croydon health authority. The company involved there was Advance Laundry. South West Surrey district health authority had problems with Allied Medical Catering, which went into voluntary liquidation three months into its contract. Andmarc, another company providing domestic service in North West Surrey health authority, had its contract terminated after just 10 clays, during which it could not meet the required standard. Blue Arrow, another company providing domestic service at Parkside hospital in Macclesfield health authority, failed to meet the standards. It pulled out of the contract after just one year. Following the failure of another company, A and E Chapman, to provide adequate service at new East Surrey hospital, the contractors' performance was put under strict health authority scrutiny. Its one year contract was not subsequently renewed.
      10 pm
      Contract Clean (Southern) in North West Surrey health authority, which provided domestic service, claimed that it had under-estimated costs and quit after a year of the contract. I have pages and pages of companies in this sector employed under rules instituted by the Government, no doubt driven down the route of competitive tendering by more than obliging Members of Parliament asking parliamentary questions to elicit a response from district health authorities.
      Many companies listed in the document have either lost their tender or simply been put out by the health authority. Contract Clean (Southern), County Cleaners and

      581
      Crothall, are further examples. Crothall failed in many contract areas covering the three areas covered by the clause—catering, laundry and domestic—in every part of the United Kingdom. Its record is appalling.
      Endless Hospital Services is another such company. Exclusive is another, which I understand has representatives in the House. The list also includes Express Laundries (Blackpool), Gardner Merchant, Hall Hospital Services, Home Counties Cleaning, Hospital Hygiene Services, ICC Hospital Services, Ideal, Initial Laundry, Kneels, B. A. Lister, Mediclean, OCS, RCO, Reckitt, Royal Jersey Laundry, Spinneys, Sunlight, and Westcott. It is a roll of dishonour. People have taken on contracts who cannot run them properly or meet standards. They have either been forced to leave or booted out of the contract by the district health authority.
      Mr. Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have no intention of giving way. The hon. Gentleman had weeks in Committee to ask questions on these matters. He did not do so.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: We did.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: He concentrated on matters which were insignificant.
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is this a COHSE brief?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. The information is available to any Member of Parliament who seeks to find out the truth. Anyone can find it. The problem is that Conservative Members sit on their backsides and refuse to address themselves to the truth. The truth is that contractorisation and privatisation in the NHS are appalling failures.
      Mr. Donald Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: No.
      I want to move on to paragraph 2(b) of the new clause which deals with the registration of penalties invoked in such contracts. Why do we need to refer to penalties? Why should the register show where penalties had to be paid? The answer is simple. Many companies have been subject to penalties. They include Allied Medical Catering, in South West Surrey health authority. The company went into liquidation. The health authority also terminated the contract of Andmarc. In Kingston and Esher health authority in 1986, Advance Laundry pulled out. Blue Arrow Cleaning Group in Macclesfield health authority pulled out in 1986. Exclusive Cleaning in Bromley health authority pulled out.
      In every area of the United Kingdom, and particularly in the constituencies of Conservative Members, this policy has miserably failed. Contractors have been turfed out, and often penalised. It was Sir Whatisname Forte who three or four years ago decided to go into this business until he took a closer look and decided that he could make money from privatisation only by cutting wages. Not even Sir Charles Forte was willing to do that. Where he was unwilling to go, Conservative Members were perfectly willing to press for in this House. Clearly, they do not carry with them the same moral standards, if I may use that word. We are talking about standards.
      A Conservative Member who is willing to come to the House and advocate that a privately contracted NHS
      582
      worker earns only 1·80 an hour, which is indeed the going rate offered by many contractors, is unfit to sit at Westminster. No one in his right mind in the society of the 1990s and living in the real world can possibly advocate such wage levels, yet people do. That is why we took such strong exception to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling. Before coming to Parliament, he spent his life pushing these appalling contracts that led to low-income families throughout the country suffering. They could not afford to go to work and earn as little money as they were earning. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can cringe—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are not cringeing."] Hon. Members can cringe. Let them stand up and defend those wage levels. They are indefensible.
      I wish to raise the question of what you referred to yesterday, Mr. Speaker, as public policy. Sponsored Members of Parliament receive no money from their sponsoring union. I receive nothing personally and I claim no expenses, not one penny. The Conservative party has successfully sown a myth in the public mind about what sponsorship means in order to be able to justify their consultancies and directorships, which are based on personal financial remuneration.
      If we are to accept the principle of public policy and if a Member who receives personal remuneration is entitled to vote, on what basis can that principle of public policy be extended to cover procedural motions, such as the guillotine motion? It is an important principle. Why should Members of Parliament be able to drive through legislation, not on its principle, but procedurally simply because they will be the financial beneficiaries? Why should they have that right?
      We had that argument some years ago in the Committee considering licensing hours. Three Conservative Members voted for a sittings motion. Weeks later, we blocked the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House as a punishment for their moving the sittings motion before the 1987 general election. Hon. Members may remember that. We believed that it was wrong that those with a direct pecuniary interest should use procedure to drive through legislation from which they could benefit directly.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have absolutely no intention of giving way. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I gave way to the hon. Gentleman many times last week, and he will be getting a letter from me about it.
      It is wrong that people with a direct pecuniary interest who receive money in their back pocket should be allowed to vote. That has happened on this Bill. It is a constitutional outrage that it is happening in the House. If the general public understood the complexities of procedure, but saw it simply as, indeed, it is in practice, they would feel equally outraged. The problem is that they will not learn the truth, but they should know the truth.
      I feel strongly about the new clause, but, as many Members wish to speak, I advise my hon. Friends not to push the matter to a Division. Let us have more debate, in the hope that some Government Member will get up and defend the levels of wages paid in the industries about which I have been talking.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Those of us who served for three months on the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Workington

      583
      (Mr. Campbell-Savours) make these speeches week in and week out. He was the Robespierre playing to Madam Defarge from Halifax. We have been told that he is incorruptible, but when we examine his interests what do we find? First of all, he is a sponsored member of a Health Service union. Time and time again, he has voted against competition in the Health Service, against competitive tendering, and in favour of union monopoly power.
      Did the hon. Gentleman just once stop to think about what he was doing as a union-sponsored Member? What was his interest in voting for union monopoly power? Tonight he has impugned the honour of other hon. Members, but not once did he make such a declaration. He does not consider it wrong that he and his hon. Friends should be sponsored by unions with a vested interest in a Health Service that is not reformed, in working practices that are not changed, and in entrenched monopoly power for one union in the Health Service.
      But this applies not only to the hon. Member for Workington. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. One could do a long roll-call of Labour Members who, week in and week out, have spoken—
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has just named several hon. Members. It is a courtesy of the House that Members who are to be named are notified. Has the hon. Gentleman notified these Members?
      Mr. Speaker: We must not get too wide of the new clause, which concerns the register of private contractors. I think that we have had enough of the other matter.
      Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Member for Workington thinks that it is important to have a register of private contractors and that the interests of Members should be looked at, we are entitled to wonder why certain Opposition Members are so keen to defend the status quo. They oppose private contractors because they have a vested interest in supporting union power.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The question that I had hoped to put to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) I shall put instead to my hon. Friend. Does not my hon. Friend find it interesting that the hon. Member for Workington and others appear to believe that it is quite in order for Members of this House to write articles attacking the principles, and sometimes the practices, of privatisation and to accept substantial fees for doing so and then speak in this House about the subject without declaring an interest? Is that in any way different from the activities of any Member engaging in any other activity that ought to be declared?
      Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, he has made the point better than I could have done.
      Mr. James Couchman: My hon. Friend will remember that, early in the Committee's proceedings, we willingly and properly declared our interests. Many Government Members did so, as did many Opposition
      584
      Members, including the hon. Members for Halifax (M rs. Mahon) and Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Indeed, that is what convention dictates. Does my hon. Friend remember that three times I had to prod the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) into making any declaration of interest at all?
      Mr. Bennett: My hon Friend is absolutely right: the hon. Gentleman did not declare those interests without being prodded into action.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know me and you would know that what has just been said is a tissue of lies.
      Mr. Speaker: I was not on the Standing Committee—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let me finish my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not on the Standing Committee, so I have no knowledge of these matters. May I say to the whole House that this debate is not about Members' interests but about the register of private contractors.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) mentioned this matter, and I have allowed a response. We must now return to the kernel of the debate.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you allow me to deal with the final comment by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman)? If he wishes to repeat that statement outside the House, I shall prove that I am right by suing him in the courts. Perhaps he would like to take up my offer. If he does so, I promise him a writ. All right?
      Mr. Couchman rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This is developing into a much wider subject than the debate on the new clause. I do not think that a point of order can arise on this matter. The hon. Member for Workington must not allege—I should have stopped him at the time—that any hon. Member has told a lie. Perhaps he will withdraw his comment.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I referred to a tissue of lies, Mr. Speaker. If you find that term offensive, I will withdraw it, for you.
      Mr. Speaker: Let us return to the debate and stick closely to it.
      Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Workington does not like getting a taste of his own medicine. We shall bear that in mind in future debates, when he may try this on again.
      When looking at the new clause, we are entitled to ask what a lack of competitive tendering means in terms of union power. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Workington talked about companies that had lost contracts or failed to deliver. Under the old system, where contracts were carried out by in-house union members, there was no control over the service. There was no opportunity to get a new contract from someone else,

      585
      because the power was in the hands of the union—the porters and the cleaning staff in the hospital—and there was no competition for the customer, the NHS.
      The new system is much better, because it enables district health authorities and hospitals to say that, if a contractor does not provide the services required, he can be turfed out, and taken to court if in breach of contract, and the contract will be handed over to someone else. That is a much better system than the old union monopoly power system.
      The hon. Member for Workington said that he, as a member of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, receives no money. Of course, the fact that some of those members do not receive the money personally—some of them do—means that that money is used for their election expenses and other things, which the rest of us have to find out of—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is off again.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I should like to clarify for the House the fact that no member of COHSE in the House of Commons receives any money personally. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) should withdraw his remark. No money is received from COHSE as either expenses or salary. The hon. Gentleman should read what he said.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be returning to a matter that I said was not in order. Let us keep to the subject of the new clause.
      Mr. Bennett: I should like to finish my last point, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that any member of COHSE received the money direct—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman did.
      Mr. Bennett: I did not. Hon. Members should listen. The money that those people receive for election expenses means that they do not have to spend money out of their own pocket—taxed income—on election expenses, because they receive it from someone else. The rest of us have to pay out of our own pocket. It is an indirect remuneration. On that point, I finish my speech.
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let us clarify the matter so there is no mistake. It is illegal for a candidate to fund his own campaign.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has sat down.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: When I skimmed through the Bill, I could not see a clause under which I could legitimately raise the point that I wanted to make, but new clause 9 gives me that opportunity. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has been concerned with obnoxious current practices relating to private tendering in the Health Service, I want to raise an issue that could have important implications if the Bill is passed.
      At the Princess of Wales hospital in my constituency, a full-time consultant in the pathology department, Dr.
      586
      Joan Williams, and the chief medical laboratory scientific officer, Mr. David Else, established a private pathology company named Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd. at the science park in Bridgend. While no direct conflict of interests exists at present between their work at the hospital's pathology department and their status as shareholders and directors of a private company, obviously one will arise soon.
      The hospital's pathology department is an income-generating department, and Dr. Joan Williams especially is in a position to obtain privileged information from that department and to know of the costs of all the services offered by the hospital to individuals and to private companies who want, for example, blood tests on all their employees. A third of the fees paid go directly to the health authority. In the case of drug screening trials, 100 per cent. of the money goes into the health authority's research budget.
      I thought that might have been a one-off case of possible commercial espionage within the Health Service by full-time NHS employees. However, when I publicised the facts of that case, I discovered that at the University of Wales hospital in Cardiff, a similar situation had developed involving Dr. Keith Davies, a top-grade biochemist working for the hospital, and Dr. Stephanie Matthews, a part-time consultant.
      They established a private company, Lifecare Advanced Medical Ltd, of which they are shareholders, directors, company secretary, and company chairman. They, too, are in a position to take work from the pathology department of the hospital for which they work. In the case of drug screening trials, shortly after Lifecare was established, the hospital pathology department lost that work by some direct or indirect route—the matter is still in dispute. What is not in dispute is that Lifecare Advanced Medical Ltd was suddenly undertaking the drug screening work that had previously been the responsibility of the hospital's own pathology department.
      Dr. Keith Davies is at least partly responsible for setting the charges that are made for that work, so he is in a position to obtain work both for the Health Service laboratory by which he is employed full-time and the private laboratory of which he is chairman and a shareholder.
      I can divulge another abuse of Dr. Davies' position. He served on a panel interviewing candidates for the post of a medical laboratory scientific officer with the University of Wales hospital. The same evening, he phoned the candidate who had been offered that job and said, "Come and join us at Lifecare." That was the job that the candidate then took up. That is the kind of scandal that can arise when Health Service employees are involved in private companies competing with the income-generating departments of the Health Service.
      Not only should there be a register of private companies allowed to tender, but any such company that has an NHS employee or one of his or her close relatives as a shareholder, director, or whatever, should be disqualified from the register. Individuals who are intent on competing with the National Health Service should decide whether they want to remain employed within the NHS or to run their own private companies. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will denounce and reject such activities as unsuitable for NHS employees and that he will undertake to issue guidelines to prevent them from being carried out in the future.
      Mr. Rowe: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has described what prima facie appears to be a clear conflict of interests. If that is the case, I have no hesitation in condemning it. However, in a structure of the size and diversity of the National Health Service, at every level there will be conflicts of interest and it is essential that we are alert to them. For example, we all know that many Health Service personnel augment their salaries by working partly in the private sector. I have absolutely no doubt that that provides them with opportunities for cross-fertilisation.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if Dr. Keith Davies was carrying out tests for a private pathology laboratory owned and controlled by someone else for £10 an hour or whatever, there would be no conflict of interests. However, he is the director, company chairman and a shareholder in the private company while he is responsible for getting such work into the Health Service pathology laboratory. The Minister should make it quite clear that that should not be allowed.
      Mr. Rowe: I have absolutely no brief for such a practice and I condemn it wholeheartedly if that is the case.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is not in his place—I apologise, he is not in his usual place, and he does not appear to be paying attention. The privatisation publication of his union is unlikely to list the large number of contracts which have been discharged successfully, because the union is interested only in those which have failed to deliver the goods. I happen to find some consolation and comfort in the long list of contracts which have been terminated because they have not reached the standard required by the health authority because it shows that the health authorities are keeping a close eye on the quality of the contractors delivering the service. Throughout the National Health Service millions of pounds are being saved and in many cases a very much higher standard of service is being delivered by private contractors.
      There is one element, however, on which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me. When the necessary breaking up of the trade union dominated monopoly of services to the health authorities was started, it was written into the law that health authorities had to accept the lowest tender. That was a mistake, as I know from my own experience. A constituent of mine told me that he worked for a highly ethical cleaning company with high standards which made a point of never diminishing the salaries and conditions of service of staff whom they took over. That company added immense value by a combination of training and technology, but when it tried to break into tendering for the National Health Service it found it impossible because it was unable to underbid other contractors. It tendered to break in at the point at which it was paying exactly the same salaries and conditions of service and to improve the service over the 12 months in which it had the first contract until it became apparent that it was offering good value for money, but that was not possible.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that the new system will not contain such an artificial barrier to high quality services due to some routine rule which dismisses anyone who does not offer the lowest price.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. John Maxton: I shall be brief because we are trying to keep to a timetable and I suspect that we may be running a little behind.
      The case that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) cited is not unique. Greater Glasgow health board recently employed a person to get its laundry service into shape for privatisation—to prepare the contracts and reorganise the service in a certain area of Glasgow. Then it was discovered that that same man and his son were setting up a laundry company to bid for the contract. What did the health board do? It rightly removed the man from the job that he had been doing, but it did not fire him. Moreover, it did not stop his company from taking part in the tender process. That seems to me to be quite wrong.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) may sometimes seem abrasive and his remarks may sometimes rile people, but he is right to talk of the sleaze factor in the privatisation process, of which there is a genuine fear. The Opposition and large sections of the public feel that there is something sleazy about privatisation, and "sleazy" is the right word. The Conservative party is advancing an ideology and arguing in favour of what is supposedly a great principle—the principle of privatisation—which benefits it, its friends and supporters and, in some case, its members.
      We should remember, too, that in laundry and catering services, competition is almost non-existent. The competition is between the in-house tenderers and large multinational companies which do not compete with each other but carve up the contracts between them. There is no competition at that level; the only competition is against the in-house tenderers.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: But in an industry in which between 70 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the costs are labour-related, surely the real competition has to do with who can secure the lowest costs. That is the real competitive position and that is why I find the whole business so utterly immoral.
      Mr. Bill Walker rose—
      Mr. Maxton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least allow me to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, who referred to a second sleaze factor. The first is that the large multinational companies involved are mostly contributors to the funds of the Tory party, whose election expenses they pay. A lot of nonsense is talked about Labour's election expenses, but the Conservative party spends much more money than we do and the multinationals pay their election expenses.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. He is well aware of the position. Does he suggest that a company such as Fishers based in Aberfeldy in my constituency is part of a multinational company? Where does that company—one of the leading companies in its field in Scotland—figure in his calculations?
      Mr. Maxton: Of course, some small companies are involved. No one is suggesting that the multinationals have an absolute monopoly. What I suggest, though, is that 81 per cent. of catering is in the hands of two or three major companies and that they are nearly all contributors to Tory party funds. That is the first sleaze factor.

      589
      The only point that I want to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only?"] It has been a long day. I have been in the House since 8.30 yesterday morning and I must admit that it is beginning to show.
      The profits that the companies make and the savings which Ministers claim accrue—they are dubious savings—are almost entirely at the expense of some of the lowest-paid people in the country. That is what we find so disgusting. People in the Health Service who are paid just over £2 an hour, which hardly provides them with a high standard of living, are being forced to take wages of £1·60 or £1·70 an hour. If I take my wife out to dinner, we spend between the two of us what these people are expected to live on for a week. The friends of the Conservatives are lining their pockets at the expense of low-paid workers.
      The factors that I have mentioned are what make the process of privatisation sleazy and what give it a corrupt feel. It is a distasteful business, and we will continue to fight it for a long time to come.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has continued his campaign of attacks on my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I am sure that I speak on behalf of all my hon. Friends when I say that my hon. Friend has behaved fairly, correctly, honestly and in accordance with the rules of the House.
      Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Does the Minister agree that if the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has operated in accordance with the rules of the House, there may be something wrong with the rules?
      Mr. Freeman: I repeat the support that my Government colleagues and all Conservative Members extend to my hon. Friend, and our condemnation of the wholly unjustified innuendoes and attacks made by the hon. Member for Workington.
      The hon. Members for Workington and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) fail to distinguish between privatisation and contracting. Privatisation is about the change in ownership of assets and services, but we are talking now about contracting. There is a big difference. Contracting can be about services provided within the public sector and from the private sector. The arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Cathcart do not accord well with the reason of our earlier debates. He argues that all contractors are spivs, that they all contribute to the Conservative party, and that something stinks about the whole operation. I do not believe that most hon. Members would sympathise with that argument, nor would anyone observing the debate regard it as a fair representation of what is a sensible procedure.
      We have introduced into the NHS compulsory tendering for catering, cleaning and laundry. The Labour party manifesto, I understand, commits the party to ending compulsory tendering in those three services—a process which has saved £110 million for the NHS, money that has gone back into improving patient care.
      Most of these services are labour-intensive. Both in-house groups and private companies which tender should seek to make the most efficient use of the staff to be employed. That does not mean only wage rates, but it
      590
      includes them because this is a free country in which we have a free economy. Other factors are numbers of staff employed, equipment and motivation. All those factors must be taken into account, and that is why some private tenders win. I must tell the House, however, that only some 20 per cent. of all contracts have been won by private sector companies outside the NHS.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: We know why.
      Mr. Freeman: I can tell the hon. Gentleman why—because the redundancy payments that private sector companies have to pay must be borne by those companies. Although payment may be spread over the term of the contract, it presents a great impediment to those companies competing for such work.
      Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that direct labour has been successful in winning so many of the contracts is a measure of the old "Spanish" practices which operated before tendering? Direct labour now works much more effectively and efficiently than previously.
      Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Maxton: What about VAT?
      Mr. Freeman: Where VAT makes a difference between the price tendered by a private company and an in-house bid, it is not taken into account. The hon. Gentleman will know that VAT is refunded under the Finance Act 1984. It is fair to take that into account when comparing the cost of an in-house tender with that of a private company.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) asked me specifically about contracts and quality. There is no question of NHS authorities always being obliged to accept the lowest tender. I admit frankly that other factors must be taken into account. If quality is such a factor, the authority can opt for the higher tender and it must disclose that publicly. I do not believe that we need to amend the law to deal with the position that my hon. Friend described.
      The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) raised a question which gives cause for concern. If the facts are as presented by him, we must give him the benefit of the doubt. I will study the record. Contracts for consultants and all other NHS employees should provide for the elimination of such conflicts of interest.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister should study the Official Report of 1 March, columns 464–69, where I described in great detail what is happening in those two companies. I did not want to detain the House by doing so again today—I just wanted to mention the issues involved. I am glad that the Minister's response has been positive because the potential for conflicts of interest is serious in the cases that I mentioned.
      Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the House shares the hon. Gentleman's concern. I will study the record and draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister at the Welsh Office with responsibility in that matter.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wish to tell the Minister the story of a trade union official who attended a meeting between another person and me some four years ago. He was a regional official and he wept as he told me that he had felt obliged to go to the trade union representatives in a hospital in the north of England and tell them that they

      591
      should accept wage cuts to ensure that an in-house tender won, thus keeping out an outside contractor. Are the Government really trying to build the kind of Health Service in which trade union officials are driven into such quandaries and have to compromise decades of representing of workers' rights?
      Mr. Freeman: It is in the interests of all patients in the NHS not only in those three sectors but in others that such activities—be they cleaning, contracting or laundry activities not of a clinical nature—are tested and shown to represent the most efficient and effective combination of employees in the Health Service.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Garbage.
      Mr. Freeman: It is not garbage because that is how we shall ensure that we get value for the £30 billion that the taxpayer spends on the NHS.
      We have provided that contracts in the Health Service are open, non-discriminatory, properly timetabled and documented, and that Members' interests are fully and properly declared. I invite the House to resist the new clause.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 12

      SMALL HOMES
      'The provisions of section 1(4) of the Registered Homes Act 1984 shall not apply for the purposes of this Act.'.—[Ms. Harman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.45 pm
      Ms. Harman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to debate amendment No. 21, in page 42, line 18, clause 39, leave out
      'or is not required to be so registered by virtue of the home being a small home.'
      Ms. Harman: I can deal with new clauses 12 and 13 briefly because the Minister is aware of the points at issue, which were well aired in Committee. We have tabled them to give her an opportunity to announce what solutions she has to the problems with which they deal, remembering that in Committee we had considerable sympathy from Conservative Members.
      New clause 12 would extend the safeguards provided by the Registered Homes Act 1984 to elderly and disabled people who currently have no protection in their private residential care homes because those homes have fewer than four residents.
      The Government have said that they do not know how many homes escape registration and how many residents are therefore unprotected by the law because they do not know how many small homes there are. Between Committee and Report I carried out a survey among directors of social services. I asked them how many small homes they estimated there were in their social services areas, and the results of my survey are worrying.
      The directors estimate that one in five of all homes in their areas are unregistered because they are small, having fewer than four residents. That means that the safeguards provided by the 1984 Act—about quality of standards, staffing and premises and about the character of the
      592
      proprieters of homes—do not extend to residents in one in five such homes in Britain. I remind the House that we are talking about people who are vulnerable, elderly and dependent—otherwise they would not be in residential care.
      New clause 13 deals with the problem of people setting up registered care homes—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is not the hon. Lady referring to amendment 213? I said at the outset that it would be convenient to take that amendment with new clause 12.
      Ms. Harman: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady need not worry. We are all a little tired.
      Ms. Harman: When I saw "213," I thought that it was a typing error and that it should have read "NC 13."
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, we are dealing with new clause 12 and amendment No. 213.
      Ms. Harman: I am obliged to the Secretary of State for pointing that out, demonstrating that he is still awake.
      Amendment No. 213 deals with the problem of people who set up registered care homes but do not disclose that they have criminal convictions which render them unfit to care for elderly and dependent people. There have been numerous cases of dishonest people with criminal convictions failing to disclose those facts to the registration authority. They have been discovered only as a result of some awful scandal—after the residents in their charge have suffered.
      There is a clear loophole, but the Government have said that they will address the problem. The problems of small homes and homes being run by people with criminal convictions are related, as I shall illustrate.
      Mr. Rowe: There was a great deal of talk in Committee about the television programme, "The Granny Business." The only person against whom a criminal conviction could be sustained, as a consequences of that programme being referred to the police, eventually had all but two of her convictions overturned in the Appeal Court. However., she was found guilty of assault. It is now believed that, although she is disqualified from running a registered home, she still cares for two elderly people. That example seems to make the hon. Lady's case fully and clearly.
      Ms. Harman: I thank the hon. Gentlman for giving an example which shows that the safeguards are not working. They cannot be working if, when the registration authority ultimately finds that somebody is unfit to run a registered care home because he or she has a criminal conviction, it deregisters the home, but the person is able to carry on the business of providing residential care. Those people can do so by dropping the number of residents, still claiming income support and running a totally unsatisfactory business at the expense of elderly and dependent people.
      I can give another example, the details of which were sent to me by the Association of Directors of Social Services. Olive Waring ran a private home called Oliveen in Blackpool. She was imprisoned in January 1987 for physically abusing a resident. In 1984, Iancashire county council found her running an unregistered home for four people in Jubilee lane, Blackpool. She was fined £1,000 for running an unregistered home, after which she merely

      593
      reduced her number of residents to three and continued to operate. Although Lancashire county council knew about the matter, it could do nothing because the law did not allow it. Last December, Olive Waring was imprisoned on a £30,000 fraud charge involving the forgery of a will of someone who used to live in one of her homes.
      That is just one example, but the Minister knows that there are numerous others. There is no problem about dealing with the disclosure of criminal convictions. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment which deals with that issue without any difficulty. It merely extends the safeguards that the Government have already extended to cover people caring for children. We are asking the Government to extend the restrictions and regulations to those who care for elderly people.
      The problem is how to deal with small homes. I readily accept that perhaps new clause 12 goes a little too far. NALGO, which organises among its membership the inspectors of private residential care homes, has helpfully made a recommendation that would also be acceptable to the Association of Directors of Social Services. It might be a way forward to give registration authorities the power to enter, inspect and take action against small homes. They are given the power when a problem is identified, but they do not have a duty to require them to register all the small homes which they know to be in their areas. Therefore, when they know that there is a problem they have the power to act, but they are not borne down with extra registration duties when they already have inadequate resources to carry out their present registration functions.
      The Bill provides the opportunity to legislate to protect thousands of people who have no protection under the present law. The Government must show not just that they have a vague aim to do something about the matter, but that they intend to act. I want to be sure that we hear from the Government, when the Minister replies, that they have plans to deal with this matter and that the Bill will not become an Act without containing legislative protection for people who are currently guaranteed no protection under the law.
      It is late, but I hope that tonight the Minister will not flannel about vague aims and intentions. We want not good words, but action.
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I think that the hon. Lady has confused her papers. She was speaking to new clause 13, which is not on the selection list—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was slightly confused when she started. She was speaking to new clause 12, but became confused with amendment No. 213.
      Mrs. Bottomley: The revealing of convictions comes under new clause 13. The hon. Lady was speaking to new clause 13 when she referred to criminal records.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with new clause 12 on small homes.
      Mr. Rowe: I agree that it is essential that the size of the home is not used as an excuse for allowing people to avoid inspection. I agree with the proposal that inspection should be carried out only where there are grounds for suspicion.
      594
      I want to put on record the fact that a substantial number of people look after one or two elderly people in almost ideal circumstances. They are treated as though they were living in their own homes. That is an extremely good service. I do not want the debate to be taken as some sign that anyone running a small home for one or two people is likely to be some sort of crook.
      Mr. Kennedy: The last remark of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was fair, but the 1984 Act contains a significant loophole and the Bill provides an opportunity to close it.
      When the question of bringing homes with fewer than four residents under the inspectorate was raised in Committee, the Minister said:
      "That would involve the inspection unit in a great deal of work at a time when they are already embarking on their new tasks, establishing standards and working with those involved to ensure that the policies are effective. That provision would be an additional burden on small units, many of which are already effective."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 February 1990; c. 794.]
      I do not doubt the effectiveness of a large number of units in that category, but on the point about inspection and the additional bureaucratic burden I refer the Minister to a quite different matter—recent experience of the poll tax in Scotland. Small units such as those offering bed and breakfast faced considerable difficulty because of commercial rating and the new tax burden on those premises. Within the past week or so, the Scottish Office has announced that units with six or fewer beds operating for 100 or fewer days per year would be exempt. That sort of accommodation is both essential and prolific in the Scottish Highlands. The policing and the bureaucracy to make any sense of the Government's policy will be a major headache. The Government seem to believe that it can be done, although I have my doubts—I believe that they will encounter great practical difficulties.
      If the Scottish Office thinks that it can make that policy work in the Scottish Highlands, why does the Department of Health believe that a similar function could not come within the ambit of this legislation, especially as the inspectorate is already in place? Why cannot the inspectorate deal with small units catering for four or fewer people? I should be interested to learn whether the Minister stands by the case that she made in Committee—that she cannot accept the practical implications involved. There is a duty on the Department to provide the funds for additional inspectors. That seems to be the logical accompanying element which is required.
      11 pm
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has had the experience of the poll tax in Scotland, which we have not had in England. I want to ask him a question. One problem will be finding out where the places are. There should be an automatic exemption from poll tax, because residential care is involved. If home owners have to apply for exemption from poll tax, that should enable a local authority to find out the addresses where there are one, two or three people in residential care. The policing part would be done. How has it been dealt with in Scotland where the exemption should be the same?
      Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I will give an example to show how ludicrous the position is, without straying from the amendment into the rights and wrongs of the poll tax. I was speaking to someone who

      595
      provides residential care. Because of the type of people he caters for, he has to have an overnight matron in order to be registered. The matron rebuilt, with a 100 per cent. local authority grant, a house which is a dwelling place, but if she does not register for the poll tax in the private residential home the owner will not get certification because he does not have an overnight matron. As soon as she registers in the residential home, her house will count as a holiday home, even though she could never let it because she had a grant to rebuild it, and she will have to pay a double charge poll tax on it.
      One hopes that the method is sufficiently sophisticated to track down small homes, but when at local authority level one hand literally does not know what the other is doing, it does not fill us with confidence. Perhaps uncharacteristically, for one shining moment, the Minister in her reply on this occasion, unlike others, can fill us with confidence.
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is a source of disappointment to me that it is not possible within the scope of the Bill to achieve what we all wish—the registration of smaller homes. We might disagree about the type of registration. As I made clear in Committee, I would like it to be minimal, but it is essential that we have the names and addresses of small home owners. When they go through the process of applying for registration, they should complete a form where they have to reveal any previous convictions. When the list of cancelled registrations was circulated by my Department to local authorities, a local authority would be aware if somebody had previously been refused registration or had had his registration cancelled. Those would be important safeguards. None of us wants to under-estimate the valuable work done in many small homes, but we are all concerned about a gap which needs to be plugged.
      The difficulty of the new clause is that it could apply only to those for whom the local authority provides care under the terms of the Bill. We would want to find a way of bringing all small homes within the provisions of the Registered Homes Act 1984, whether their residents had been placed by the local authority or independently.
      There are many safeguards in the Bill. Under the new regime, a local authority will be placing contracts in which it can specify conditions. For example, it might stipulate that the home should be subject to inspection by the inspection unit which the local authority would have to set up at arm's length. We are making an important provision about complaints procedures; that will help to eliminate difficulties, as will the establishment of case managers. In the present regime, once an individual is placed in a residential home of any sort with income support, there is no need to follow up or monitor that individual. Under a system of case management, it will be possible to keep in closer touch with the individual to make sure that his needs are properly met.
      I hope I have made our intention clear. We hope to find a legislative opportunity to bring units with fewer than four residents under control.
      We have great confidence that under the new regime there will be far better safeguards for individuals. Indeed, we have a programme designed to try to improve the quality of residential care. We are spending £2 million on the "Caring in homes" initiative. That is a response to the Wagner report. We are seeking to improve standards across the public and private sectors.
      596
      I shall refer briefly to new clause 13, which was not selected but which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) mentioned briefly. The hon. Lady will be aware that under the Children Act 1989 arrangements are being made for those responsible for children to be checked to ascertain whether they have criminal records. There is an experimental scheme to provide access to criminal records for those involved in the operation of voluntary child care. We are having discussions to see whether that scheme can be extended further to cover those concerned with the elderly.
      I agree that smaller residential homes can make a valuable contribution in the provision of care for the elderly. They often cater for the mentally frail, the elderly and vulnerable people generally. It is important, of course, that proper and sufficient safeguards are in place. I hope that with the commitment that I have given—I am disappointed that it has not been possible to plug the loophole at this stage—the hon. Member for Peckham will not press the matter at this stage.
      Mr. David Hinchliffe: Is the Minister able to give us a legislative timescale? My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) has produced an estimate of the number of small homes and Community Care referred last month to there being about 1,000 in east Sussex alone. That means that throughout the country there are many small homes. I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that many of these homes are offering excellent care. I would not want to knock them. On many occasions in Committee we were talking about institutions. I believe that smaller homes often offer precisely the sort of provision that is appropriate for many people. I know from personal contact that some small homes offer excellent forms of care. Unfortunately, however, few of the people who run such homes do not have the best motives. Are we to wait for a scandal and an inquiry before we see some action? Can the Minister say when the legislation that she accepts is needed will be introduced?
      Mrs. Bottomley: I do not feel able to give the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) a clear timetable this evening. I hope that it will be possible before long to find a legislative opportunity to introduce an appropriate measure. I think that it will be useful to spend a little longer deciding what form of legislation we think is most appropriate for the units that we are discussing.
      I do not think that there is any difference between us on this. There is a need for some controls and I wish to work with others to find a moment at which we can tackle the problem.
      Ms. Harman: I thank the Minister for her reply. There is no difference between us on the principle, but there is a difference in our determination that something must be done and the pace at which it must proceed.
      I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that she must enter into consultation immediately with all the organisations that she said she would consult when she talked about the issue in response to a probing amendment in Committee. I understand that, so far, she has not engaged in any consultation with those organisations. I hope that she will do so at the first opportunity. The first step is to achieve consensus on registration which is appropriate, sufficient to be meaningful and worth having although less than the full registration procedure for

      597
      homes for more than four persons. That is the first thing that the Minister must do. Having achieved that, she must seek—we shall commit ourselves to do this—the first legislative opportunity.
      Given the amount of time that the Government spend legislating in respect of local authorities, I feel that it will not be long before we have a Bill dealing with the powers that local authorities used to have, might have in the future or might not have any longer. When that measure is before us, we can look for an opening for the new clause. Similarly, in respect of criminal records, there are always criminal justice Bills going through the House. We shall assist the Minister by looking for a legislative opportunity, but she must enter into negotiations immediately. We do not want to miss a legislative opportunity because she has not undertaken the consultation. She must be ready with the decision in principle and then look for the opportunity.

    New clause 15

      ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO STANDARDS
      '( ).—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a committee for advising him with respect to the maintenance and improvement of the quality of goods or services provided by any health service body under an NHS contract.
      (2) The committee established and maintained under this section—

      (a) shall consist of a chairman and not more than nine other members, appointed by the Secretary of State;

      (b) shall include such representatives of the medical and nursing professions and organisations representing consumers as seem appropriate to the Secretary of State; and

      (c) shall meet at least twice a year.

      (3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—

      (a) to consult the advisory committee, and

      (b) to consider any representation made to him by the advisory committee,
      on any matter pertaining to the quality of any goods or services provided by any health service body under an NHS contract.

      (4) It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Secretary of State with respect to measures which it considers best calculated to maintain and improve standards of goods or services provided by health service bodies.
      (5) The Secretary of State may by regulation, approve any recommendations of the advisory committee for the purpose of—

      (a) giving practical guidance to health service bodies with respect to maintaining and improving standards of goods or services supplied or received; and

      (b) promoting what appear to him to be desirable practices in the provision of goods or services under NHS contracts.

      (6) In this section "health service body" and "NHS contract" have the same meanings as in section 4 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New Clause 16—Advisory Committee: supplementary powers—
      '( ).—(1) For the purpose of ensuring compliance with any regulation issued under subsection (Advisory Committee with respect to standards) (5) above, the chairman of the advisory committee may, at any time, cause an assessment to be made of the working practices of any hospital, establishment or other facility involved in the provision of goods or services under section 4 of this Act.
      (2) The results of any assessment carried out under subsection (1) above shall be reported to the Secretary of State by the chairman of the advisory committee.
      (3) The chairman of the advisory committee may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to the numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as he may determine to fulfil the duties of the advisory committee under this Act.
      (4) There shall be paid out of monies provided by Parliament the remuneration of, and any travelling or other allowances payable to the members of staff of the advisory committee in consequence of the provisions of this Act.'.
      New clause 35—Standards and inspection of community care services—
      "(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a minimum standard for community care services which every individual may expect to receive.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that there is an inspectorate that is sufficiently staffed to ensure that the minimum standards are adhered to by local authorities.
      (3) In setting minimum standards under subsection I the Secretary of State shall consult those bodies he considers are representative of those who have the experience and knowledge of the provision and need for community care services.'.
      New clause 38—Standards and inspection of community care services (Scotland)—
      "(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a minimum standard for community care services which every individual may expect to receive.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall ensure the establishment of a Social Services Inspectorate sufficiently staffed to ensure that the minimum standards are adhered to by local authorities.
      (3) In setting minimum standards under subsection 1 the Secretary of State shall consult those bodies he considers are representative of those who have the experience and knowledge of the provision and need for community care services.'.
      New Clause 45—NHS Contracts—
      (1) The acquirer of an NHS contract shall take into account not just price but a broad range of factors when considering which provider should be awarded the contract. This will include the quality of service provided taking into account both patient satisfaction and clinical effectiveness.
      (2) The acquirer shall institute a thorough and ongoing monitoring of the contract as it progresses which shall be open to public inspection.
      (3) A complaints procedure shall be instituted for both staff and patients with respect to the operation of the contract.'.
      New Clause 47—Clinical Effectiveness—
      'The Secretary of State shall in pursuit of satisfactory systems of measuring clinical effectiveness and quality of treatments:—

      (1) create an applied research agency for the NHS;

      (2) develop a clinical database to support the epidemiological research it will do;

      (3) with the data and methodoligies developed, introduce an ongoing monitoring and audit of clinical practice both to discover and disseminate best practice throughout the system.'.

      We will also consider the following amendments: No. 228, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, at end insert—
      '1A. In carrying out its primary functions including those provided under Section 4 below, a Regional, District or Special Health Authority or a Family Health Services Authority must ensure that the quality of such goods or services that it may provide, attains such standards of quality as may be determined by the Secretary of State for those particular goods and services and must publish annually a report giving details of its attainments in monitoring and improving quality standards.'.
      No. 15, in clause 4, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
      '(3) No National Health Service contract shall be valid unless it specifies the quality of service to be provided under the contract and how the quality is to be measured and monitored.'.
      No. 21, in page 4, line 36, at end add—
      '(3A) The acquirer will—

      (a) publish the terms and conditions of any contract agreed with the provider;

      (b) institute a thorough and ongoing monitoring and quality assurance programme keeping the local CHC aware of developments;

      (c) create a complaints procedure for staff and patients with respect to the contract.'.

      No. 33, in page 4, line 36, at end insert—
      '(()) The Secretary of State may by regulations, require any health service body acting as a provider to have regard to:

      (a) any relevant national codes of practice pertaining to any goods or services provided;

      (b) any specific outcome requirements established by him, both applicable generally and in relation to specific clinical conditions, or

      (c) any minimum standards of performance on any matter of concern, determined by him, in respect of any NIIS contract to which the provider is a part.'.

      No. 4, in page 4, line 42, at end insert—
      '(3A) Where any health service body proposes to enter into an arrangement which will be an NHS contract in which it will be the acquirer within the meaning of subsection (1) above, it shall publish a document setting out the standards of goods and services which are proposed to be acquired under that arrangement.
      (3B) Prior to making a decision about the standards of goods and services which are proposed to be acquired, a health service body shall seek the views of Community Health Councils within their district on the standards of goods and services, and shall also seek the views of such other persons as seem to them to have an interest in the matter or to be representative of the interest of patients in their district on the matter, and shall, in determining the standards of goods and services, take account of any views or representations received on the matter.'.
      No. 5, in page 4, line 42, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations specify, for each category of services, the standards of goods and services which shall be the minimum standards for goods and services which may be specified by any health service body which is an acquirer in the terms and conditions of any arrangements which is a National Health Service contract.'.
      No. 57, in page 4, line 42, at end insert—
      '(3A) Any contract made under subsection (1) above shall provide that services supplied by NHS consultants shall he subject to the professional standards of care then in force under the regulations of the Royal College having jurisdiction for the place in which the contract is made.'.
      No. 6, in page 5, line 33, at end insert—
      '(7A) The terms and conditions of any arrangement which is an NHS contract shall include a statement of the means by which the acquirer will satisfy himself, throughout the term of the arrangement, that the standards of goods and services provided under that arrangement are sufficient to meet the standards specified in the terms and conditions of the arrangement.
      (7B) Where the terms and conditions of any arrangement which is an NHS contract include a statement referred to in subsection (7A), it shall be the duty of the provider under that arrangement to make available any facilities, information or services necessary to permit the acquirer to satisfy himself as subsection (7A) requires.'.
      No. 135, in clause 28, page 26, line 33, at end insert—
      '(2A) No National Health Service contract shall be valid unless it specifies the quality of service to be provided under the contract and how the quality is to be measured and monitored.'.
      No. 136, in page 26, line 38, at end insert—
      '(3A) The acquirer will—

      (a) publish the terms and conditions of any contract agreed with the provider;

      600

      (b) institute a thorough and ongoing monitoring and quality assurance programme keeping the local CHC aware of developments;

      (c) create a complaints procedure for staff and patients with respect to the contract.'.

      No. 37, in page 27, line 22, at end insert—
      '( ) Where a reference is made to the Secretary of State under subsections (4) and (5), he or the person appointed by him, shall take into account the distance a patient would otherwise have to travel when determining what is "practicable" under subsection (5).'
      No. 45, in clause 5, page 6, line 42, at end insert—
      '( ) In exercising his powers under this Section, the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to ensuring ).hat there exists a sufficient range and quality of services both in a local area and nationally to ensure that the functions of the National Health Service contained in the principal Act are carried out.'.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I shall refer to new clauses 15 and 16, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will not mind if I say a few words about new clause 38. Hopefully, I shall not anticipate his speech too much.
      Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) moved a similar amendment to establish a national inspectorate under the director of patient services. In his excellent speech to the Committee he explained that he had the support of several important bodies and people, including the Royal College of Nursing. At this time in the evening I do not wish to be provocative, so I hope that the Secretary of State will not mind if I mention one last opinion poll. The RCN conducted an opinion poll among Conservative Members. It discovered that 80 per cent. of Conservative Members support the setting of national standards and 70 per cent. support the establishment of a national inspectorate to monitor health care provision. Most people would welcome those views.
      We are trying to find ways of ensuring that those views are recognised in the Bill, particularly in view of the clear support for them within the House and elsewhere. When the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye speaks to the new clause he will probably broaden the arguments to deal with proper monitoring and inspection of community care in Scotland.
      I remind the House that earlier this evening the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss)—I hope that I spare his blushes—made a thoughtful and courageous speech. He said that many issues which had not been resolved in Committee were meant to be debated on the Floor of the House. They will not be reached because of the guillotine motion. The issue dealt with by the new clause is just such an item. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point and I sincerely welcome what he said.
      In Committee, under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, the Under-Secretary of State for Health said:
      "The Government will reflect on how best to improve standards. We do not believe that it should be through a national inspectorate, or through a national accreditation scheme. However, there are ways to improve the service, for example by a national advisory committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will reflect on and bring forward proposals for such improvement. The health advisory service advises on the quality of care provided to the mentally ill and the elderly. Its work with the mentally ill is

      601
      under review. It could provide a useful model for advising DHAs, and hospitals with which they have contracts, about standards of care."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 January 1990; c. 347.]
      The Committee welcomed that in so far as it went and in anticipation of something more extensive—a bigger commitment—perhaps even a new clause or amendment on Report. So far as I can see, that has not happened. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies he will appreciate that in new clauses 15 and 16 we aim to respond to what we consider to be the Government's assurance to improve standards by enshrining the advisory committee in legislation.
      11.15 pm
      When the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye dealt in his new clause with community care, many of us felt that he was absolutely right. That is why earlier this evening, in the debate on the guillotine motion, I was particularly surprised when the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who unfortunately is not in his seat now but, in fairness, was here for most of the evening, said that the House had discussed Scotland. That comes as no surprise. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. Scotland is dealt with in the Bill. Community care in Scotland is important. Frankly, we have not debated the matter enough. Therefore, I am pleased that community care in Scotland and the need for proper monitoring and inspections are dealt with in this group.
      I hope that the importance of that is not lost on the House. Many people are convinced that community care in Scotland is not properly monitored. Moreover, it is difficult to do because of the present limited nature of joint planning, despite the legislative opportunities that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have not so far embraced or introduced.
      The new clauses would be an ideal opportunity for the Government to show their commitment to standard setting and improving quality within the NHS. New clause 15 would establish the advisory committee and give it the power to establish minimum standards of care. That is terribly important in the light of the evidence of the accident of geography, where in some areas standards are high, yet in others they are not only far too low, but entirely unacceptable for community care.
      New clause 16 gives the committee supplementary powers to assess local working conditions to ensure minimum standards. The case for that is self-evident. It is self-evident that we are attempting, particularly in the absence of real advocacy, to ensure that basic standards are met and that there is accountability and proper monitoring. We have a great deal of support for that.
      I referred earlier to the Royal College of Nursing. In its evidence to the Select Committee on Social Services, it said:
      "Therefore, in order to ensure a high quality of standards of care, the College wishes to see an independent, nationally trained inspectorate working at local level to monitor the care that is delivered by the private, the voluntary and the public sectors. This would be an independent body which would maintain quality and which is neither purchaser nor provider. Precedents for this include the HMI in education and, more recently, the directors of consumer services established in the privatised water, gas, telecommunications and electricity industries to safeguard consumer interests and uphold standards."
      602
      The very important point which emerges from that evidence is that we are dealing with consumers. The frail, the vulnerable, the elderly, the physically disabled, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped are consumers. Unfortunately, because of the restrictions on our debate, we have not had many opportunities—we have had far too few—to discuss those groups in the context of community care. None the less, if there is a commitment to consumers, these new clauses give the Government an opportunity to go beyond mere words, to go beyond a mere oral assertion that they will issue circulars, and so on. We are offering them a statutory opportunity to do the minimum necessary to ensure that the standards of care that are insisted upon are proper and reasonable standards that can be monitored and for which there can be proper accountability.
      The amount of money involved is considerable. There is much talk of value for money. We are entitled to an assurance that taxpayers' money is being spent in a way that is consistent with the principle of value for money as well as with the rights of the consumer. For all those reasons, I thought that the excellent case that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and others made in Committee would have persuaded Ministers to accept some reasonable proposals.
      Unfortunately, Ministers did not at that stage accept any of our amendments. I recall only one promise from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). That is a matter that we shall follow closely, but it is not particularly relevant to these new clauses. Beyond that promise we were offered not just very little but nothing at all, except, as in respect of so many other matters, the promise that, by the time of the Report stage, the Government would have taken advice, would have involved themselves in consultations, and might even surprise us by saying that they agreed to our modest proposals.
      In presenting these new clauses, we are giving the Secretary of State an opportunity—not just at the 11th hour but almost at the 12th—to show just a little generosity. Generosity is something that was absent from his dealings with the Committee and the House.
      In that spirit I commend the new clauses to the House. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State a response that is as positive as I am sure the House would want.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Amendment No. 57, which stands in my name, deals with two essential points—one is a general point and the other clears up an existing anomaly. Perhaps I should first declare an indirect interest in that my father is a member of the council of the Royal College of Surgeons and joint author of the "National Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Deaths". I wish to refer to the monitoring role of the royal colleges of surgeons, anaesthetists, obstetricians, gynaecologists and others. It is right to ensure in any Bill of this kind that the services delivered to the public meet certain minimum quality criteria. That is the aim of my amendment.
      I shall be interested in the response of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to my point about the anomalous positions of the royal colleges of England and those of Scotland. The standard maintenance role of the royal colleges of England is being upset by that of the colleges of Edinburgh and Glasgow. This is a particular difficulty. A member of the Royal College of Surgeons of

      603
      England who practises in Scotland is not subject to the authority of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh or Glasgow. Because he is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the English college, he cannot be monitored from there either.
      Similarly, a small number of Scottish practitioners who practise south of the border are beyond the geographical jurisdiction of the Scottish colleges, yet when they are monitored by the English colleges they say that they are members of the Scottish college and therefore do not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of an English college.
      This is a small, but important, point. If we want a system in which there is professional peer group pressure to improve standards of health care, that pressure must be exercised through the appropriate royal college. That does not happen with those two minority groups.
      Sir George Young: The new clauses and the amendments have the same objective, but they would achieve it in different ways. Amendments. Nos. 4, 5 and 6, which stand in my name, are slightly less bureaucratic than new clause 15 in that they avoid setting up an advisory committee, but their objectives are the same—to use the new regime to drive up standards, to improve the quality of services and to increase confidence in the NHS.
      Amendment No. 4 provides the machinery for delivering those objectives—machinery which is not explicit in the Bill. It would require that, for any NHS contract, the acquiring body should consult on the standards of service to be provided under the contract. There needs to be a mechanism for ensuring in each case that the quality of service that patients can expect is understood publicly and that there is a quality yardstick by which a contractor can be assessed. Patients and the organisations which represent their interests have the right to know what they can expect from a contractor in the Health Service. The amendment provides such a mechanism. It would require that the quality standards are consulted upon and made public.
      Amendment No. 5 clarifies the regulatory responsibility of the Secretary of State in relation to standards of health care. Where resources are limited, as they always will be, there may be a temptation for a hard-pressed Health Service body to cut corners on standards. Some health authorities and budget-holding general practitioners may therefore be tempted, when entering into contracts for the provision of care, not to specify adequate standards from their contractors. The amendment would limit this temptation by giving to the Secretary of State the role of setting for each category of service minima below which the quality of health care should not fall. At the moment, the Department provides a substantial amount of material regulating the standards of provision, and the amendment simply makes that explicit.
      Amendment No. 6 deals with monitoring. The working of contracts for health care should be closely monitored to ensure that contractors meet the standards expected of them and that the terms of the contract are met. The amendment would require that the means by which monitoring and evaluation of quality of care provided under contracts should be set out in the contracts and would require contractors, by statutory duty, to co-operate with monitoring and evaluation procedures. That would help patients to feel secure, in that a system of
      604
      monitoring and enforcement would guarantee that high standards are maintained and ensure the full co-operation of contractors.
      The three amendments are fully consistent with the objectives in the White Paper. They simply seek to write into the Bill a procedure for guaranteeing the high quality of service that we all want to see.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Kennedy: New clauses 35 and 38, to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was kind enough to refer in his opening remarks, are partly based on the learning curve of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in Committee. They refer to standards of inspection of community care services in Scotland, England and Wales, and take account of the slight differences in the role or existence of the inspectorates in each.
      Despite earlier exchanges in Committee, there remains considerable doubt that the Bill's objectives in respect of community care will be fully realised. The Secretary of State might have acknowledged in our earlier debate on the timetable motion that it is regrettable that the House cannot devote more time to important aspects of the Bill. However, I suspect that new clause 15 and other parts of the Bill will have much more of an uphill struggle when they reach the other place, and I shall be watching its progress—and, hopefully, the alterations that are made to it—very closely.
      The Bill makes welcome provision for local authorities to publish plans for community care, but there is no proper agreement on a mechanism to ensure that minimum standards are met, and therefore there is nothing positive or indicative for which inspectors can look.
      If one considers the education system, it should not be so great a problem as is feared in the minds of Ministers or civil servants at the Department of Health. The education system proves that it is possible to set minimum standards and to operate an inspectorate without necessarily imposing too much centralisation or inhibiting scope for personal initiative and development.
      One must question how community care plans will be properly assessed in the absence of minimum standards—particularly as it is more than likely under present budgetary constraints that there will be disagreements between the health authority or health board and the local authority.
      The Secretary of State repeated earlier today that heavy reliance is being placed on contract setting to ensure quality of service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of competition in the hospital sector being based on quality. The same applies to the care in the community approach. The quality control aspects of a contract, whether it concerns health or community care, are currently minimal and are unlikely to provide an adequate safeguard, at least in the short term.
      The guidance issued since the Committee stage is encouraging. The word "quality" is used in the very first sentence and recurs throughout. Ministers appear to have become more sensitive to that aspect than they were earlier. Nevertheless, there remains genuine anxiety that minimum standards will be fastened upon by the providers and contractors of care rather than serve as a starting point.

      605
      My final point concerns the social services inspectorate. Exchanges between the Minister for Health and me in Committee revealed that in the past few years the number of inspectors in England and Wales has doubled. That is welcome, and it will probably increase further if the Minister is successful in realising her ambition to extend the scope and the role of the inspectorate. However, such a major and fundamental change as the community care aspect of the Bill surely contains scope for a further inspectorate. In Scotland, the need for minimum standards still exist, but the establishment of a proper inspectorate is crucial.
      I am indebted to the Royal College of Nursing for its assistance with amendment No. 33. The amendment aims to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to establish a series of minimum standards of care which health care providers would have to observe. In effect, it would establish a safety net for quality in future. There is no time to go into the details of the argument behind the amendment, but perhaps in the short time available I should commend back to the Secretary of State his own words on 10 October 1989 at that marvellous occasion, the Conservative party conference. The Secretary of State referred to the two prime problems which arise if all decisions about acceptable standards are left to individual contracts: first, will the purchaser be in a strong enough position to face a monopoly provider and, secondly, will minimum standards vary significantly throughout the country from Plymouth to Inverness? In his speech at the conference, the Secretary of State listed a catalogue of inexplicable anomalies between districts and regions and concluded:
      "These failings are not fair to the patients when the treatment you receive (and the delay you experience) depends entirely on the luck of the draw. Above all, on where in the country you live and whether you have an illness which is well-treated locally or not."
      Amendment No. 33 aims to provide a permissive regulatory framework for the Secretary of State to be able to exercise the power to address precisely the problem that he highlighted on that occasion.
      Amendment No. 37 expresses the concern that hospitals, particularly in rural areas, will be in a monopoly position under contracts because they are the only providers of a service in that region. What effects will there be on people having to travel, as that clearly will be a logical component of the internal market, and on the fact that the Secretary of State will view a local monopoly in an entirely different way from patients because many patients in rural areas have to travel significant distances to receive treatment? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) finds this boring, I am sure that he can find entertainment elsewhere. Perhaps these are rough and ready arguments because those of us who served on the Committee did not pursue many of the points as we had hoped for a proper debate.
      Amendment No. 45 embodies the plea that
      "the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to ensuring that there exists a sufficient range and quality of services both in a local area and nationally to ensure that the functions of the National Health Service contained in the principal Act are carried out."
      606
      There is genuine anxiety about the future of the service because of the step into the unknown that the Bill represents. Even at this late stage the Secretary of State has a chance to offer some reassurance.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I am happy to associate myself with amendments Nos. 5 and 6, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), and I hope that they will appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. If we are not talking about medical audit, we are talking about performance review. There is a great deal of experience of performance review among professional organisations across the Atlantic and I had hoped that we might learn from that experience.
      Certain questions need to be asked. Was the operation necessary in the first place? Was it correctly undertaken? What is the rate of readmission and cross-infection? What was the cost of performing the operation, and was the patient satisfied? Certain initiatives can be taken to guard against inappropriate surgery, unnecessary blood transfusions and the unco-ordinated treatment of intensive care patients. The amendments address the question of who is to check the quality of care. Every other industry in the country has quality control, and I cannot believe that it is right that the NHS should not. That is why I support the amendments.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I support the proposals of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I am sure that we can all agree that it ought to be perfectly possible to set minimum standards and to have inspectorates to ensure that they are achieved. The hon. Gentleman cited the example of schools, for which we have minimum standards, and inspectors to ensure that they are met. An even more useful example, perhaps, is the example of the factory inspectorate, which ensures that the conditions in which people work are adequate.
      Similarly, we should want to ensure that a large number of criteria are satisfied in relation to the suitability of the conditions in which old people are looked after in small premises. I have been shocked by some of the cases of which I have heard in the course of my constituency work and by the conditions in which some old people have been made to live.
      There is also the question of the charge made for services. I heard of one old lady who was persuaded to leave the home in which she was living to go into a private house where her rent was doubled after two months. That old person felt vulnerable and unable to do much about her plight. The attitude seems to be that the Department of Social Services will pick up the tab, and that it does not matter if the public purse is robbed to pay people to provide the services.
      There is also a danger to old people's privacy. Some people seem to view old people as having lost all right to be treated as thinking and sentient human beings. They open their mail, listen to their telephone conversations and generally engage in a lot of unwarranted interference that would not be tolerated by someone who was capable of defending himself. But many old people are powerless unless they have a relative to stand up for them.
      What about the items that are provided for old people? In one case, for example, a person who was virtually immobile was given only a commode and felt extremely embarrassed and ill at ease. That person could no longer

      607
      get to the bathroom because it was so far away. It seems pretty obvious that decent toilet and washing facilities should be provided within easy reach of people who cannot move far.
      There is much detail to be worked out in seeking to achieve proper inspection, but it needs to be done if old people are not merely to be set aside and forgotten about as though they have stopped mattering as long as they have a roof over their head. If we do not set standards and establish an inspectorate to check them, local authority social workers may well feel that they simply have to put up with the standards set in their area.
      It would depend on what happened to be available. Standards could vary widely, and we could know that some of them were unacceptable but be unable to do anything about it—except to wring our hands and try to shift people around to better accommodation. But old people should not be shunted around like parcels from one place to another. They should be able to end their days in comfort, peace and security. It does not seem too much to ask that old people who cannot look after their own affairs any more should be assured of safety, security and comfort and minimal decent standards.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to accede to our request. If the Government can inspect cottages to discover whether they are liable to poll tax, they can surely inspect small homes in which old people live.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have always regarded the hon. Members for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) as among the more sincere hon. Members in the House. However, when they said that they were looking forward to continuing after midnight and how much they feared the imminent approach of the guillotine, I was less than usually convinced that they meant everything that they were saying—they do not look like men dying to go on after midnight.
      I am delighted that we have reached the new clauses dealing with quality. As speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown, there is virtual unanimity on the idea that raising the quality of care and clinical treatment in the NHS and of the care and support that can be given to those who live in the community and require better domiciliary services is at the heart of all our ambitions. Certainly, the notion of raising the quality of the NHS and of domiciliary and residential services in the community is at the heart of the Government's reforms, and of this Bill.
      Quality has been the mainstay of all our proposals, and I do not instinctively think about it along the lines of the amendments. That reveals the political division between us on method. I do not begin by thinking of great national committees and quangos to inspect everyone and ensure quality in a service that is already giant and daunting in its complexity and geographical scope. I have always thought that the idea of central Government laying down minimum standards, as suggested by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, is not very useful, because there is so much variation across the country and among client groups.
      Our approach to these reforms has been to build into the organisation and the systems of the NHS and care in the community methods that will stimulate those who
      608
      work in the service at local level to strive to achieve the highest possible quality in response to the patients and clients whom they serve.
      Those of us who were here between 3 am and 6 am today will recall that the Government look to contracts, above all else, to raise the quality of the services provided in the NHS. At times we held what was almost a seminar this morning; at times our exchanges about exactly how we see quality being reflected and defended in the contract system were lively. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) laughs. From beginning to end, the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the contract system in the NHS.
      In future, services will be provided locally in pursuance of an agreement between the district health authority or general practitioner and hospitals and community units. Those who want services provided for residents will stipulate what they want—not just their quantity and cost, but most importantly their quality which they can specify and how they will measure it when the service is delivered. In exchange, those who work in the units and deliver the services will sign up to a given level of quality, explain how they propose to measure it, and deliver it in exchange for the resources that they have agreed to receive.
      Every contract will stipulate the quality of service. We went over this ground in Committee when I said that I would let Committee members have the first specimen contract as quickly as possible. Those contracts vary in quantity and they have been worked out in different parts of the NHS as people with enthusiasm for the idea have got down to producing the type of contract that should be exchanged between a district health authority of a GP practice and a hospital that sets out what service is meant to be provided and what quality is to be attained.
      I want the professions, doctors and nurses to look at the contract to see what they think about it for their particular service. Many doctors and nurses may not like the way in which the quality of their service is described. In that case the royal colleges must lay down how they would like their service to be judged and describe the quality to which they aspire. In that way they will help us to produce good contracts with which they can feel content because they are being asked to deliver something sensible that they should like to achieve and by which they are content to be measured in exchange for the resources that they require.
      Fortunately, we are moving away from some of the rubbish that we have had for heaven knows how many hours. We are now coming down to the realities of what is being worked upon in 190 districts in England, Scotland and Wales as they prepare for the reforms.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) tabled amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). They agree with the underlying aim to build stipulated quality into the arrangements for the work of the NHS. I do not like putting the whole thing in a straitjacket as their amendments suggest. I welcome my hon. Friends' attempts to set up, step by step, what should be done and what is required, but I do not want all the units and all the districts to grab the rulebook or the statute while saying that everything must be reduced to this, this and this. We are pursuing the underlying aims described by my hon. Friends.
      I know that I frequently describe all our reforms in terms of acute services—I always talk about hip replacements or varicose veins, things for which there are

      609
      waiting lists. I talk about the cold surgery about which most of our constituents are conscious. It is best to describe those services because they are the easiest to describe in terms of contract, quality, arranging the price and such. The contracts on which we must work, however, are those for more complicated services. We want an integrated service between the acute sector and community care. We must work on those contracts involving a mixture of disciplines—for example, doctors and nurses. In those circumstances, one may be talking not about the treatment of a disease, but the management of a condition such as diabetes.
      The contractual system at the heart of our reforms will contribute far more to raising the quality of the NHS than the committees and other ideas—the only ideas—produced by the Opposition.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says about contracts being an obvious yardstick of the success of a particular hospital, but he is talking too clinically. Surely the real critic of the efficiency of a service is the patient. He will decide whether the contract was placed in the right hospital and whether the right service was provided. The contract can give only an indication. It cannot supply the playback from the customer that many of us want.
      Mr. Clarke: We can steer through all the formalities. We can enter into contracts and alter present structures so that everyone knows what we are talking about in terms of quantity, how soon one will receive one's first outpatient treatment, how much it will cost, the quality stipulated by the GP and how that will be measured by the DHA or whoever thereafter.
      What in the end will determine whether it is a success is the patient's judgment of how it works. So we are building in more consumer choice, making GPs more responsive to their patients and the DHAs more responsive to their GPs. The contracts will also be steered to those places where the patients feel most content, either because they particularly want to go to their local hospitals or because they are treated better there in every way, from the appointment arrangements to the follow-up after they have left hospital. That will help to determine what really goes on, will humanise the whole system and help to stimulate higher quality.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South said that we needed a system of quality control. I could not agree more. It is surprising that of all the health care systems throughout the world, none of them measures the quality of outputs. Indeed, most health care systems never bother to measure their outputs at all. The Labour party in the House typifies what goes on in health care systems throughout the world. They are dominated by the interests of the people who work in them to such an extent that they never bother to ask what is coming out by way of service and quality.
      We are introducing a system of clinical audit, and we have the full agreement of the medical profession in doing so. When I was first at the Department of Health a few years ago, for a Minister to suggest to many in the medical profession that we would clinical audit and go in for organised quality control across the system was regarded as a blasphemous utterance. I concede that the Royal
      610
      College of Surgeons has done valuable pioneering work. The same is true of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing. The whole medical profession has swung round, and we are allowing them to organise their own system of clinical audit which will systematically measure the quality of their output.
      But I appreciate that there are still concerns about quality in the NHS. Some of those concerns expressed last summer, when all the campaigning was going on, involved people raising fears about the quality of the service as an excuse for trying to stop anything being changed in the environments in which they worked. But that was never the position of the Royal College of Nursing, to which several hon. Members have referred.
      As I say, concerns remain. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said that all I talked about now was interesting but new, and was therefore disturbing, unsettling and worrying to those who worked in the service. We must continue to reassure all concerned that we are striving to raise quality and that they have nothing to fear—either themselves or in terms of the quality of care for their patients—if they join in with us.
      Because there are still those fears, which I think are misplaced, I have invited all the medical royal colleges and the other statutory bodies to enter into talks with me about how, even at this stage of the Bill—if necessary, by statutory revision, which will have to occur in another place—we can devise new systems which will enable us to monitor and check to make sure that the higher standards of care are achieved. Those talks are going on now and I trust that they will reach a successful outcome.
      Mr. Michael: What a filibuster.
      Mr. Clarke: I am not taking lectures from the hon. Gentleman about filibusters. He conducted a filibuster about eight hours ago. Now he can listen to some serious content.
      In respect of care in the community, which is a particular concern of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, we are strengthening greatly the social services inspectorate in England.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: The Secretary of State must be aware that, although those may sound to him like fine words, they in no way match up to the promises given in Committee. If the Government are as convinced as the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims about the need for quality, let them show it by accepting what is a reasonable new clause. I hope that he will do that. But if he does not, I shall invite the House to divide on the issue.
      Mr. Clarke: I am glad to hear that. As I said at the outset, the whole basis of our reforms is aimed at raising the quality of treatment and care in the Health Service and the community services. All that the Labour party can do after hours of debate and months of deliberation is to advocate the setting up of a new Committee. The bureaucratic approach to the Health Service which dominated its policy in the past will soon be swept away. If Labour Members wish to divide on this new clause, I trust that it will be rejected as wholly inadequate to the challenges facing the National Health Service which will be more properly addressed by our reforms, when they are

      611
      implemented—on time—at the beginning of April 1991. That is when a better National Health Service will begin to be delivered.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Tom Clarke: That was as unsatisfactory as the rest of the Secretary of State's speech. I ask the House to divide.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 279.

      Division No. 127]

      [12 midnight

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

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

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Fisher, Mark

      Allen, Graham

      Flannery, Martin

      Alton, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Anderson, Donald

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foster, Derek

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Fraser, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Galloway, George

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Barron, Kevin

      George, Bruce

      Battle, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Beggs, Roy

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Beith, A. J.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gould, Bryan

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

      Graham, Thomas

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Blair, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Blunkett, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Boateng, Paul

      Hardy, Peter

      Boyes, Roland

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Bradley, Keith

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Henderson, Doug

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Buckley, George J.

      Home Robertson, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Howells, Geraint

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clay, Bob

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clelland, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ingram, Adam

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Cousins, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cox, Tom

      Kilfedder, James

      Crowther, Stan

      Lamond, James

      Cryer, Bob

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cummings, John

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lewis, Terry

      Darling, Alistair

      Livingstone, Ken

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Livsey, Richard

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dixon, Don

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dobson, Frank

      McAllion, John

      Doran, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McCartney, Ian

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Eadie, Alexander

      McFall, John

      Eastham, Ken

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      McKelvey, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Faulds, Andrew

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fearn, Ronald

      Madden, Max

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Maginnis, Ken

      612

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Salmond, Alex

      Marek, Dr John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Short, Clare

      Meale, Alan

      Sillars, Jim

      Michael, Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Soley, Clive

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mullin, Chris

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Murphy, Paul

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Nellist, Dave

      Stott, Roger

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Patchett, Terry

      Turner, Dennis

      Pendry, Tom

      Wallace, James

      Pike, Peter L.

      Walley, Joan

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Prescott, John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Radice, Giles

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Randall, Stuart

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Redmond, Martin

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Winnick, David

      Richardson, Jo

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Robertson, George

      Worthington, Tony

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rogers, Allan

      Rooker, Jeff

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      Alexander, Richard

      Butcher, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Butler, Chris

      Allason, Rupert

      Butterfill, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Amess, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Amos, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carttiss, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cash, William

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Atkins, Robert

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Churchill, Mr

      Baldry, Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bellingharn, Henry

      Colvin, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Conway, Derek

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Benyon,W.

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cran, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Curry, David

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Day, Stephen

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Devlin, Tim

      Bowis, John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dover, Den

      Brazier, Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Bright, Graham

      Durant, Tony

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

      Eggar, Tim

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Favell, Tony

      613

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lord, Michael

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      French, Douglas

      Madel, David

      Gale, Roger

      Malins, Humfrey

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Maples, John

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Marland, Paul

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gorst, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gow, Ian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gregory, Conal

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mellor, David

      Grist, Ian

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ground, Patrick

      Mills, Iain

      Grylls, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moate, Roger

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Harris, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Neubert, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Norris, Steve

      Hill, James

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hind, Kenneth

      Page, Richard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Paice, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Irvine, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Price, Sir David

      Jack, Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jackson, Robert

      Rathbone, Tim

      Janman, Tim

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rost, Peter

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Key, Robert

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knapman, Roger

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Knowles, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knox, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lang, Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Latham, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Speller, Tony

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Squire, Robin

      Lightbown, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lilley, Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Stern, Michael

      614

      Stevens, Lewis

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Walden, George

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Waller, Gary

      Stokes, Sir John

      Ward, John

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sumberg, David

      Watts, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Wilkinson, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Thorne, Neil

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wood, Timothy

      Thurnham, Peter

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Tracey, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Trippier, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Alastair Goodlad and Michael Fallon.

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Twelve o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to the Order [14 March.]
      Question put, That amendments Nos. 39 to 141, 158, 256, 275, 286 and 341, remaining to be made, be made to the Bill:—
      The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 202.

      Division No. 128]

      [12.13 am

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      Alexander, Richard

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Allason, Rupert

      Carrington, Matthew

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Carttiss, Michael

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Amos, Alan

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Arbuthnot, James

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Churchill, Mr

      Atkins, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Baldry, Tony

      Colvin, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Conway, Derek

      Batiste, Spencer

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Couchman, James

      Benyon, W.

      Cran, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Curry, David

      Body, Sir Richard

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

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Boswell, Tim

      Devlin, Tim

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dover, Den

      Bowis, John

      Dunn, Bob

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Durant, Tony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Eggar, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bright, Graham

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

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

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Favell, Tony

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Buckley, George J.

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Burns, Simon

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Butcher, John

      Forman, Nigel

      Butler, Chris

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      615

      Forth, Eric

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Madel, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Malins, Humfrey

      Freeman, Roger

      Mans, Keith

      French, Douglas

      Maples, John

      Gale, Roger

      Marland, Paul

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marlow, Tony

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gorst, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gow, Ian

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mellor, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gregory, Conal

      Mills, Iain

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grist, Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Ground, Patrick

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Grylls, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Hague, William

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hannam, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Neubert, Michael

      Harris, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Norris, Steve

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Page, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Paice, James

      Hill, James

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hind, Kenneth

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Price, Sir David

      Irvine, Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jackson, Robert

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Janman, Tim

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rost, Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Key, Robert

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knapman, Roger

      Shelton, Sir William

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knox, David

      Sims, Roger

      Lang, Ian

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Latham, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Speller, Tony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Squire, Robin

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lightbown, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lilley, Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lord, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stokes, Sir John

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sumberg, David

      Maclean, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      616

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Watts, John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Wells, Bowen

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thorne, Neil

      Wilkinson, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wilshire, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Tracey, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Trippier, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Trotter, Neville

      Wood, Timothy

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Yeo, Tim

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Walden, George

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Waller, Gary

      Mr. Alastair Goodland and Mr. Greg Knight.

      Ward, John

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Faulds, Andrew

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Allen, Graham

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Alton, David

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

      Anderson, Donald

      Fisher, Mark

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Flynn Paul

      Ashton, Joe

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foster, Derek

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Fraser, John

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Barron, Kevin

      Galloway, George

      Battle, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Beggs, Roy

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Beith, A. J.

      George, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Blair, Tony

      Gordon, Mildred

      Boateng, Paul

      Gould, Bryan

      Boyes, Roland

      Graham, Thomas

      Bradley, Keith

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hardy, Peter

      Buchan, Norman

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Buckley, George J.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Caborn, Richard

      Haynes, Frank

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Henderson, Doug

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cartwright, John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clay, Bob

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clelland, David

      Howells, Geraint

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Doug

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Crowther, Stan

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, Bob

      Ingram, Adam

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kilfedder, James

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

      Lamond, James

      Dixon, Don

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Dobson, Frank A

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Doran, Frank

      Lewis, Terry

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Livsey, Richard

      Eadie, Alexander

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Eastham, Ken

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      McAllion, John

      617

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rogers, Allan

      McCartney, Ian

      Rooker, Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McFall, John

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Rowlands, Ted

      McKelvey, William

      Ruddock, Joan

      Maclennan, Robert

      Salmond, Alex

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Madden, Max

      Sheerman, Barry

      Maginnis, Ken

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Short, Clare

      Marek, Dr John

      Sillars, Jim

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Meale, Alan

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Michael, Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

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

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Murphy, Paul

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Nellist, Dave

      Turner, Dennis

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walley, Joan

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Patchett, Terry

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Pendry, Tom

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Winnick, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Radice, Giles

      Worthington, Tony

      Randall, Stuart

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Redmond, Martin

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Richardson, Jo

      Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Alex Carlile.

      Robertson, George

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 5

      NHS TRUSTS
      Amendments made: No. 276, in page 6, line 25, at end insert
      'and, without prejudice to the generality of the power, and such regulations may make provision to deal with cases where the post of any officer of an NHS trust is held jointly by two or more persons or where the functions of such an officer are in any other way performed by more than one person'.—[Mr. Day.]
      No. 139, in page 6, leave out lines 43 to 48.—[Sir George Young.]

    Clause 34

      ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT OF NHS TRUSTS AND FUND-HOLDING PRACTICES
      Amendment made: No. 256, in page 39, line 29, leave out '(1)' and insert—
      '(1) The enactments specified in Schedule (Amendments relating to audit of accounts of Scottish health service bodies) to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in that Schedule, being amendments—

      (a) to extend the functions of the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland (in this section referred to as "the Commission") to cover Health Boards and other bodies established under the 1978 Act, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland
      618
      and State Hospital Management Committees constituted under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984;

      (b) to alter the title and constitution of the Commission to reflect its wider role; and

      (c) to make provision consequential on or supplemental to the amendments referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

      (1A)'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 43

      LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANS FOR COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 341, in page 45, line 26, at end insert—
      '(1A) In carrying out any of their functions under paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) above, a local authority shall consult—

      (a) any District Health Authority the whole or any part of whose district lies within the area of the local authority;

      (b) any Family Health Services Authority the whole or any part of whose locality lies within the area of the local authority;

      (c) in so far as any proposed plan, review or modifications of a plan may affect or be affected by the provision or availability of housing and the local authority is not itself a local housing authority, within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985, every such local housing authority whose area is within the area of the local authority;

      (d) such voluntary housing agencies and other bodies as appear to the local authority to provide housing or community care services in their area; and

      (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct.'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 1

      HEALTH AUTHORITIES AND FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITIES
      Amendment made: No. 275, in page 60, line 17, at end insert—
      '10. After paragraph 12 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
      "12A. Regulations made by virtue of this Schedule or Schedule 1 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 may make provision (including provision modifying those Schedules) to deal with cases where the post of chief officer or any other officer of an authority is held jointly by two or more persons or where the functions of such an officer are in any other way performed by more than one person.".'.—[Mr. Day.]

    Schedule 2

      NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE TRUSTS
      Amendments made: No. 140, in page 60, line 34 leave out 'any special provision as to' and insert 'a provision to secure'.—[Sir George Young.]
      No. 141, in page 60, line 42 at end insert—
      '(1A) In a case where the order contains a provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(d) above and a person who is being considered for appointment by virtue of that provision—

      (a) is employed by the university or medical or dental school in question, and

      (b) would also, apart from this sub-paragraph, be regarded as employed by the trust,

      619
      his employment by the trust shall be disregarded in determining whether, if appointed, he will be a non-executive director of the trust.'.—[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 4

      AMENDMENTS OF PART III OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1982
      Amendment made: No. 158, in page 69, line 33 at end insert—
      '(2) At the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(6) Notwithstanding that the services provided by health service bodies are excluded from the scope of studies under this section, in undertaking or promoting studies under section 26(1) above relating to a health service body, the Commission may take into account the implementation by the body of—

      (a) any particular statutory provision or provisions, and

      (b) any directions or guidance given by the Secretary of State (whether pursuant to any such provision or otherwise),

      but the power 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.".'.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
      Amendment proposed: No 269—new schedule—

    'AMENDMENTS RELATING TO AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS OF SCOTTISH HEALTH SERVICE BODIES

      The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973
      1. Part VII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (finance) shall be amended in accordance with Paragraphs 2 to 13 below.
      2. In section 96 (accounts and audit of local authorities), in subsection (4), for the words "Commission for Local Authority Accounts" there shall be Substituted "Acccounts Commission for Scotland".
      3.—(1) Section 97 (establishment of Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) for the words "Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland" there shall be substituted "Accounts Commission for Scotland",

      (b) for the word "twelve" there shall be substituted "fifteen",

      (c) for the word "nine" there shall be substituted "eleven", and

      (d) after the word "authorities" there shall be inserted "and such organisations connected with the health service".

      (3) In subsection (2)—
      (a) in paragraph (a)—

      (i) after the words "accounts of" there shall be inserted "(i)", and

      (ii) after the word "authorities" there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs"—(ii) the bodies mentioned in section 86(1)(a) to (c) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;

      (iii) the members of every recognised fund-holding practice;

      (iv) the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland; and

      (v) any State Hospital Management Committee constituted under section 91 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984,";

      (b) in paragraph (c), after the word "authorities" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, health service bodies"; and
      (c) in paragraph (d), after the word "authorities" there shall be inserted "or health service bodies".
      (4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      620
      "(2A) Subject to section 100(1A) of this Act, in relation to the members of a recognised fund-holding practice, any reference in this Part of this Act to their accounts is a reference only to the accounts relating to allotted sums paid to them.
      (2B) In this Part of this Act—
      "health service body" means a body referred to in subsection (2)(a)(ii) to (v) above; and
      "recognised fund-holding practice" and "allotted sure" have the same meanings as in section 87B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978."
      (5) In subsection (3), after the word "authorities" there shall he inserted "and such organisations connected with the health service"
      (6) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(4A) It shall be the duty of the Commission to make, any such date as the Secretary of State may determine, an offer of employment by the Commission to each person employed in the Civil Service of the State in connection with the audit of the accounts of any health service body whose name is notified to the Commission by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection; and the terms of the offer must be such that they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date on which the offer is made.
      (4B) An offer made in pursuance of subsection (4A) above shall not be revocable during the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is made.
      (4C) Where a person becomes an officer of the Commission in consequence of subsection (4A) above, then, for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, his period of employment in the Civil Service of the State shall count as a period of employment by the Commission and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.
      (4D) Where a person ceases to be employed as mentioned in subsection (4A) above—

      (a) on becoming an officer of the Commission in consequence of an offer made in pursuance of that subsection; or

      (b) having unreasonably refused such an offer,

      he shall not, on ceasing to be so employed, be treated for the purposes of any scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 as having been retired on redundancy."
      (7) At the end of subsection (6) there shall be added—"or a person who is, within the period of five years beginning with the relevant date, approved by the Secretary of State, acting on the recommendation of the Commission.
      (6A) In subsection (6) above, "the relevant date" means the date appointed for the coming into force of Schedule (Amendments relating to audit of accounts of Scottish health service bodies) to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990."
      4.—(1) Section 97A (studies for improving economy etc in services) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) At the end of subsection (2) there shall be added "and, in the case of studies relating to a health service body, shall, on request, furnish to the Comptroller and Auditor General all material relevant to the studies."
      (3) At the end of subsection (3) there shall be added "and, in the case of a health service body, the Commission shall also consult the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General."
      5.—(1) Section 98 (expenses and accounts of Commission) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      621

      (a) in paragraph (b), after the word "Commission" where it first occurs there shall be inserted "relating to their functions with respect to local authorities"; and

      (b) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

      "(c) such part of the expenses of the Commission relating to their functions with respect to health service bodies as is not met by grants under paragraph (a) above shall be met by health service bodies in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State after consultation with such organisations connected with the health service as appear to him to be concerned."

      (3) In subsection (2), after "(b)" there shall be inserted "or (c)"
      6. In section 99 (general duties of auditors)—

      (a) after the word "authority" in both places where it occurs there shall be inserted "or health service body"; and

      (b) in paragraph (a), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted "or, in the case of a health service body, directions under section 86(3) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978".

      7.—(1) Section 100 (auditor's right of access to documents) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) after the word "authority" where it first occurs there shall be inserted "or health service body"; and

      (b) after the word "authority" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or body".

      (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      4"(1A) In the case of a recognised fund-holding practice, the reference in subsection (1) above to documents includes a reference to documents relating to all the accounts and records of the members of the practice, whether or not relating to an allotted sum."
      (4) In subsection (2), after the word "authority" there shall be inserted "and health service body".
      8. In section 101 (completion of audit), after subsection (4) there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(5) Within 14 days of the completion of the audit of the accounts of a health service body the auditor shall place on any abstract of those accounts prepared by the health service body by virtue of section 86 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 a Certificate, in such form as the Commission may direct, to the effect that he has audited the accounts in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act; and the auditor shall, on so certifying, forthwith send copies of the abstract of the accounts to the Commission, the Secretary of State and the health service body."
      9.—(1) Section 102 (reports to Commission by Controller of Audit) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) after the word "authorities" there shall be inserted "and health service bodies"; and

      (b) after the word "authority" there shall be inserted "or health service body".

      (3) After subsection (4) there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(5) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above and section 104A(2) of this Act, the Controller of Audit may make a report to the Commission on any matters arising out of or in connection with the accounts of a health service body and shall send a copy of any report so made to any health service body which is named in that report and to the Secretary of State."
      10. In section 103 (action by Commission on reports by Controller of Audit), after the word "Audit" there shall be inserted "with respect to the accounts of any local authority".
      11. After section 104 there shall be inserted the following section—

      Audit of accounts of health service bodies: special provisions.
      104A.—(1) Where the auditor of the accounts of a health service body has reason to believe that the body, or any officer of the body—

      (a) has made a decision which involves the incurring of expenditure which is unlawful; or

      (b) has taken a course of action which, if pursued to its conclusion, would be unlawful and likely to cause a loss or deficiency,
      he shall forthwith make a report to the Controller of Audit.

      (2) On receipt of a report under subsection (1) above the Controller of Audit—

      (a) shall forthwith send a copy of the report to the Commission and to the Secretary of State; and

      (b) may, if he thinks fit, send to the Commission and to the Secretary of State any observations which he may have on the report.

      (3) The Commission may make a report to the Secretary of State on any matters arising out of or in connection with the accounts of a health service body."
      12. After subsection (2) of section 106 (application of sections 93 to 105 to bodies other than local authorities and to officers) there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(3) In the application of subsection (2) above to an officer of a health service body, for the words from "96" to "section 105" there shall be substituted "97 to 104A."."
      13. In Schedule 8 (provisions as to the Commission), for the words "Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted "Accounts Commission for Scotland".

      The National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978
      14.—(1) Section 86 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 (keeping and audit of accounts of certain Scottish health bodies) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsections (1) and (1A), for the words "by auditors appointed by the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "in accordance with Part VII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 by auditors appointed by the Accounts Commission for Scotland".
      (3) After subsection (1A) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1B) To the extent that regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide, the requirement in subsection (1A)(a) to have accounts audited shall not apply to the accounts for any year of a recognised fund-holding practice if those accounts are submitted to a Health Board and summarised in the Board's accounts."
      (4) Subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
      Question put, That the schedule be added to the Bill:—
      The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 56.

      Division 129]

      [12.27 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Bendall, Vivian

      Alexander, Richard

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Allason, Rupert

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Amess, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amos, Alan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Baldry, Tony

      Bowis, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Batiste, Spencer

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Bellingham, Henry

      Brazier, Julian

      623

      Bright, Graham

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

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

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hill, James

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hind, Kenneth

      Burns, Simon

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Butcher, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Butler, Chris

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Butterfill, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Cash, William

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Jack, Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jackson, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Janman, Tim

      Churchill, Mr

      Jessel, Toby

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Key, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Couchman, James

      Knapman, Roger

      Cran, James

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Curry, David

      Knowles, Michael

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

      Knox, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lang, Ian

      Day, Stephen

      Latham, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dover, Den

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dunn, Bob

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Maclean, David

      Forman, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Madel, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Mans, Keith

      Freeman, Roger

      Maples, John

      French, Douglas

      Marland, Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Marlow, Tony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gorst, John

      Mellor, David

      Gow, Ian

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gregory, Conal

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedllng)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Grist, Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Ground, Patrick

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Grylls, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hague, William

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neubert, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Norris, Steve

      Hayward, Robert

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      624

      Paice, James

      Sumberg, David

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Summerson, Hugo

      Patnick, Irvine

      Taylor, Ian (Usher)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Pawsey, James

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Portillo, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Price, Sir David

      Thorne, Neil

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thurnham, Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Trippier, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Trotter, Neville

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rowe, Andrew

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Walden, George

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Ward, John

      Shelton, Sir William

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Watts, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wells, Bowen

      Sims, Roger

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wilkinson, John

      Speller, Tony

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Squire, Robin

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Stevens, Lewis

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stokes, Sir John

      Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      NOES

      Allen, Graham

      Loyden, Eddie

      Alton, David

      McCartney, Ian

      Anderson, Donald

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ashton, Joe

      Marek, Dr John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Beggs, Roy

      Meale, Alan

      Beith, A. J.

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Blair, Tony

      Mullin, Chris

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Murphy, Paul

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Nellist, Dave

      Clay, Bob

      Redmond, Martin

      Cousins, Jim

      Richardson, Jo

      Cryer, Bob

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Rowlands, Ted

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Fearn, Ronald

      Sillars, Jim

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

      Skinner, Dennis

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Gould, Bryan

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Graham, Thomas

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Howells, Geraint

      Wallace, James

      Hoyle, Doug

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kilfedder, James

      Alex Salmond and Dafydd Wigley.

      Livingstone, Ken

      Livsey, Richard

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put, That all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill:—
      The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 187.

      Division No. 130]

      [12.39 am

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Forman, Nigel

      Alexander, Richard

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Allason, Rupert

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Amess, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Amos, Alan

      Freeman, Roger

      Arbuthnot, James

      French, Douglas

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gale, Roger

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Atkins, Robert

      Gill, Christopher

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Baldry, Tony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gorst, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gow, Ian

      Bendall, Vivian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Benyon, W.

      Gregory, Conal

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Body, Sir Richard

      Ground, Patrick

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Grylls, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hague, William

      Boswell, Tim

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bowis, John

      Hannam, John

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Harris, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Hayes, Jerry

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Burns, Simon

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Butcher, John

      Hill, James

      Butler, Chris

      Hind, Kenneth

      Butterfill, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Cash, William

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Irvine, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jack, Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Jackson, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Janman, Tim

      Colvin, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Couchman, James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Key, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Curry, David

      Kirkhope, Timothy

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

      Knapman, Roger

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knowles, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knox, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lang, Ian

      Dover, Den

      Latham, Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Eggar, Tim

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fallon, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Favell, Tony

      Lightbown, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fishbum, John Dudley

      Lord, Michael

      626

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Shelton, Sir William

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Maclean, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sims, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Madel, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mans, Keith

      Speller, Tony

      Maples, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Marland, Paul

      Squire, Robin

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stern, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stokes, Sir John

      Mellor, David

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Sumberg, David

      Mills, Iain

      Summerson, Hugo

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Moate, Roger

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thorne, Neil

      Neale, Gerrard

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Trippier, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Norris, Steve

      Waldegrave, Fit Hon William

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Walden, George

      Page, Richard

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Paice, James

      Waller, Gary

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Ward, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Watts, John

      Pawsey, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Portillo, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Price, Sir David

      Wilshire, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Rathbone, Tim

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wood, Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Yeo, Tim

      Rowe, Andrew

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mr. Alistair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Boateng, Paul

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Boyes, Roland

      Alton, David

      Bradley, Keith

      Anderson, Donald

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Buchan, Norman

      Ashton, Joe

      Buckley, George J.

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Caborn, Richard

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Battle, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Beggs, Roy

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Beith, A. J.

      Cartwright, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clay, Bob

      Blunkett, David

      Clelland, David

      627

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cohen, Harry

      McFall, John

      Coleman, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cousins, Jim

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cox, Tom

      Madden, Max

      Crowther, Stan

      Maginnis, Ken

      Cryer, Bob

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cummings, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Darling, Alistair

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martlew, Eric

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Meale, Alan

      Dixon, Don

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eastham, Ken

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Nellist, Dave

      Faulds, Andrew

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fearn, Ronald

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Fisher, Mark

      Patchett, Terry

      Flannery, Martin

      Pike, Peter L.

      Flynn, Paul

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Prescott, John

      Foster, Derek

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Fraser, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Fyfe, Maria

      Radice, Giles

      Galloway, George

      Randall, Stuart

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Richardson, Jo

      George, Bruce

      Robertson, George

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Rogers, Allan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rooker, Jeff

      Gordon, Mildred

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Graham, Thomas

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hardy, Peter

      Salmond, Alex

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Haynes, Frank

      Short, Clare

      Henderson, Doug

      Sillars, Jim

      Hinchliffe, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

      Home Robertson, John

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Soley, Clive

      Howells, Geraint

      Spearing, Nigel

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Hoyle, Doug

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Turner, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Wallace, James

      Ingram, Adam

      Walley, Joan

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Kilfedder, James

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Lamond, James

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Lewis, Terry

      Winnick, David

      Livsey, Richard

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Worthington, Tony

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Loyden, Eddie

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McAllion, John

      Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Allen McKay.

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCartney, Ian

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 1
      REGIONAL AND DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITIES
      Amendment made: No. 93, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'purposes' and insert 'coming into force.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
    Schedule 1

      HEALTH AUTHORITIES AND FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 70, in page 58, line 15, at beginning insert
      'Except in so far as regulations otherwise provide'.
      No. 69, in page 58, line 31, at beginning insert
      'Except in so far as regulations otherwise provide'.
      No. 94, in page 59, line 5, leave out 'Practitioner' and insert 'Health'.
      No. 95, in page 59, line 6, leave out 'Practitioner' and insert 'Health'.
      No. 96, in page 59, line 11, leave out 'Practitioner' and insert 'Health'.
      No. 97, in page 59, line 23, leave out 'Practitioner' and insert 'Health'.
      No. 98, in page 59, line 46, leave out 'Practitioner' and insert 'Health'.
      No. 99, in page 60, line 6, leave out 'the principal' and insert `this'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 4

      NHS CONTRACTS
      Amendments made: No. 100 in page 5, line 19, at end insert—
      `(6A) A determination of a reference under subsection (3) above may contain such directions (including directions as to payment) as the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the person appointed under subsection (5) above considers appropriate to resolve the matter in dispute; and it shall be the duty of the parties to the NHS contract in question to comply with any such directions.'.
      No. 101, in page 5, line 20, leave out 'By his determination of' and insert
      'Without prejudice to the generality of his powers on'.
      No. 102, in page 5, line 22, after 'may', insert
      'by his determination in relation to an arrangement constituting an NHS contract'.
      No. 103, in page 5, line 27, leave out from 'the' to first 'as' in line 28 and insert
      'directions included in the determination by virtue of subsection (6A) above may contain such provisions'.
      No. 104, in page 5, leave out lines 32 and 33.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 28

      NHS CONTRACTS
      Amendments made: No. 234, in page 27, line 29, at end insert—
      `(7A) A determination of a reference under subsection (4) may contain such directions (including directions as to payment) as the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the person appointed under subsection (6) considers appropriate to resolve the matter in dispute; and it shall be the duty of the parties to the NHS contract in question to comply with any such directions.'.
      No. 235, in page 27, line 30, leave out 'By his determination of and insert
      'Without prejudice to the generality of his powers on'.
      No. 236, in page 27, line 32, at end insert
      `by his determination in relation to an arrangement constituting an NHS contract'.
      No. 237, in page 27, line 39, leave out from `the' to second `as' line 40 and insert
      `directions included in the determination by virtue of subsection (7A) may contain such provisions'.
      No. 238, in page 27, leave out lines 46 and 47.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 5

      NHS TRUSTS
      Amendments made: No. 71, in page 6, line 5, after 'and', insert
      'subject to paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act'.
      No. 72, in page 6, line 22, after 'trust', insert `(including the validation of proceedings in the event of a vacancy or defect in appointment).'—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Schedule 2

      NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE TRUSTS
      Amendments made: No. 73, in page 61, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2) If an order makes the provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above, then, at any time during the period referred to in that sub-paragraph, the NHS trust shall be regarded as properly constituted (and may carry out its limited functions accordingly) notwithstanding that, at that time, all or any of the executive directors have not yet been appointed.'.
      No. 74, in page 61, line 26, leave out 'the retention or and insert
      'prohibiting or restricting the disposal of, or of any interest in'.
      No. 75, in page 61, line 42, at end insert—
      `(3) In such circumstances and at such time or times as may be prescribed, an NHS trust shall hold a public meeting at which such document as may be prescribed shall be presented.'.
      No. 105, in page 62, line 44, after 'trust' insert
      `eiher for the general or any specific purposes of the NHS trust or for all or any purposes relating to the health service'.
      No. 106, in page 62, line 45, at end insert—
      '(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1)(c) above to specific purposes of the NHS trust includes a reference to the purposes of a specific hospital or other establishment or facility which is owned and managed by the trust.'.
      No. 107, in page 63, line 50, at end insert—

      NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE TRUSTS

        'Making of charges
        21A. In each of sections 81 (Charges for more expensive supplies) and 82 (Charges for repairs and replacement necessitated by an act or omission of the person supplied etc.) of the principal Act, in paragraph (a)—

        (a) after the words "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or an NHS trust"; and

        (b) after the word "him" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, by the trust".'.

        No. 108, in page 64, line 7, at end insert—
        '(3) In subsection (5) for the words from "Area or District" onwards there shall be substituted "body responsible for the hospital if that body and the special trustees agree; and in this subsection the body responsible for a hospital is,—

        (a) in the case of a hospital vested in a NHS trust, that trust; and

        (b) in any other case, the District Health Authority exercising functions on behalf of the Secretary of State in respect of the hospital".

        (4) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(5A) Where property is given in pursuance of this section on trust for any purposes of an NHS trust for which trustees have been appointed under section 11(1) of the National
        630
        Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, then, if those trustees and the NHS trust agree, the property may be held, administered and applied by those trustees instead of by the NHS trust."
        (5) In subsection (6) of that section for the words "or to special trustees" there shall be substituted "to an NHS trust or to special trustees or trustees for an NHS trust".'
        No. 274, in page 64, line 11, at end insert—
        `(2) After subsection (2A) of that section there shall be inserted—
        "(2B) in preparing its annual accounts in pursuance of subsection (2) above, an NHS trust shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury as to—

        (a) the methods and principles according to which the accounts are to be prepared; and

        (b) the mnformation to be given in the accounts.".'

        No. 109, in page 64, line 18, at end insert—
        'Use and development of consecrated land and burial grounds
        24A. Section 128 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (use and development of consecrated land and burial grounds) applies to consecrated land and land comprised in a burial ground, within the meaning of that section, which an NHS trust holds for any of its purposes as if—

        (a) that land had been acquired by the trust as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section; and

        (b) the trust were a statutory undertaker, within the meaning of that Act.'

        No. 110, in page 64, line 26, leave out 'purported' and insert 'purporting'.
        No. 111, in page 65, line 3, at end add
        `and any such order may include provisions corresponding to those of section 8 of this Act'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 7

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO TRANSFER OF STAFF
      Amendments made: No. 170, in page 8, line 4, leave out
      `and'.
      No. 171, in page 8, line 7, at end insert—
      `and
      (d) for the purposes of section 146 of and Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, the number of hours normally worked, or, as the case may be, the hours for which the employee is employed in any week under either of those contracts shall be taken to be the total of the hours normally worked or. as the case may be, for which he is employed under the two contracts taken together.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 11

      TRUST FUNDS AND TRUSTEES FOR NHS TRUSTS
      Amendment made: No. 112, in page 11, line 31, at end insert—
      '(7) In section 98(1) of the principal Act (accounts and audit) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
      "(dd) any trustees for an NHS trust appointed in pursuance of section 11 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Schedule 3

      FINANCIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO NHS TRUSTS
      Amendments made: No. 226, in page 65, line 25, at end insert—
      '(1A) An NHS trust may not mortgage or charge any of its assets or in any other way use any of its assets as security for a loan.'.
      No. 113, in page 66, line 18, after 'of' insert
      'or to provide and manage'.
      No. 114, in page 66, line 23, after 'or insert

      631
      'or to provide and manage'.
      No. 227, in page 66, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 67 and insert—
      '7. An NHS trust may not invest any money held by it except in securities of the Government of the United Kingdom or in such other manner as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury approve.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 29

      NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE TRUSTS
      Amendments made: No. 239, in page 28, line 46, after first `and', insert
      ',subject to paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 7A,'.
      No. 240, in page 29, line 21, after `trust', insert
      `(including the validation of proceedings in the event of a vacancy or defect in appointment),'.
      No. 241, in page 30, leave out lines 1 to 9.
      No. 184, in page 31, line 26, leave out 'and'.
      No. 185, in page 31, line 31, at end insert—
      'and
      (d) for the purposes of section 146 of and Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, the number of hours normally worked, or, as the case may be, the hours for which the employee is employed in any week under either of those contracts shall be taken to be the total of the hours normally worked or, as the case may be, for which he is employed under the two contracts taken together.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Schedule 6

      SCHEDULES TO BE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 7 TO THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1978
      Amendments made: No. 243, in page 72, line 39, at end insert—
      '(1A) In a case where the order contains a provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(d) and a person who is being considered for appointment by virtue of that provision—

      (a) is employed by the university or medical or dental school in question; and

      (b) would also, apart from this sub-paragraph, be regarded as employed by the trust,
      his employment by the trust shall be disregarded in determining whether, if appointed, he will be a non-executive director of the trust.'.

      No. 244, in page 73, line 5, at end insert—
      '(2) If an order makes the provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1), then, at any time during the period referred to in that sub-paragraph, the NHS trust shall be regarded as properly constituted (and may carry out its limited functions accordingly) notwithstanding that, at that time, all or any of the executive officers have not yet been appointed.'.
      No. 245, in page 73, line 23, leave out `the retention of and insert
      `prohibiting or restricting the disposal of, or of any interest in'.
      No. 246, in page 73, line 39, at end insert—
      '(3) In such circumstances and at such time or times as may be prescribed, an NHS trust shall hold a public meeting at which such documents as may be prescribed shall be presented.'.
      No. 247, in page 74, line 39, after `trust' insert
      `for purposes relating to any service which it is their function to provide, administer, or make arrangements for, which purposes shall include any purposes relating to a hospital or other establishment or facility which is provided or managed by the trust.'.
      No. 248, in page 76, line 41, at end insert—
      632
      '(1A) An NHS trust may not grant any security over any of its assets or in any other way use any of its assets as security for a loan.'.
      No. 249, in page 78, leave out lines 7 to 16 and insert—
      '7. An NHS trust may not invest any money held by it except in securities of the Government of the United Kingdom or in such other manner as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury approve.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 15

      PAYMENTS TO RECOGNISED FUND-HOLDING PRACTICES
      Amendments made: No. 76, in page 16, line 1, leave out from `to' to `Authority' in line 2 and insert
      'pay to the relevant Regional Health'.
      No. 77, in page 16, line 3, leave out from 'them' to end of line and insert
      `an amount determined in accordance with the regulations as the basic cost of the drugs, medicines and listed appliances'.
      No. 78, in page 16, line 19, at end insert—
      `(7A) In the application of subsection (7) above to the members of a practice whose relevant Family Health Services Authority has a locality in Wales, for the reference in paragraph (a) of that subsection to the relevant Regional Health Authority there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.'—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 32

      FUND-HOLDING PRACTICES
      Amendments made: No. 242, in page 36, line 33, leave
      out `reimburse' and insert `pay to'.
      No. 250, in page 36, line 35, leave out from `them' to `supplied' in line 36 and insert
      `an amount determined in accordance with the regulations as the basic cost of the drugs, medicines and listed appliances'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 18

      INDICATIVE BUDGETS FOR DOCTORS' PRACTICES
      Amendments made: No. 79, in page 18, line 7, leave out `pharmaceutical services' and insert
      `drugs, medicines and listed appliances'.
      No. 80, in page 18, line 22, leave out `pharmaceutical services' and insert
      `drugs, medicines and listed appliances'.
      No. 81, in page 18, line 23, leave out `services' and insert `items'.
      No. 82, in page 18, line 30, leave out `pharmaceutical services' and insert
      `drugs, medicines and listed appliances'.
      No. 83, in page 18, line 34, leave out `pharmaceutical services' and insert
      `drugs, medicines or listed appliances'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 33

      INDICATIVE BUDGETS
      Amendments made: No. 251, in page 38, line 33, leave out `pharmaceutical services' and insert
      `drugs, medicines and listed appliances'.
      No. 252, in page 39, line 3, leave out 'pharmaceutical services' and insert
      `drugs, medicines and listed appliances'.
      No. 253, in page 39, line 5, leave out `services' and insert `items'.
      No. 254, in page 39, line 13, leave out 'pharmaceutical services' and insert
      'drugs, medicines and listed appliances'.
      No. 255, in page 39, line 17, leave out 'pharmaceutical services' and insert
      `drugs, medicines and listed appliances'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 19

      AMENDMENTS RELATING TO FUNDING OF HEALTH AUTHORITIES ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 84, in page 20, line 7, after `above', insert
      `or by virtue of section I 5(7)(a) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 20

      EXTENSION OF FUNCTIONS ETC. OF AUDIT COMMISSION TO COVER THE HEALTH SERVICE
      Amendment made: No. 85, in page 21, line 46, at end insert—
      '(8) Without prejudice to any express amendment made by this Act, on and after the day appointed for the coming into force of this subsection, any reference in any enactment (including an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation) to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales shall be construed as a reference to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Schedule 4

      AMENDMENTS OF PART III OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1982
      Amendments made: No. 115, in page 67, line 33, leave out from `(3C)' to 'the' and insert—
      'In subsection (3A) above "allotted sums" has'.
      No. 116, in page 68, line 21, [Schedule 4J, leave out from 'practice' to 'the' in line 23.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 34

      ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT OF NHS TRUSTS AND FUNDHOLDING PRACTICES
      Amendments made: No. 257, in page 39, line 30, after
      `with', insert 'the following provisions of.
      No. 258, in page 39, line 39, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
      No. 259, in page 49, line 9, at end insert—
      '( 1B) In preparing its annual accounts in pursuance of subsection (1), and NHS trust shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury as to—

      (a) the methods and principles according to which the accounts are to be prepared; and

      (b) the information to be given in the accounts.'.

      No. 260, page 40, line 10, after `(4)' insert
      'Until the day appointed for the coming into force of subsection (1) above,'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 21

      THE MEDICAL PRACTICES COMMITTEE
      Amendment made: No. 117, in page 22, line 13, leave out from `(4)' to 'with' in line 14 and insert
      `After consulting the Medical Practices Committee, the Secretary of State may give the Committee directions'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 36

      SCOTTISH MEDICAL PRACTICES COMMITTEE
      Amendment made: No. 261, in page 41, line 4, leave out from `(1A)' to 'with' in line 5 and insert
      `After consulting the Medical Practices Committee, the Secretary of State may give the Committee directions'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 22

      DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 118, in page 22, line 31, at end insert—
      '(2) At the beginning of subsection (2) of that section (the Medical Practices Committee to select the persons whose applications are to be granted) there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (2A) below" and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      (2A) 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; and

      (b) the Committee shall not consider any application from a medical practitioner who is not so selected; and

      (c) any medical practitioner who has made an application but is not so selected may appeal to the Committee on a point of law;
      and if the Committee allow an appeal under paragraph (c) above they shall remit the application to the Authority for reconsideration."

      (3) In subsection (4) of that section (applications under section 30 may be granted subject to certain conditions), after the words "subject to" there shall be inserted "(a)" and at the end of the subsection there shall be added "or
      (b) prescribed conditions limiting, by reference to hours or the sharing of work, the provision of general medical services for which the applicant will be entitled to be remunerated;
      and an order under subsection (1A) above may make provision as to the extent to which account is to be taken under the order of medical practitioners whose ability to carry out remunerated work is limited by virtue of conditions imposed under paragraph (b) above".(4) In subsection (5) of that section (appeals to the Secretary of State) for the words following "Secretary of State", in the first place where those words occur, there shall be substituted "on a point of law; and, if the Secretary of State allows such an appeal, he shall remit the application to the Medical
      Practices Committee for reconsideration".
      (5) Subsection (7) of that section (directions on a successful appeal) shall be omitted.
      (6) In subsection (8) of that section (matters to be taken into account) for the words from the beginning to "in any case" there shall be substituted "In any case where medical practitioners have to be selected from a number of applicants, the Medical Practices Committee or, where subsection (2A) above applies, the Family Health Services Authority shall".
      (7) In section 34 of the principal Act (regulations for Medical Practices Committee)—

      (a) in paragraph (b)(ii) for the words "under section 33 above" there shall be substituted "or the Medical Practices Committee under section 33 above and, where such an appeal is allowed, the reconsideration of any application"; and

      (b) at the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection—

      "(2) Regulations under this section may make provision for, and in connection with, the variation of any condition imposed under subsection (4) or subsection (5) of section 33 above.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 37

      DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 262, in page 41, line 25, at end insert—
      '(2) At the beginning of subsection (2) of that section (the Medical Practices Committee to select the person whose applications are to be granted) there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (2A)" and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) If, in the opinion of the Medical Practices Committee, a medical practitioner is required for a particular part of the area of a Health Board, then, in such circumstances as may be prescribed,—

      (a) the Board shall, in accordance with regulations, select the medical practitioner whose application they wish to be considered by the Committee; and

      (b) the Committee shall not consider any application from a medical practitioner who is not so selected; and

      (c) any medical practitioner who has made an application but is not so selected may appeal to the Committee on a point of law;
      and if the Committee allow an appeal under paragraph (c) they shall remit the application to the Board for reconsideration."

      (3) In subsection (4) of that section (applications under section 20 may be granted subject to certain conditions), after the words "subject to" there shall be inserted "(a)" and at the end of the subsection there shall be added—
      "or
      (b) prescribed conditions limiting, by reference to hours or the sharing of work, the provision of general medical services for which the applicant will be entitled to be remunerated;
      and an order under subsection (1A) may make provision as to the extent to which account is to be taken under the order of medical practitioners whose ability to carry out remunerated work is limited by virtue of conditions imposed under paragraph (b)".
      (4) In subsection (5) of that section (appeals to the Secretary of State) for the words following "Secretary of State", in the first place where those words occur, there shall be substituted "on a point of law; and, if the Secretary of State allows such an appeal, he shall remit the application to the Medical Practices Committee for reconsideration".
      (5) Subsection (7) of that section (directions on a successful appeal) shall be omitted.
      (6) In subsection (8) of that section (matters to be taken into account) for the words from the beginning to "in any such case" there shall be substituted "In any case where medical practitioners have to be selected from a number of applicants, the Medical Practices Committee or, where subsection (2A) applies, the Health Board shall".
      (7) In section 24 of the 1978 Act (Regulations for Medical Practices Committee)—

      (a) in paragraph (b)(ii) for the words "un`er section 23" there shall be substituted "or the Medical Practices Commiteee under section 23 and, where such an appeal is allowed, the reconsideration of any application"; and

      (b) at the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection—

      "(2) Regulations under this section may take provision for, and in connection with the variation of any condition imposed under subsection (4) or (5) of section 23.".'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 39

      PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION AND WELFARE SERVICES: AGENCY ARRANGEMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 198, in page 42, line 4, leave out `21(I)(a)' and insert '21(1)'.
      No. 186, in page 42, line 7, after 'circumstances)' insert—
      '(a) in paragraph (a)'.
      No. 233, in page 42, line 8, at end add 'and
      (b) at the end of that paragraph there shall be added
      "and
      (aa) residential accommodation for expectant and nursing mothers who are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them".'.
      No. 202, in page 42, line 43, at end insert—
      `(2A) at the end of subsection (2) of that section (under which the arrangements must provide for the local authority to make payments in respect of accommodation provided) there shall be added "and the local authority shall recover from each person for whom accommodation is provided under the arrangements the amount of the refund which he is liable to make in accordance with the following provisions of this section".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 40

      EXCLUSION OF POWERS TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION IN CERTAIN CASES
      Amendments made: No. 336, page 43, line 38, after `that', insert
      `in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.'.
      No. 337, in page 43, line 38, leave out
      `the case of and insert 'relation to'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 53

      EXCLUSION OF POWERS TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION IN CERTAIN CASES
      Amendments made: No. 338, in page 52, line 29, after `that', insert
      `in such cases and subject to such conditions as may he prescribed.'
      No. 339, in page 52, line 29, leave out 'the case or and insert `relation to'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 41

      CHARGES FOR ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 214, in page 44, line 5, leave out `(2) and' and insert '(1A) to'.
      No. 215, in page 44, line 5, at end insert—
      '(1A) In subsection (1) (which relates to a person's liability to pay for accommodation) for the words from the beginning to "the accommodation" there shall be substituted "Subject to section 26 of this Act, where a person is provided with accommodation under this Part of this Act the local authority providing the accommodation shall recover from him the amount of the payment which he is liable to make".
      (1B) In subsection (2) (which requires the authority managing premises to fix the standard rate) after the word "payment" there shall be inserted "which a person is liable to make" and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "and that standard rate shall represent the full cost to the authority of providing that accommodation".
      (1C) In subsection (3) (which makes provision for people who are unable to pay at the standard rate)—

      (a) the words "(disregarding income support)", and

      637

      (b) the words from "Provided that" to the end of the subsection,
      shall be omitted.'.

      No. 216, in page 44, line 10, leave out 'subsection (3) or'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Schedule 7

      PROVISIONS ARISING OUT OF REMOVAL OF CROWN IMMUNITIES FROM HEALTH SERVICE BODIES
      Amendment made: No. 86, in page 78, line 37, at end add
      'or a National Health Service trust established under Part I of that Act or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 57

      HEALTH SERVICE BODIES: TAXATION
      Amendment made: No. 87, in page 56, line 5, at end insert—
      '(5) At the end of Schedule 3 to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (gifts for national purposes) there shall be added—
      "A health service body, within the meaning of section 519A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 60

      REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 88, in page 56, line 37, at end add
      'and at the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, any power which may be exercised as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection may make different provision for different areas.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Schedule 8

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 89, in page 88, line 18, leave out 'At the end of and insert 'In'.
      No. 90, in page 88, line 18, at end insert
      `(enactments conferring functions assisgned to social services committee), in the entry relating to the Children Act 1989, in the second column after the words `health authorities' there shall be inserted "National Health Service trusts"; and at the end of that Schedule'.
      No. 91, in page 88, line 45, at end insert—

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        The Adoption Act 1976
        In section 2 of the Adoption Act 1976 (local authorities' social services) in paragraph (a) (as set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Children Act 1989) after the words "health authorities" there shall be inserted "National Health Service trusts".'.
        No. 119, in page 89, line 2, leave out '63 of the National Health Service Act 1977' and insert—
        '41 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (arrangements for pharmaceutical services)—

        (a) for the words "supply to persons who are in that locality" there shall be substituted "provision to persons who are in that locality of";

        (b) in paragraph (b) after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or an NHS trust" and the word "and" at the end of the paragraph shall be omitted; and

        (c) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted "and

        (d) such other services as may be prescribed."

        (1A) At the end of section 43 of that Act (persons authorised to provide pharmaceutical services) there shall be added the following subsection—
        "(3) No arrangements for the provision of pharmaceutical services falling within section 41(d) above shall be made with persons other than those who are registered pharmacists or are of a prescribed description." (1B) In section 63 of that Act'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
        No. 263, in page 90, leave out from beginning of line 37 to 'for' in line 38 and insert—
        '(5) In section 27 of that Act (arrangements for provision of pharmaceutical services)—
        (a) in subsection (1)—

        (i) for the word "supply" there shall be substituted "provision";

        (ii) in paragraph (b), after the word "Board" there shall be inserted "or by an NHS trust";

        (iii) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—"; and

        (d) such services as may be prescribed,"; and
        (iv) for the words "services provided in accordance with the arrangements are" there shall be substituted "provision of drugs, medicines, appliances and services in accordance with the arrangements is";
        (b) in subsection (2). after the word "mentioned" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted ", or to whom services mentioned in subsection (1)(d) are to be provided,";
        (c) in subsections (3)(b), (c) and (d) and (4), before the word "services" in each place where it occurs there shall be inserted "pharmaceutical"; and
        (d) in subsection (4)(d)".'.
        No. 264, in page 90, line 39, at end insert—
        '(5A) In section 28(2) of that Act (persons authorised to provide pharmaceutical services)—

        (a) after the word "medicines" in the first plece where it occurs there shall be inserted "or the provision of pharmaceutical services";

        (b) after the word "undertake" there shall be inserted "(a)";

        (c) for the word "supplied" there shall be substituted "provided"; and

        (d) after the word "dispensed" there shall be inserted", and

        that all services mentioned in section 27(1)(d) provided by them under those arrangements shall be provided,".'
        No. 265, in page 91, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert—
        '(17) in section 105 (orders, regulations and direction) of that Act—

        (a) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—"(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to orders made under section 12D(1) or paragraph 23(1) of Schedule 7A.";

        (b) in subsection (4), after the words "10(3) to (5)" there shall be inserted the words " I2A(1), 12A(7), 12E(1), 12G(2),"; and

        (c) at the end of the said subsection (4) there shall be inserted the words "paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 7A and paragraph 3 of Schedule 7B".'.

        No. 266, page 91, line 45, at end insert—
        '(za) in the definition of "Health Board", for the word "board" there shall be substituted the words "Health Board";'.
        No. 267, in page 92, line 3, leave out 'and'.
        No. 268, in page 92, line 6, at end insert—
        and
        (d) after the definition of "the Research Trust" there shall be inserted—
        ""Special Health Board" means a Special Health Board constituted under section 2;".'.—[Mr. Forsyth.]
        No. 120, in page 97, line 6, at end insert—

        The Children Act 1989
        .—(1) In section 21 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of accommodation for children in police protection ect.), in subsection (3) after the words "vested in the Secretary of State" shall be inserted the words "or otherwise made available pursuant to arrangements made by a District Health Authority".
        (2) In section 24 of that Act (advice and assistance for certain children)—

        (a) at the end of subsection (2)(d)(ii) there shall be added the words "or in any accommodation provided by a National Health Service trust"; and

        (b) at the end of subsection (12)(c) there shall be added the words "or any accommodation provided by a National Health Service trust".

        (3) In section 29 of that Act (recoupment of cost of providing services etc.), at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (8) there shall be added the words "or any other hospital made available pursuant to arrangements made by a District Health Authority".
        (4) In section 80 of that Act (inspection of children's homes etc.)—

        (a) in subsection (1)(d) after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or National Health Service trust"; and

        (b) in subsection (5)(e) after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "National Health Service trust".

        (5) In section 85 of that Act (children accommodated by health authorities and local education authorities), in subsection (1) after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "National Health Service trust".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Schedule 9

      ENACTMENTS REPEALED
      Amendments made: No. 121, in page 99, line 8, column 3, at end insert—

      'In section 41(b) the final word "and".'

      No. 123, in page 99, column 3, leave out lines 13 and 14.
      No. 122, in page 99, line 24, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 33(7).'.

      No. 270, in page 99, line 45, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 23(7).'.

      No. 271, in page 99, line 47, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 86(2).'.

      No. 92, in page 100, leave out lines 19 to 24.
      No. 272, in page 101, line 10, at end insert—
      640

      '1990 c. 00.

      The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

      Section 34(4).'.

      —[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 62

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 340, in page 57, line 11 at end insert
      'subsection (2A) of section 39,'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 273, in line 5, after 'amend' insert
    'Part VII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
    Bill to be read the Third time this day.

  PETITION

    Roads
    12.49 am
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: The petition that I wish to present has been signed by more than 4,500 of the inhabitants of Norbury and Thornton Heath in my constituency of Croydon, North-West and urges the Secretary of State for Transport not to proceed with any new carriageways or major road widenings in Norbury or Thornton Heath which would damage those communities.
    The petition is strongly supported by Norbury councillors Colin Johnston, Brian Kendall and Roy Hodges and by the local action group Norbury Against Trunk Roads, all of whose members work tirelessly on behalf of local people. Recently, the mayor of Croydon and I led a march of 2,500 Norbury people to demonstrate our united opposition to the proposals.
    The petition reads:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to recognise the great concern caused to the communities in Norbury, Thornton Heath, and in southern Streatham, by the proposals for new carriageways and widening of the A23 that are contained in the South London Assessment Study, Stage 2b. We also have concern for those proposals which similarly threaten other communities in London. We request that the Secretary recognise our concerns and that the manner of this recognition be as follows:

    1. That he should dismiss all the options in the South London Assessment Study which propose major construction of roads, or major widening of roads and proposals which will damage communities and the natural environment.

    2. That he should seek instead to promote investment in making substantial improvements in the Public Transport infrastructure.

    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

  McGimpsey Judgment (Irish Supreme Court)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  12.52 am
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am grateful to have been allowed this early opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the Supreme Court case of McGimpsey and McGimpsey v. Ireland in which judgment was obtained on 1 March, but I am disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to require a Law Officer to respond to the debate. That is not to impugn the ability of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I acknowledge that the Attorney-General is on the Treasury Bench, but a legal matter which impinges on the very right of the people of Northern Ireland to exist should be of such concern to our Government that they should wish to give a legal response.
  The outcome of the case to which I refer is that the Irish Republic is now deemed to have a de jure claim—an unequivocal legal claim—to Northern Ireland. It does not matter what our Government believe to be the position—and for the past four years they have encouraged us to understand that our rights as British citizens are most firmly enshrined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement—the ruling of the Irish Supreme Court is that nothing in any legislation can overrule the constitutional imperative to achieve a united Ireland.
  I wish now to outline the background to the case. When the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed on 15 November 1985 it provoked from Michael and Christopher McGimpsey exactly the same traumatic reaction as it engendered throughout the entire Unionist community. But while they identified with and joined in Unionists' protests against the unjust imposition of the diktat, they were soon convinced that only through legal action could there be any hope of proving just how dangerous and deceitful the agreement was. Being historians who had taken a special interest in Irish affairs, they came to the conclusion that the best chance of success would be through the Irish Republic's courts.
  While a similar action against the agreement to be taken by Enoch Powell in the High Court in London would soon run into the sand because the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, the McGimpseys' initiative was based on the fact that the Irish Republic certainly does have one. Moreover, the Irish constitution had previously been the basis of legal challenges in respect of other international agreements entered into by the Government of the day. Boland v. An Taoiseach 1974, concerning the constitutionality of the Sunningdale agreement, provided some basis for argument but it was eventually the case of Crotty v. An Taoiseach 1987 which provided the real impetus for the McGimpseys. In it, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Government of the Republic did not have the competence to implement the Single European Act without the approval of the Irish people through a referendum.
  The crux of the Crotty argument was that no aspect of foreign policy could be ceded by the Government of the Republic to another Government—or, in this case, to the
  642
  European Community. Articles 28 and 29 of the Irish constitution precluded any fettering of the power of the Government to conduct external affairs of state.
  Article 2 of the Irish constitution reads:
  "The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas."
  To mount a successful challenge the McGimpseys therefore had to prove that article 2 of the Irish constitution was intended to be a legal claim and not merely a political aspiration and, if that was so, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement restrained the Republic's Government from pursuing that legal claim in so far as it recognised the de jure right of the United Kingdom Government to govern Northern Ireland, and hence to dictate the foreign policy for that part of the island.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), when Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, appeared to believe that article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was a de jure acknowledgement of the United Kingdom's right when he spoke about it "copper-fastening the union." But the testy reaction of the Irish Foreign Minister, Peter Barry, showed that this was not the Republic's perception. Whatever the real truth, the McGimpseys were increasingly convinced that it could be proved only by obtaining a judgment in the Supreme Court of the Irish Republic.
  Thus it was in 1987 that the two brothers put their theory to me and I agreed to help them to co-ordinate the necessary action to finance and promote their case. As the case progressed through the legal system, more and more people, including many politicians from the Republic, suggested that the premise that article 2 of the constitution was "a legal claim" would be disproved. These opinions were based on a judgment given at a time when the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill 1977 was passing through the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government had sought a Supreme Court ruling on its constitutionality.
  Then, Justice O'Higgins had been understood to say:
  "This national claim to unity exists not in the legal but in the political order".
  Perhaps that was the perception in the mind of our Government when they signed the 1985 diktat, but, as I said earlier, they should have been alerted when Barry squealed at Secretary of State King's "copper-fastening" comment. This apart, we all felt a definitive judgment was necessary and we presumed that the outcome would prove our case.
  If the McGimpseys were correct in their "legal claim" thesis, Unionist fears of being subsumed within a politically united Ireland would be justified, but at least the hated agreement which was inevitably going to trundle us there more quickly should be deemed unconstitutional and would, we reasoned, have to be abandoned.
  On the other hand, we accepted that if the "political aspiration" argument was correct there would be an end of Unionist fears, the Northern Ireland Office would be proved right and Unionists would have to come to terms with that. The atmosphere of suspicion and distrust—the Unionist siege mentality—which has pervaded our community since the Irish Republic's constitution was adopted in 1937 would change and the basis for new relationships would be created. The Unionist community approved that strategy and provided the funds necessary to mount the challenge.
  The essential features of the Dublin Supreme Court's judgment are that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution

  643
  constitute a legal claim of right over the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland; that the Republic can give only de facto recognition of British sovereignty over Northern Ireland and is constitutionally prohibited from acknowledging this de jure. I trust that the Minister can assure me that he will place a copy of the judgment in the Libary so that right hon. and hon. Members can read it and judge its implications for themselves.
  On the legal claim, it is significant that the Supreme Court saw fit to overrule specifically its earlier decision in the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill judgment. It is generally felt among lawyers in the Irish Republic that that is quite a remarkable step for the court to have taken given the sensitivity of the matter. This is only the sixth occasion the Supreme Court has ever expressly departed from its earlier ruling.
  It is also interesting that, although article 3 is now taken to preclude the Republic from legislating with respect to Northern Ireland
  "pending the reintegration of the national territory", the court states that that restriction
  "in no way derogates from the claim as a legal right to the entire national territory."
  Furthermore, the express language of articles 2 and 3 constitute an
  "express denial and disclaimer to the Community of Nations"—
  that the present border—
  "is or can be accepted as conclusive of the matter"
  so as to prevent any question of estoppel arising in international law. In turn, that reinforces the "legal claim of right" interpretation of articles 2 and 3.
  The court then concluded that the recognition of Northern Ireland accorded by the Anglo-Irish Agreement was de facto only. Chief Justice Finlay states:
  "There can be no doubt but that the only reasonable interpretation of article 1 taken in conjunction with the denial of derogation from sovereignty contained in article 2(b) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is that it constitutes a recognition of the de facto situation in Northern Ireland, but does so without abandoning the claim to the reintegration of the national territory."
  The House should note the next sentence well:
  "These are essential ingredients of the constitutional provisions in articles 2 and 3."
  They are the essential ingredients enshrined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement—that should be clear to everyone. Obviously it will be clear to the Attorney-General.
  Here is a clear and unequivocal statement that the Anglo-Irish Agreement enhances the Republic's "legal claim" by virtue of the "essential ingredients" and the "constitutional imperative" of achieving unity. It follows that no Irish Government can ever de jure recognise the existing status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom as that would be manifestly unconstitutional. So the McGimpseys won the argument that the Irish had abandoned their hard-line nationalist claim to Northern Ireland contained in articles 2 and 3, but who could have guessed that the Supreme Court would have been able, in those circumstances, to endorse the Anglo-Irish Agreement as being complementary to that point of view? The answer to that is, most of the Unionist leadership. From comments that I have heard from the Minister's colleagues, however, it appears that they wish to ignore reality.
  Let Unionists not appear to be the only people who appreciate the full significance of the judgment. Hon. Members can refer to The Times article by Dr. Conor
  644
  Cruise O'Brien on 10 March in which he suggested to Her Majesty's Government that they suspend the agreement. He went on to remind readers:
  "As a general principle, it may be affirmed that no government should conclude an agreement concerning a part of its territory with another government that is laying claim to that territory. A government which breaches that principle inescapably gives the impression that it is on the way towards accepting the other government's claim."
  The Irish Times on 5 March carried an article by Dr. David Gwynn Morgan, a legal expert. He made the startling but logical assertion that the consequence of the court's decision was that
  "an Irish government is simply not legally competent to reach certain kinds of compromise with the Unionist majority."
  Hence, one must ask if it is competent to make arrangements on an ongoing basis with this Government, except for the purpose of implementing the "constitutional imperative" spelt out by the Supreme Court to unify the island.
  Virtually every informed scholar and journalist who has written on the issue is agreed that our Government's credibility and integrity will be called into question if they do nothing about the fraud that has been perpetrated against them. Even The Irish News, a respectable if strictly anti-Unionist daily paper in Northern Ireland, concluded in its 12 March edition that the McGimpseys may hake lost the battle but should win the war. John Hume's biographer, writing in The Belfast Telegraph on 9 March, acknowledged the injustice of the situation.
  There is one way forward. It is for the Government of the Irish Republic to volunteer, or to allow themselves to be persuaded, to amend or revoke articles 2 and 3 of their constitution by putting the matter to a referendum. The McGimpseys and I suggested that we would be willing to go to meet the opinion-formers in the south, including political leaders, to put the case. Unfortunately, Mr. Haughey, who has consistently boasted about how generous he would be if Unionists would only come to talk with him, has responded by slamming the door in our faces. He would, he said on Tuesday, consider meeting us, but then he firmly precluded discussion about the one topic on which we need to talk.
  This House was persuaded to accept in the debate on 26 and 27 November 1985 that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would bring peace, stability and reconciliation. Who other than those of us who are close to the reality of the situation could possibly have voted against that? In less heady moments, the Government assured the House that the three tangible benefits would be the recognition, for the first time, of the de jure status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom until such time as the majority voted otherwise; the extradition of terrorists; and an end to megaphone diplomacy.
  The court case has made it clear that the first is not on offer. Will the Minister explain that to Unionists? Extradition is, most of us believe after Tuesday's debacle, firmly on the back burner. Let him explain that to the widow of a murdered prison officer and to the families of all the other victims. And when we hear the raucous, yet self-righteous, tones first of Peter Barry and now of Gerry Collins before every meeting of the conference threatening what will be demanded and insisted upon, how does this Government live with that indignity?
  If some in this House cannot or will not believe that the agreement is dead because it is being propped up for appearance's sake, perhaps they can at least accept that it

  645
  is meaningless. When I was first sent to this House in 1983, the honest to God decent people who sent me here thought that this was a place where they would get justice. Enoch Powell always insisted that this Parliament was the final arbiter, but Harold McCusker died believing otherwise. On behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, I ask the Minister to tell us who is right. Are we to continue to be sold out for political expediency or will the Government now recognise, in the light of the McGimpsey judgment, their obligation to justice and the people I represent?
  1.10 am
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: With the leave of my hon. Friends the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the Minister, I wish to say a few words about the subject of this debate.
  The constitution of the Irish Republic suffers from all the defects of written constitutions in that it embodies national ideals, vague aspirations and noble objectives, but has to respect certain major legislation which it inherited from this country. It also comes within the common law tradition. As a result, when its Supreme Court interprets the constitution, it provides many opportunities for obscurity and tendentious interpretation to cover almost any decision that the court may see fit to take, even those which are purely politically motivated. That is the crux of the problem that we have faced in recent years in relation to the actions of the courts in the Republic.
  The McGimpsey case illustrates the ambiguity. The court treated the Single European Act as law within the terms of article 40 of the constitution. It was treated as law because the court accepted that a derogation of the sovereignty of the Irish Republic was all right because it was properly done and was, after all, a treaty. However, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is also supposed to be an internationally binding treaty and must be respected by all sovereign states party to it, is not law for this purpose. Why? After studying the constitution, the court concluded that provision for the Anglo-Irish Agreement came out of the section of the constitution that allowed for the mere ordering of peaceful international relations. That was the basis of authority for the Irish Government to conclude that that agreement with the United Kingdom was an international treaty, but it did not reach the status of law for the purpose of the constitution. That ambiguity is reflected in the constitution in articles 2 and 3. It is difficult to construe the meanings of those two articles, but the message is repeated in article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which states that there will be
  "no change in the status of Northern Ireland."
  My right hon. and hon. Friends, the leaders of the Government, assigned that agreement with those very words and have paraded it as if, at last, the Irish Republic has accepted that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. It has done nothing of the sort. The phrase that there will be
  "no change in the status of Northern Ireland"
  makes one ask, what is its status? Under Irish law, the status of Northern Ireland is that it is a part of Ireland, not the United Kingdom. Under British law its status is that it is a part of the United Kingdom. That ambiguity has never been resolved and, politically, the British Government have asked us to accept that the meaning should be that
  646
  attributed to it by British courts, whereas we all know that the meaning attributed to it by Irish courts, such as in this case, is quite different.
  Due to that ambiguity and the many times that we have allowed Irish courts to get away with—and forgiven them for—the errors which, according to our jurisprudence, they continually make, we have enabled them to block off all possibility in law of the extradition of terrorists from the Irish Republic. Under the most recent judgment, a finding of fact was made which will be instanced in future to show the impossibility of extraditing people to the United Kingdom because they may be beaten up when they arrive in United Kingdom jurisdiction.
  Previously there was a finding, allowed and confirmed by the courts, by the Attorney-General that in the case of Father Ryan no extradition could take place because there was no chance of his getting a fair trial. That ambiguity is at the heart of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is a tragic mistake that has been confirmed by the recent experience that we have had to endure.
  1.15 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I do not have too much time to respond to this interesting debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) on obtaining such an early Adjournment debate on this important subject. I also congratulate him on his speech. He asked me to place a copy of the Supreme Court judgment in the Library, and I shall see that this is done.
  The hon. Gentleman indicated his belief that the recent judgment of the Irish Supreme Court in some sense substantially changed Northern Ireland's position and that, perhaps, Unionists had never before understood article 2 of the Irish constitution to be a legal claim on the north.
  I cannot accept that argument. I fully understand the sense of dismay felt by many, including Unionists, at the clear affirmation in the judgment that articles 2 and 3 constitute a legal claim to Northern Ireland. But Unionists have always known that the claim was legal and territorial. They did not need the Irish Supreme Court to spell it out. When the hon. Gentleman and I were growing up in the Province, Unionists were not referring to article 2 as some sort of political aspiration. If they had believed that, they would have been much less agitated. It was precisely because they believed that the article did lay legal claim to the Province that Unionists were so upset and offended—as, indeed, were others in the United Kingdom. In fact, the hon. Gentleman may remember the report from an all-party committee of the Dail, chaired by George Colley, a Fianna Fail deputy if I remember correctly, which reported in 1967 and which proposed a number of Irish constitutional amendments, including the desirability of converting articles 2 and 3 into a political aspiration using the words:
  "The Irish nation hereby proclaims its firm will"
  —and so on.
  After all, a constitutional document, almost by definition, has to be seen and understood in a legal sense. Most people accepted this. While it may come as a shock to many that this understanding should have been confirmed in such stark terms in 1990, it cannot be said to be a surprise.

  647
  The hon. Gentleman postulated that the judgment changed something fundamental in our relationship with the Irish Republic in general and rendered meaningless article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in particular. I shall deal with each claim in turn.
  It is not my responsibility to defend the Irish constitution. It is for Irish Ministers to consider and, if they feel it necessary, to explain this territorial claim in light of that country's signing of the Helsinki Final Act. Our two countries have differing historical perceptions and constitutional frameworks, and as we are entitled to ours, so they are to theirs. It is also for Irish Ministers to relate article 2 of their constitution to their signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
  Dr. Mawhinney: I cannot give way, as I have little time left.
  That notwithstanding, both Governments value the Anglo-Irish Agreement, its aims and its modus operandi. Whatever the constitutional facts, in practice it has proved to be an important treaty.
  I cannot accept that the hon. Gentleman is seriously asking the House to believe that the Supreme Court judgment actually makes any difference in reality to the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution or Northern Ireland's safe inclusion within it. As far as we are concerned, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is clearly so in international law. He said that it does not matter what the Government believe, but in the United Kingdom—that includes Northern Ireland—what Parliament and the Government believe is all important.
  Article I of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is an internationally binding treaty, is not and cannot be affected by a judgment of the Irish court. In signing the Agreement, the Irish and British Governments recognised the reality of Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, whatever the different de jure positions.
  I say that because the nub of article 1 is not a definition of the status of Northern Ireland but says that that status cannot be changed save by the freely given consent of the people of the Province. Willingness to contemplate change carries with it de facto recognition of the position from
  648
  which change might occur. I hasten to add that the British Government's view is that there will be no majority for change in the foreseeable future. In other words, the declaration on status in the Anglo-Irish Agreement is simply aligned with reality. The reality is that the status of Northern Ireland is British.
  Lest the hon. Member thinks that I theorise, let me point out to him that we are having this debate in the House of Commons, not the Dail. It is in this forum that decisions affecting Northern Ireland are taken—as is affirmed by article 2b of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Arid the court judgment makes no difference to that reality either. I accept that the Irish Government have not abandoned any aspiration to unity. They have accepted, however, that this aspiration can be realised only on the basis of the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. This position holds, irrespective of the Irish constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.
  Let me summarise. The people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom have lived with this territorial claim for over 50 years. The United Kingdom Government have never accepted it, do not accept it and have said so, as I do again tonight. We regard it as having no validity in international law. It has never had any practical effect on Northern Ireland's position as part of the United Kingdom.
  Nor do I lend credence to the view that the court judgment will serve to sustain the Provisional IRA in its campaign of violence. PIRA does not recognise the legitimacy of the Government, institutions or constitution of the Republic. It cannot therefore be argued that it will be influenced by some legal interpretation of a part of that constitution.
  I wish to make one final point. In light of what I have said, the Government believe that it would be wrong to suggest that this judgment should in any way affect prospects for political progress in Northern Ireland. As the talks offered are without precondition, Unionists may legitimately—
  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, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-two minutes past One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Open University
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the cost of Open university foundation courses in constant prices over the past 21 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available at this stage in the form requested. The table provides information at constant 1989 prices (using the GDP deflator) on the average total cost of a full credit course, broken down by the cost to the Exchequer from grant, and the cost to the student from the undergraduate tuition fee and the summer school fee.

  Cost of an Open University full credit course

  1989 prices

  Total cost

  Exchequer grant

  Undergraduate tuition fee

  Summer school fee

  Year

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1971

  1,884·9

  1,621·5

  117·1

  146·3

  1972

  1,391·3

  1,147·7

  108·3

  135·3

  1973

  1,460·8

  1,182·8

  126·4

  151·6

  1974

  1,469·6

  1,210·0

  110·0

  149·6

  1975

  1,309·3

  1,089·6

  86·5

  133·2

  1976

  1,515·1

  1,247·6

  120·2

  147·3

  1977

  1,498·8

  1,250·8

  118·7

  129·3

  1978

  1,433·7

  1,192·0

  123·2

  118·5

  1979

  1,426·9

  1,205·3

  113·9

  107·7

  1980

  1,566·2

  1,342·7

  116·1

  107·4

  1981

  1,641·1

  1,372·0

  152·4

  116·7

  1982

  1,594·3

  1,309·5

  173·5

  111·3

  1983

  1,516·7

  1,229·8

  174·3

  112·6

  1984

  1,515·1

  1,225·2

  174·5

  115·4

  1985

  1,488·9

  1,197·1

  175·1

  116·7

  1986

  1,504·8

  1,203·6

  182·4

  118·8

  1987

  1,454·6

  1,155·9

  180·8

  117·9

  1988

  1,378·0

  1,082·4

  178·4

  117·2

  1989

  1,396·0

  1,088·0

  186·0

  122·0

  Student Loans
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the total expenditure to date on and by the Student Loans Company Ltd.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Student Loans Company Ltd. has spent some £3,127,000 inclusive of VAT on preparatory work on the student loans scheme since its formation on 20 November 1989. This expenditure has been funded by the Department of Education and Science in accordance with the estimate approved by Parliament.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the increase in numbers recruited to the university education departments of Aberystwyth, Bangor, Cardiff and 220
  Swansea in each of the past five years, expressed in numbers and percentage terms; and in which subject areas the increase has taken place.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The tables show intakes to courses in column(a) and in columns (b) and (c) the relative yearly increase in numbers recruited, expressed in numbers and percentage terms, respectively, for the university education departments of Aberystwyth, Bangor, Cardiff and Swansea for the academic years 1985–86 to 1989–90.

  Initial teacher training recruitment (1985 to 1989) to university education departments Aberystwyth, Bangor, Cardiff and Swansea 1985

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  Aberystwyth

  Primary

  36

  4

  12·5

  Secondary:

  Drama

  8

  3

  60·0

  History

  11

  2

  22·2

  Music

  5

  -2

  -28·6

  RE

  7

  0

  0

  English

  10

  -5

  -33·3

  Languages

  26

  1

  4·0

  Geography

  7

  -5

  41·6

  Mathematics

  3

  -9

  -75·0

  Biology

  10

  -2

  -16·6

  Chemistry

  6

  3

  100·0

  Physics

  10

  7

  233·3

  Other Science

  4

  -1

  -20·0

  Total Secondary

  107

  -8

  -6·9

  Bangor

  Primary

  38

  8

  26·6

  Secondary:

  History

  11

  1

  10·0

  RE

  6

  -1

  -14·3

  English

  2

  -9

  - 81·8

  Languages

  11

  -3

  -21·4

  Geography

  8

  -5

  -33·3

  Mathematics

  13

  1

  8·3

  Biology

  12

  1

  9·1

  Chemistry

  10

  -2

  -16·6

  Physics

  6

  2

  50·0

  Other Science

  0

  0

  0

  TEFL

  15

  2

  15·4

  PE

  8

  8

  —

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  Total Secondary

  102

  -7

  -6·4

  Cardiff

  Primary

  30

  4

  15·4

  Secondary:

  Art

  0

  0

  0

  History

  8

  3

  60·0

  Music

  10

  2

  25·0

  RE

  7

  4

  133·3

  English

  15

  2

  15·4

  Languages

  17

  -3

  -15·0

  Geography

  7

  1

  16·6

  Mathematics

  19

  0

  0

  Biology

  7

  -3

  -30·0

  Chemistry

  11

  3

  37·5

  Physics

  10

  4

  66·6

  Home Economics

  24

  -3

  -11·1

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  Total Secondary

  135

  10

  8·0

  Swansea

  Primary:

  19

  -1

  -5·0

  Secondary:

  History

  16

  3

  23·1

  RE

  0

  -7

  -100·0

  221

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  English

  9

  -2

  -18·2

  Languages

  15

  -9

  -37·5

  Geography

  16

  -1

  -5·9

  Mathematics

  15

  4

  28·6

  Biology

  15

  -5

  -50·0

  Chemistry

  5

  -5

  -50·0

  Physics

  10

  7

  233·3

  Other Science

  0

  0

  0

  Total Secondary

  104

  -5

  -4·6

  1986

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  Aberyslwyth

  Primary

  32

  2

  6·6

  Secondary:

  Drama

  5

  -1

  -16·6

  History

  9

  0

  0

  Music

  7

  -1

  -12·5

  RE

  7

  1

  16·6

  English

  15

  0

  0

  Languages

  25

  -6

  -19·3

  Geography

  12

  0

  0

  Mathematics

  12

  -6

  -33·3

  Biology

  12

  2

  20·0

  Chemistry

  3

  -2

  -40·0

  Physics

  3

  -2

  -40·0

  Other Science

  5

  0

  0

  Total Secondary

  115

  -15

  -11·5

  Bangor

  Primary

  30

  -1

  -3·2

  Secondary:

  History

  10

  -1

  -9·1

  RE

  7

  4

  133·3

  English

  11

  -1

  -8·3

  Languages

  14

  -3

  -17·6

  Geography

  15

  2

  15·4

  Mathematics

  12

  0

  0

  Biology

  11

  -3

  -21·4

  Chemistry

  12

  1

  9·1

  Physics

  4

  -4

  -50·0

  Other Science

  0

  0

  0

  TEFL

  13

  -5

  -27·7

  PE

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  Total Secondary

  109

  -10

  -8·4

  Cardiff

  Primary

  26

  -1

  -3·7

  Secondary:

  Art

  0

  -8

  -100·0

  History

  5

  -2

  -28·6

  Music

  8

  -10

  -55·5

  RE

  3

  1

  25·0

  English

  13

  -1

  -7·1

  Languages

  20

  -1

  -4·8

  Geography

  6

  0

  0

  Mathematics

  19

  1

  5·5

  Biology

  10

  3

  42·8

  Chemistry

  8

  0

  0

  Physics

  6

  -3

  -33·3

  Home Economics

  27

  -5

  -15·6

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  Total Secondary

  125

  -27

  -17·8

  Swansea

  Primary

  20

  -2

  -9·1

  Secondary:

  History

  13

  -3

  -18·7

  RE

  7

  -4

  -36·4

  222

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  English

  11

  -4

  -26·6

  Languagess

  24

  -6

  -20·0

  Geography

  17

  5

  41·6

  Mathematics

  14

  1

  7·7

  Biology

  10

  -2

  -16·6

  Chemistry

  10

  -2

  -16·6

  Physics

  3

  -2

  -40·0

  Other Science

  0

  0

  0

  Total Secondary

  109

  -17

  -13·5

  1987

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  Aberystwyth

  Primary

  45

  9

  25·0

  Secondary:

  Drama

  7

  -1

  -12·5

  History

  12

  1

  9·1

  Music

  10

  5

  100·0

  RE

  2

  -5

  -71·4

  English

  12

  2

  20·0

  Languages

  19

  -7

  -26·9

  Geography

  12

  5

  71·4

  Mathematics

  8

  5

  166·6

  Biology

  4

  -6

  -60·0

  Chemistry

  8

  2

  33·3

  Physics

  11

  1

  10·0

  Other Science

  6

  2

  50·0

  Total Secondary

  111

  4

  3·7

  Bangor

  Primary

  48

  10

  26·3

  Secondary:

  History

  11

  0

  0

  RE

  9

  3

  50·0

  English

  8

  6

  300·0

  Languages

  10

  -1

  -9·1

  Geography

  9

  1

  12·5

  Mathematics

  11

  -2

  -15·4

  Biology

  6

  -6

  -50·0

  Chemistry

  7

  -3

  -30·0

  Physics

  10

  4

  66·6

  Other Science

  0

  0

  0

  TEFL

  13

  -2

  -13·3

  PE

  8

  0

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  Total Secondary

  102

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  Primary

  39

  9

  30·0

  Secondary:

  Art

  0

  0

  0

  History

  8

  0

  0

  Music

  15

  5

  50·0

  RE

  8

  1

  14·3

  English

  15

  0

  0

  Languages

  15

  -2

  -11·7

  Geography

  8

  1

  14·3

  Mathematics

  19

  0

  0

  Biology

  9

  2

  28·6

  Chemistry

  9

  -2

  -18·2

  Physics

  10

  0

  0

  Home Economics

  16

  -8

  -33·3

  Other

  5

  5

  —

  Total Secondary

  137

  2

  1·5

  Swansea

  Primary

  28

  9

  47·4

  Secondary:

  History

  14

  -2

  -1·6

  RE

  6

  6

  —

  223

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  English

  13

  4

  44·4

  Languagess

  15

  0

  0

  Geography

  15

  -1

  -6·2

  Mathematics

  16

  -2

  -11·1

  Biology

  15

  0

  0

  Chemistry

  10

  5

  100·0

  Physics

  14

  4

  40·0

  Other Science

  0

  0

  0

  Total Secondary

  118

  14

  13·5

  1988

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  Aberystwyth

  Primary

  68

  23

  51·1

  Secondary:

  Drama

  8

  1

  14·3

  History

  11

  -1

  -8·3

  Music

  10

  0

  0

  RE

  3

  1

  50·0

  English

  11

  -1

  -8·3

  Languages

  19

  0

  0

  Geography

  12

  0

  0

  Mathematics

  8

  0

  0

  Biology

  13

  9

  225·0

  Chemistry

  2

  -6

  -75·0

  Physics

  6

  -5

  -45·4

  Other Science

  4

  -2

  -33·3

  Total Secondary

  107

  -4

  -3·6

  Bangor

  Primary

  0

  -48

  -100·0

  Secondary:

  History

  0

  -11

  -100·0

  RE

  2

  -7

  -77·7

  English

  6

  -2

  -25·0

  Languages

  17

  7

  70·0

  Geography

  7

  -2

  -22·2

  Mathematics

  9

  -2

  -18·2

  Biology

  11

  5

  83·3

  Chemistry

  8

  1

  14·3

  Physics

  10

  0

  0

  Other Science

  0

  0

  0

  TEFL

  19

  6

  46·1

  PE

  8

  0

  0·0

  Other

  0

  0

  0·0

  Total Secondary

  97

  -5

  -4·9

  Cardiff

  Primary

  38

  -1

  -2·6

  Secondary:

  Art

  0

  0

  0·0

  History

  12

  4

  50·0

  Music

  15

  0

  0·0

  RE

  4

  -4

  -50·0

  English

  16

  1

  6·6

  Languages

  25

  10

  66·6

  Geography

  8

  0

  0·0

  Mathematics

  20

  1

  5·3

  Biology

  11

  2

  22·2

  Chemistry

  11

  2

  22·2

  Physics

  9

  -1

  -10·0

  Home Economics

  18

  2

  12·5

  Other

  0

  -5

  -100·0

  Total Secondary

  149

  12

  8·8

  Swansea

  Primary

  30

  2

  7·2

  Secondary:

  History

  13

  -1

  -7·1

  RE

  3

  -3

  -50·0

  224

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  English

  13

  0

  0·0

  Languages

  13

  -2

  -13·3

  Geography

  15

  0

  0·0

  Mathematics

  12

  -4

  -25·0

  Biology

  11

  -4

  -26·6

  Chemistry

  5

  5

  -50·0

  Physics

  14

  0

  0·0

  Other Science

  10

  0

  0·0

  Total Secondary

  99

  -19

  -16·1

  1989

  a

  b

  c

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  Aberystwyth

  Primary

  116·0

  48·0

  70·6

  Secondary:

  Drama

  8·0

  0

  0·0

  History

  11·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Music

  4·0

  -6·0

  -60·0

  RE

  3·0

  0·0

  0·0

  English

  10·0

  -1·0

  -9·1

  Language

  15·0

  -4·0

  -21·1

  Geography

  13·0

  1·0

  8·3

  Mathematics

  7·0

  -1·0

  -112·5

  Biology

  14·0

  1·0

  7·7

  Chemistry

  5·0

  3·0

  150·0

  Physics

  3·0

  -3·0

  -50·0

  Other Science

  3·0

  -1·0

  -25·0

  Total Secondary

  96·0

  -11·0

  -10·3

  Bangor

  Primary

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Secondary:

  History

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  RE

  5·0

  3·0

  150·0

  English

  9·0

  3·0

  50·0

  Language

  13·0

  -4·0

  -23·5

  Geography

  0·0

  -7·0

  -100·0

  Mathematics

  7·5

  -1·5

  -16·6

  Biology

  10·5

  -0·5

  -4·5

  Chemistry

  11·5

  3·5

  43·7

  Physics

  4·5

  -5·5

  -55·0

  Other Science

  7·0

  7·0

  —

  TEFL

  17·0

  -2·0

  -10·5

  PE

  0·0

  -8·0

  -100·0

  Other

  8·0

  8·0

  —

  Total Secondary

  93·0

  -4·0

  -4·1

  Cardiff

  Primary

  46·0

  8·0

  21·0

  Secondary:

  Art

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  History

  7·0

  -5·0

  -41·6

  Music

  11·0

  -4·0

  -26·6

  RE

  9·0

  5·0

  125·0

  English

  17·0

  1·0

  6·2

  Language

  17·0

  -8·0

  -32·0

  Geography

  9·0

  1·0

  12·5

  Mathematics

  13·0

  -7·0

  -35·0

  Biology

  7·0

  -4·0

  -36·4

  Chemistry

  9·0

  -2·0

  -18·2

  Physics

  8·0

  -1·0

  -11·1

  Home Economics

  23·0

  5·0

  27·7

  Other

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Total Secondary

  130·0

  -19·0

  -12·7

  Swansea

  Primary

  44·0

  14·0

  46·6

  Secondary:

  History

  14·0

  1·0

  7·7

  RE

  8·0

  5·0

  166·6

  225

  a

  b

  c

  Intake

  +/-

  Per cent

  English

  18·0

  5·0

  38·5

  Languages

  21·0

  8·0

  61·5

  Geography

  15·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Mathematics

  13·0

  1·0

  8·3

  Biology

  13·0

  2·0

  18·2

  Chemistry

  10·0

  5·0

  100·0

  Physics

  5·0

  -9·0

  -35·7

  Other Science

  4·5

  4·5

  —

  Total Secondary

  121·5

  22·5

  22·7

  Columns b and c show the increase/decrease in intakes, as compared with the previous year's figures.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on University college, Swansea's recruitment for its 1990–91 teacher training course.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  These data will not be available until after the beginning of the academic year 1990–91.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his best estimate of the additional costs which will fall on local education authorities in(a) England and (b) Devon in the financial year 1990–91 arising from his Department's circular 22/89 concering children with special educational needs; and on what date such additional costs were first calculated and passed to the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The purpose of circular 22/89 is to review, and advise local education authorities (LEAs) and others on, the implementation of the provisions in the Education Act 1981 on the making of assessments and statements of special educational needs, in the light of subsequent experience and events. The circular does not of itself impose substantial new burdens on LEAs; and, as paragraph 2 of the circular states, the new elements it contains are not intended to require additional expenditure.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rates
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the percentage increase in the district rates for each of the 26 councils in Northern Ireland for the years 1990–91 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is set out in the table:

  District council

  Percentage increase in 1990–91

  Percentage increase in 1989–90

  1. Antrim BC

  2·83

  3·92

  2. Ards BC

  13·04

  6·48

  3. Armagh DC

  7·95

  7·32

  4. Ballymena BC

  6·82

  2·68

  5. Ballymoney BC

  7·46

  6·91

  6. Banbridge DC

  7·65

  0·00

  7. Belfast CC

  4·91

  0·00

  8. Carrickfergus BC

  5·70

  5·20

  9. Castlereagh BC

  17·12

  5·01

  10. Coleraine BC

  0·00

  3·77

  226

  District council

  Percentage increase in 1990–91

  Percentage increase in 1989–90

  11. Cookstown DC

  8·38

  11·70

  12. Craigavon BC

  4·89

  6·50

  13. Derry CC

  9·38

  5·86

  14. Down DC

  2·94

  4·62

  15. Dungannon DC

  8·52

  0·00

  16. Fermanagh DC

  3·60

  3·74

  17. Lame BC

  13·97

  1·79

  18. Limavady BC

  7·45

  8·05

  19. Lisburn BC

  3·71

  0·00

  20. Magherafelt DC

  5·74

  6·53

  21. Moyle DC

  8·51

  4·43

  22. Newry & Mourne DC

  0·00

  2·85

  23. Newtownabbey BC

  0·92

  6·73

  24. North Down BC

  5·15

  3·38

  25. Omagh DC

  9·91

  6·36

  26. Strabane DC

  10·70

  6·58

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the research carried out into the possible introduction of the poll tax in Northern Ireland, and the conclusions reached.

  Mr. Cope
  The arrangements for local government finance in Northern Ireland are significantly different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Since 1973, the services provided by local government account for only some 10 per cent. of total spending in Northern Ireland on services similar to those provided by local authorities in Great Britain. The remaining 90 per cent. is administered by central Government or their agencies subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. The circumstances in Northern Ireland are, therefore, different from those in Great Britain and there are no plans at present to replace the existing rating system in Northern Ireland.

  Suicides
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many suicides in Northern Ireland occurred during 1989 at(a) prison establishments, (b) remand establishments and (c) young offenders centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  During 1989 there was one suicide in a Northern Ireland prison establishment. There was none at young offenders centres and there are no remand establishments.

  Suicide prevention in the Northern Ireland prison service establishments is being examined by a working group and as a result of the group's deliberations a comprehensive suicide prevention manual is in the course of preparation and will be issued shortly.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The equal opportunities unit of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is headed by a grade 7. The Home civil service group of the Northern Ireland Office also has an equal opportunities unit, headed by a grade 7.

  Internal Audit
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many internal auditors are employed in his office and the departments for which he is responsible and at what cost; how many internal audit reports were produced in 1989; how many of these were drawn to the attention of a Minister in his Department; and what internal audit work is subcontracted to private firms and at what cost.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: The following information covers the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Authority (NI) as well as the six Northern Ireland Civil Service departmental internal audit groups. The full staffing complement at 1 March 1990 was 90. Departmental running costs for 1989–90 are £1,315,000.

  There were 190 internal audit reports produced in 1989, of which one was brought to the attention of a Minister.

  No internal audit work has been subcontracted to the private sector. However, one department has made extensive use of consultants in an advisory capacity at a cost of £54,000 in 1989.

  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of grant in financial terms has been provided for the Gaelic Athletic Association in each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: Grants paid by the Department of Education and Sports Council for Northern Ireland to the Gaelic Athletic Association and its affiliated clubs were as follows:

  Financial year

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Department of Education capital grant to affiliated GAA clubs

  59,642

  48,650

  35,337

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Club equipment grants

  6,428

  4,600

  4,467

  Administration coaching grants

  13,979

  21,966

  18,995

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average length of time a person is unemployed in Northern Ireland; and how many are at present unemployed for less than (1) one year, (2)

  Known NPUs for County Council TSG schemes

  Authority and scheme

  TSG support in

  NPU (£ million)

  Base year

  Avon—Newfoundland Street Bristol

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·700

  1979

  Avon—Avon Ring Road (IA): Hambrook-Badminton Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  5·410

  1979

  Avon—Avon Ring Road (IV): Marsham Way-A4 Bath Road

  —

  1990–91

  6,400

  1979

  Avon—Avon RR (IB1): Badminton Road-Westerleigh Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  5·410

  1979

  Avon—Avon RR (IB2): Westerleigh Road-Shortwood Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  26·100

  1979

  Avon—Avon Ring Road (III): A120 Warmley-Marsham Way

  1989–90

  1990–91

  26·100

  1979

  Avon—M5-Town Centre Link Weston Super Mare Stage 1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·866

  1979

  Avon—Urban Traffic Control

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·540

  1979

  Avon—Weston Super Mare PDR Stages VA & VB

  —

  1990–91

  3·866

  1979

  Bedfordshire—Stagsden Bypass

  —

  1990–91

  1·157

  1988

  Bedfordshire—Shefford/Clifton/Henlow Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  4·610

  1979

  Berkshire—Sandhurst Crowthorne Bypass

  —

  1990–91

  27·884

  1988

  Berkshire—Slough Bath Road Montem Lane-Wellington Street

  —

  1990–91

  11·114

  1988

  Buckinghamshire—Wing-Milton Keynes Fenny Stratford Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·738

  1979

  228
  two years, (3) three years, (4) four years, (5) five years and (6) more than five years; and, in each group, how many are (a) male and (b) female.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: The estimated average durations of unemployment for those unemployed at 11 January 1990 were as follows:

  Average duration in weeks1

  Male

  76

  Female

  34

  Overall average

  60

  1 Average duration is taken as the median duration i.e. the spell of unemployment which divides the unemployed into two halves; one half with durations greater than the median and the other half with durations less than the median.

  Unemployment by sex and duration at 11 January 1990:

  Duration of unemployment

  Male

  Female

  Total

  One year or less

  32,066

  15,225

  47,291

  Two years or less2

  42,397

  18,758

  61,155

  Three years or less2

  48,706

  20,404

  69,110

  Four years or less2

  53,599

  21,555

  75,154

  Five years or less2

  57,759

  22,432

  80,191

  Over five years

  17,808

  2,414

  20,222

  2 These figures are not mutually exclusive. For example, the numbers unemployed three years or less are included in the numbers unemployed four years or less.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report for each county highway authority the total net present value of those road projects qualifying for transport supplementary grants in the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  The table below lists all county council highway schemes supported by transport supplementary grant (TSG) in 1989–90 and 1990–91 for which a net present value is available. It is not possible to produce an aggregate total for each authority because the costs and benefits are often based on, and discounted to, different years. A number of other schemes for which economic costs and benefits are not available is also supported with TSG.
  229

  Authority and scheme

  TSG support in

  NPU (£ million)

  Base year

  Cambridgeshire—Elton/Chesterton Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  23·200

  1988

  Cheshire—Diversion (Phase 2) Warrington

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·980

  1979

  Cheshire—Station Road Bypass Winsford

  1989–90

  —

  0·472

  1979

  Cheshire—Chester Western Bypass Phase 1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·192

  1979

  Cheshire—Haslington Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·322

  1979

  Cleveland—Durham Road Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·320

  1976

  Cleveland—South Bank Link Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·000

  1986

  Cleveland—Thornaby Bypass

  —

  1990–91

  18·760

  1986

  Cleveland—Guisborough Road Improvement

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·448

  1979

  Cornwall—Penzance Primary Distributor

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·219

  1979

  Cornwall—Truro-Devoran T (Carnon Downs Bypass)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·680

  1979

  Cornwall—Newquay Gannel Link Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  12·970

  1979

  Cornwall—Sticker Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·356

  1979

  Cornwall—Liskeard Industrial Distributor Road

  —

  1990–91

  5·560

  1979

  Cumbria—Staveley Bypass

  1989–90

  —

  0·698

  1979

  Cumbria—Papcastle Diversion

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·283

  1979

  Cumbria—Romney Road Link

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·309

  1979

  Derbyshire—Ilkeston Inner Relief Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  5·272

  1979

  Derbyshire—Tapton Bypass Chesterfield (Stages 1 and 2)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·117

  1979

  Devon—Plymouth-St Budeaux Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  6·972

  1985

  Devon—Milehouse Junction Improvement Plymouth

  —

  1990–91

  28·603

  1988

  Devon—Torbay Ring Road Stage 2

  —

  1990–91

  34·836

  1988

  Devon—Thorns Cross—Eagle Farm St l(Olchard Lane-Eagle farm)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·354

  1979

  Devon—Thorns Cross to Eagle Farm Stage 4

  —

  1990–91

  6·806

  1988

  Devon—Western Approach/Union Street Junction IMP Plymouth

  —

  1990–91

  34·170

  1988

  Dorset—Gillingham Internal Relief Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·600

  1979

  Dorset—A37 Improvement-Section A

  —

  1990–91

  0·076

  1979

  Durham—Canney Hill Bypass

  1989–90

  —

  4·750

  1979

  Durham—Wheatley Hill Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  2·097

  1979

  Durham—Coundon Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·774

  1979

  Durham—Metal Bridge to Bowburn

  —

  1990–91

  3·518

  1988

  East Sussex—Boarshead to Eridge

  —

  1990–91

  10·013

  1988

  East Sussex—Maresfield Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  5·992

  1986

  East Sussex—Mayfield Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·964

  1986

  Essex—Dovercourt Bypass Stage 2 Phase 2

  —

  1990–91

  2·881

  1979

  Essex—Canes Lane Improvement (Final Stage)

  —

  1990–91

  1·837

  1979

  Essex—Maldon Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  2·616

  1979

  Essex—Braintree Bypass Stage 1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  17·693

  1979

  Gloucestershire—Eastington to Stroud 3 Ebley Bypass

  —

  1990–91

  4·737

  n.a.

  Gloucestershire—Eastington-Stroud-Ebley Bypass

  1989–90

  —

  1·834

  1979

  Gloucestershire—Eastington-Stroud 3A-Ebley Bypass-Dudbridge

  1989–90

  —

  3·249

  1979

  Gloucestershire—Eastington-Stroud 3B-Byeford-Dudbridge

  1989–90

  —

  3·837

  1979

  Hampshire—Blackwater Valley Route

  1989–90

  1990–91

  24·462

  1988

  Hampshire—West Totton Bypass(3)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  32·469

  1988

  Hampshire—Hook Bypass Underbridge

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·310

  1979

  Hampshire—M3 Link Minley

  —

  1990–91

  15·663

  1988

  Hereford-Worcester—Roman Road Hereford Phase 4 Stage 2

  —

  1990–91

  -0·252

  1988

  Hereford-Worcester—A44–A422 Link Worcester Road-Whittington Road Marl Bank

  —

  1990–91

  71·260

  1988

  Hertfordshire—Stanstead Abbotts Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·471

  1979

  Hertfordshire—Waltham Cross Relief Road Phase II

  1989–90

  —

  0·905

  1979

  Hertfordshire—Tonwell Bypass

  1989–90

  —

  0·399

  1979

  Hertfordshire—Watford M1 Link and Southern Junction System

  1989–90

  1990–91

  27·858

  1979

  Hertfordshire—Stanstead Abbotts to Harlow

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·975

  1979

  Humberside—Hull North Orbital Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  4·900

  1979

  Humberside—Hull Drypool Link

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·680

  1979

  Humberside—Hull Wilmington Link

  1989–90

  —

  5·430

  1985

  Humberside—Long Riston Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·365

  1979

  Humberside—Grimsby New Baxtergate

  1989–90

  —

  0·600

  1985

  Humberside—Castle Hill to Bentley

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·390

  1979

  Humberside—Hull Stoneferry Bridge

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·383

  1979

  Humberside—Humber Bridge Northern Approach Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·085

  1979

  Humberside—Hedon Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  2·603

  1979

  Humberside—Hull Ennerdale Link

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·621

  1979

  Kent—Faversham Western Link Road

  1989–90

  —

  1·495

  1979

  Kent—Albion Place-Mote Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  2·227

  1979

  Kent—Thanet Way Dualling

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·365

  1979

  Kent—Ashford Southern Orbital

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·400

  1979

  Kent—Beaver Road Diversion

  1989–90

  1990–91

  8·000

  1979

  Kent—Hamstreet Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  -1·123

  1979

  Kent—Denton Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  -0·459

  1979

  Kent—Whitfield Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·374

  1979

  Kent—Sturry Road to Military Road Link Canterbury

  1989–90

  —

  1·087

  1979

  Kent—Dartford Northern Bypass

  —

  1990–91

  68·312

  1988

  Kent—Whitfield to Eastry

  1989–90

  1990–91

  -0·059

  1979

  Kent—Lord of the Manor

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·024

  1979

  Kent—Eastry Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·552

  1979

  230 231

  Authority and scheme

  TSG support in

  NPU (£ million)

  Base year

  Kent—Densole-Hawkinge Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·159

  1979

  Kent—South Ashford to Hamstreet

  1989–90

  1990–91

  -0·059

  1979

  Kent—Stockbridge to Brenzett

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·091

  1979

  Kent—Maidstone Spine Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  30·350

  1979

  Kent—Somerhill Park Link Tonbridge

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·924

  1979

  Kent—Thames-side Industrial Route(TIR) Stage 1

  —

  1990–91

  21·292

  1988

  Lancashire—Shuttleworth Hall Link Road

  1989–90

  —

  10·548

  1979

  Lancashire—Kirkham and Wesham Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  15·508

  1988

  Lancashire—Burnley Inner Relief Road (Phase II)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  34·641

  1988

  Lancashire—Penwortham Bypass Ext to Preston

  1989–90

  1990–91

  72·971

  1988

  Lancashire—Nelson-Colne (Main Works)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  32·829

  1979

  Lancashire—ChorleyTown Centre Bypass (Phase I)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·298

  1988

  Lancashire—Blackburn Inner Relief Road (Phase I)

  —

  1990–91

  13·892

  1988

  Lancashire—North Valley Link Road Colne

  1989–90

  1990–91

  9·325

  1979

  Lancashire—Squires Gate Lane Blackpool Dualling

  —

  1990–91

  6·374

  1988

  Lancashire—Accrington Town Centre Relief Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  14·432

  1988

  Lancashire—Freckleton Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  29·567

  1988

  Lancashire—Park Road-St Helens Road Link Ormskirk

  —

  1990–91

  7·602

  1988

  Lancashire—Lancaster—Morecambe Bypass (Phase I)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  36·168

  1988

  Leicestershire—Asfordby Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·819

  1979

  Leicestershire—Syston Northern Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·468

  1979

  Leicestershire—Ashby-Loughborough Coleorton improvement

  —

  1990–91

  0·178

  1979

  Leicestershire—Redland Quarry to Quorn/Mountsorrel Bypass Link

  —

  1990–91

  0·264

  1979

  Lincolnshire—Wainfleet Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  7·414

  1988

  Lincolnshire—Donington Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·165

  1979

  Norfolk—Dersingham/Snettisham Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  7·718

  1979

  Norfolk—Trowse Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·400

  1979

  Norfolk—Kirby Cane/Geldeston Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  -0·333

  1979

  Norfolk—Outwell Bends

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·154

  1979

  Norfolk—Watton Inner Relief Road

  —

  1990–91

  5·937

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Oundle Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  -2·541

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Brigstock Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  -0·352

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Wollaston Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·369

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Yardley Gobion Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·551

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Raunds and Stanwick Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  6·705

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Ringstead and Denford Bypass (including MI/A1 junction)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  6·705

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Thrapston Eastern Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  6·705

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Bozeat Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  -0·447

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Middleton Cheney Bypass and Overthorpe Hall Improvement

  —

  1990–91

  13·753

  1988

  Northamptonshire—Brixworth Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  -0·769

  1979

  Northamptonshire—River Tove Bends

  —

  1990–91

  2·664

  1988

  Northamptonshire—Staverton Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·054

  1979

  Northamptonshire—Nene Valley Way 1 Crawler Lane

  —

  1990–91

  1·384

  1988

  Northumberland—Prudhoe Northern Bypass

  —

  1990–91

  23·182

  1988

  Northumberland—Swinburne Quarry to Fourlaws Stage 1

  —

  1990–91

  1·308

  1988

  North Yorkshire—York Outer Ring Road

  1989–90

  —

  10·824

  1976

  North Yorkshire A658/A59 Harrogate Knaresborough Southern Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  9·698

  1979

  North Yorkshire—Green Hamerton Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·016

  1979

  North Yorkshire—Bar Laithe to Pacegate

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·292

  1979

  North Yorkshire—Sherburn-in-Elmet and South Milford Bypass

  —

  1990–91

  7·358

  1988

  Nottinghamshire—Hucknall Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  4·543

  1979

  Nottinghamshire—Manvers Street Link Nottingham

  —

  1990–91

  3·781

  1979

  Oxfordshire—Banbury Inner Relief Road

  —

  1990–91

  37·360

  1988

  Shropshire—English Bridge Gyratory

  1989–90

  1990–91

  16·582

  1988

  Shropshire—Reabrook to Telford Way Link

  1989–90

  1990–91

  8·237

  1979

  Shropshire—Whitchurch Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  5·523

  1988

  Shropshire—Ironbridge Bypass Extension

  —

  1990–91

  3·746

  1988

  Somerset—Ashill to Southfields Roundabout (A303)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·693

  1979

  Staffordshire—Tutbury Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·482

  1988

  Staffordshire—Himley Bypass

  1989–90

  —

  1·177

  1979

  Staffordshire—Uttoxeter to Combridge

  1989–90

  1990–91

  10·033

  1988

  Staffordshire—Burton Southern Primary Route

  1989–90

  1990–91

  6·137

  1979

  Staffordshire—Keele Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  2·602

  1988

  Staffordshire—Cannock Eastern Primary Route

  1989–90

  1990–91

  30·723

  1988

  Staffordshire—Hawkins Lane Link Burton-upon-Trent

  1989–90

  1990–91

  3·207

  1988

  Suffolk—Stowmarket Relief Road

  —

  1990–91

  10·144

  1988

  Suffolk—Long Melford Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  8·587

  1988

  Suffolk—Kessingland Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  2·001

  1979

  Suffolk—Mutford Bridge

  —

  1990–91

  0·545

  1988

  Surrey—Ewell Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·914

  1987

  Warwickshire—Stratford Southern Relief Road

  1989–90

  1990–91

  4·754

  1979

  Warwickshire—Bedworth Bypass Extension (Hen Lane-M6)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  9·010

  1985

  Warwickshire—Wellesbourne Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  ·24

  1979

  West Sussex—Cuckfield Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·720

  1979

  West Sussex—Bewbush

  1989–90

  1990–91

  0·630

  1979

  232 233

  Authority and scheme

  TSG support in

  NPU (£ million)

  Base year

  West Sussex—Rustington Bypass

  1989–90

  1990–91

  2·080

  1979

  West Sussex—Littlehampton Bypass (main scheme)

  —

  1990–91

  24·708

  1988

  West Sussex—Crawley South Western Bypass

  —

  1990–91

  15·067

  1988

  Wiltshire—Chippenham Relief Road Stage 1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1·636

  1984

  Wiltshire—Burbage Bypass

  —

  1990–91

  2·581

  1988

  Rail Travel Improvements
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the progress made on the plans to improve rail travel outlined in his answer of 16 November 1989,Official Report, column 398, in respect of the Westminster area.

  Mr. Portillo
  The LRT has now deposited a Bill in respect of the extension of the Jubilee line from Green Park to dockands and Stratford. The Bill provides for a Jubilee line station to be constructed at Westminster with a new ticket hall and interchange links to the existing District and Circle Lines. Detailed discussions are in progress with all relevant authorities and interested parties on this proposal and the impact of the construction works on the surrounding area.

  My right hon. Friend recently gave the go-ahead for a contract worth over £50 million to refurbish 101 trains on London's Underground including all 44 on the Victoria line. London Underground also has an enormous programme of improvements which will increase the capacity and improve the environment of many of its stations, including Victoria.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many houses are in the ownership of his Department in each district in Greater Manchester; and what percentage of them are empty.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:

  District

  Number of houses

  Percentage empty

  Wigan

  9

  44

  Stockport

  56

  9

  Manchester

  43

  2

  Rochdale

  53

  5

  Tameside

  38

  10

  Oldham

  108

  16

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the additional expenditure schemes earmarked for Channel tunnel related roads in the county of Kent.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following are local road schemes, proposed by Kent county council in the context of the Channel tunnel, which my Department is supporting under the transport supplementary grant system with grant over and above that attracted by the county council's ordinary road building programme:

  A2070 Ashford South Orbital

  A2070 Beaver Road Diversion

  A2070 Hamstreet Bypass

  A2070 South Ashford to Hamstreet

  A2070 Stockbridge to Brenzett

  234

  A256 Whitfield Bypass

  A256 Whitfield to Eastry

  A256 Eastry Bypass

  A260 Denton/Selsted Bypass

  A260 Densole/Hawkinge Bypass

  Our very substantial trunk road programme in Kent, valued at about £678 million (November 1987 prices) would be necessary with or without a Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the Channel tunnel working group's forecasts and report on traffic data and the effects of the Channel tunnel on traffic demand, together with the assumptions upon which they are based.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am making arrangements for copies of the Channel tunnel traffic working group's report, dated June 1986, to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies are being undertaken in his Department on estimating road traffic growth following the Channel tunnel opening in summer 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  The net extra traffic resulting from the completion of the Channel tunnel is not expected to be significant compared with forecast traffic growth generally. Therefore, no specific studies relating to the opening of the tunnel are planned. However, my Department has established the cross-Channel traffic group to produce an up-to-date estimate of all cross-Channel traffic in 1993 and beyond on the main road network in the south-east. General traffic growth will continue to be monitored in the normal way.

  Traffic Counts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines his Department issues for the inclusion of cyclists in traffic counts.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: For the purposes of the national traffic census the Department's standard rules on traffic counting are those published in statistics bulletin (88)32 "Description of Vehicles for Traffic Counting Purposes"—a copy is in the Library. Pedal cycles and motor cycles are included as separate categories of vehicle.

  The same guidelines are used in the Department's traffic appraisal manual, though for most cost-benefit analyses prepared for the Department data on cycle and motor cycle traffic are not required and, therefore, may not be collected.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department undertakes traffic counts at weekends.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: Yes. In particular, regular weekend counts classified by type of vehicle are carried out at 163 sites throughout Great

  235
  Britain for the national traffic census. A number of other sites are monitored at weekends by automatic traffic data counting systems which collect unclassified data on the total flow of vehicles.

THE ARTS

  Art Treasures
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give details of items currently included on the decided list of art treasures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 28 February 1990, Official Report, column 200.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many Government Departments ensure that at least 3 per cent. of their employees are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Luce
  All Government Departments aim to employ at least a 3 per cent. quota of people who are registered as disabled. On 1 June 1989 five Departments had met this target. A further four Departments employed over 2·5 per cent. of people registered as disabled. Figures showing the proportion of staff who are registered as disabled in each Department are presented annually in the civil service magazine Independent, copies of which I am placing in the Libraries of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Property Law
  Mr. French
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the effects of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has received four representations from practitioners and an academic about the effect of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. In general terms these raised the following matters: (1) options (2) security documents (3) equitable charges (4) contracts by exchange of correspondence. The Lord Chancellor is satisfied that no amendment to section 2 is required in the light of these representations.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will bring forward amendments to section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 so that it does not apply to the exercise of an option on property granted after 27 September 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to bring forward amendments to section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Poland
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now list the projects so far approved from the know-how fund for Poland.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information is as follows:

  Activities approved under the know-how fund for Poland as at 8 March 1990

  Title:

  Foreign Investment agency

  Description:

  Four seminars on corporate finance, and financial and management accounting

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £56,000

  Title:

  Bank Handlowy

  Description:

  Two seminars on Treasury management and an introduction to capital markets

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £34,000

  Title:

  Banking and finance sector mission

  Description:

  Project identification

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £10,000

  Title:

  Finance and the City of London

  Description:

  Course in financial institutions for 20 Polish visitors

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £61,000

  Title:

  Accountancy sector mission

  Description:

  Project identification

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £19,000

  Title:

  Privatisation conference

  Description:

  Conference

  Status:

  Completed:

  Cost:

  £33,000

  Title:

  Job Ownership

  Description:

  Study tour of United Kingdom employee-owned businesses

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £10,000

  Title:

  Warszawskie Zaklady Telewizyjne (WZT)

  Description:

  Pilot consultancy on employee ownership

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £12,000

  Title:

  Management Study tour

  Description:

  Directors of Polish management education schools to undertake two-week United Kingdom study tour

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £31,000

  Title:

  Management seminars

  Description:

  Seminars on marketing and export promotion

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £20,000

  Title:

  Young management graduates

  Description:

  Two month programme at British Institute of management plus attachments

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £222,000

  Title:

  Management educators

  Description:

  Training of trainers at various institutions

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £251,000

  237

  Title:

  Visiting lecturers

  Description:

  Tours of Polish management schools by invited British specialists

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £56,000

  Title:

  Fishery management

  Description:

  Three month programme at Hull for Polish fishery managers plus study tour by senior managers

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £133,000

  Title:

  Farmer/Co-operatives training

  Description:

  Identification and implementation of training programme for managers of cooperatives

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £20,000

  Title:

  English for management

  Description:

  Project identification

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £10,000

  Title:

  Management libraries

  Description:

  Provision of management books and videos to key Polish educational institutions

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £125,000

  Title:

  Industrial consultancy

  Description:

  Assessment of potential productivity improvements at three Polish plants and substantive work at FSO car manufacturing plant

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £75,000

  Title:

  Financial seminars

  Description:

  Increasing awareness of how Western financial institutions and markets work

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £172,000

  Title:

  Translation of key management texts

  Description:

  Two consultants to identify needs in relation to the translation and publication of selected texts and the potential establishment of a publishing house

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £10,820

  Title:

  Electricity sector

  Description:

  Reconnaissance mission

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £10,000

  Title:

  IBRD social security mission

  Description:

  Secondment of three United Kingdom experts to an IBRD mission to look at the social aspects of economic adjustment

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £39,000

  Title:

  Blood plasma

  Description:

  Feasibility study for establishment of a blood fractionation plant

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £154,000

  Title:

  Data Processing

  Description:

  Adaptation of Polish econometric model to meet IMF specifications

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £22,000

  Title:

  Economic Adviser

  Description:

  Appointment of a macro-economic adviser to the Ministry of Finance

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £60,000

  238

  Title:

  Equipment for Ministry of Finance

  Description:

  Provision of office machinery

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £20,000

  Title:

  Equipment for Ministry of Education

  Description:

  Provision of office machinery to the Task Force for co-ordination

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £20,000

  Title:

  Coal industry training

  Description:

  Training in colliery management techniques

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £49,000

  Title:

  Cracow tourism study

  Description:

  Recommendation of immediate measures to help Cracow cope with the coming tourist season, and development of longer-term proposals

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £37,000

  Title:

  Agros dried vegetables

  Description:

  Recommendations for productivity improvements

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £55,000

  Title:

  Company doctor training

  Description:

  Seven courses in training Polish consultants in techniques of company analysis

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £97,000

  Title:

  Conference on demonopolisation

  Description:

  Discussion of methods and experiences of demonopolisation in relation to the process of economic and political decision taking

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £11,000

  Title:

  Book industry training

  Description:

  Pilot project to assess the training needs of the Polish book industry

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £17,200

  Title:

  Post-experience training for journalists

  Description:

  Four courses including academic and practical attachments

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £240,000

  Title:

  Local government assistance

  Description:

  Project to combat environmental pollution involving Carlisle and Slupsk

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £30,000

  Title:

  Seminars for Polish MPs

  Description:

  Introduction to British parliamentary concepts

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £15,000

  Title:

  Media training

  Description:

  Seven courses organised by BBC World Service

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £225,000

  Title:

  Establishment of capital markets

  Description:

  Familiarisation trip by Ministry of Finance officials to the London Stock Exchange

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £7,600

  Title:

  AIDS training

  Description:

  Training for Polish doctors and nurses on how to handle AIDS patients

  Status:

  To be implemented

  239

  Cost:

  £21,500

  Title:

  Railway training

  Description:

  Attendance at signalling and telecommunications course for three railway engineers

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £15,800

  Title:

  New banks mission

  Description:

  Technical assistance for the establishment of new banks

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £25,000

  Title:

  Agricultural sector mission

  Description:

  Project identification

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £25,000

  Title:

  Pharmaceutical sector

  Description:

  Mission to assess pharmacy training needs and joint venture possibilities

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £2,300

  Title:

  Foreign trade training

  Description:

  Secondment from the Polish Chamber of Foreign Trade to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £2,200

  Title:

  Scholarships programme

  Description:

  Non project-related training awards administered by the British Council

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £500,000 per year

  Title:

  Academic links programme

  Description:

  Finance to allow two-way exploratory visits between institutions which will be administered by the British Council

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £100,000 per year

  Title:

  IBRD banking mission

  Description:

  Secondment of two United Kingdom experts to an IBRD mission to look at project preparatory work in the banking sector

  Status:

  Completed

  Cost:

  £16,900

  Title:

  Assistance to local government

  Description:

  Provision of equipment for the Foundation of Local Democracy centre in Lodz

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £20,000

  Title:

  Research Programme

  Description:

  Assessment of the competitiveness of the industrial sector in Poland

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £27,000

  Title:

  Privatisation and market research centre in

  Gdansk

  Description:

  Assistance to the Centre

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £38,000

  Title:

  Legal training

  Description:

  Three month placements for 13 Polish lawyers with United Kingdom firms

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £40,000

  Title

  Energy Audit

  Description:

  Detailed analysis of the Power and Brown Coal Board by a team of 12 United Kingdom utility personnel

  240

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £403,000

  Title:

  Economic Adviser

  Description:

  Appointment of a second Economic Adviser to the Ministry of Finance

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £7,000

  Title:

  Financial Markets Adviser

  Description:

  Appointment of an Adviser to the Ministry of Finance

  Status:

  Underway

  Cost:

  £70,000

  Title:

  Assistance to local government

  Description:

  Three courses for newly elected local government councillors and officials based at Leicester Polytechnic

  Status:

  To be implemented

  Cost:

  £190,000

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Atrazine
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will take to limit the use of the chemical atrazine.

  Mr. Maclean
  The use of atrazine is already restricted under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is at present reviewing atrazine and could if necessary recommend to Ministers that these conditions should be amended.

  Poultry Flocks
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department will be issuing details of the regulations for registration by poultry flocks; and what is the date by which registration is required.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Poultry Laying Flocks (Testing and Registration etc.) Order 1989 and the Poultry Breeding Flocks and Hatcheries (Registration and Testing) Order 1989 came into operation on 26 October 1989 apart from the registration requirement which applies from 2 April. Details of the arrangements were circulated on a wide scale in October, registration application forms have been circulated and a reminder about registration will be issued shortly.

  Mineral Water
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the accuracy of the description of Perrier water as a naturally carbonated mineral water.

  Mr. Maclean
  The conditions which have to be met by water labelled as naturally carbonated natural mineral water are laid down in annex I, part III, of Council directive 80/777/EEC. Information which came to light during the recent Perrier contamination incident raises a number of questions on the labelling of this natural mineral water and I have asked my officials to write to the European Commission seeking clarification.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the
  241
  provision in the European Communities directive which permits bottled water not to have the full chemical analysis printed on the label.

  Mr. Maclean
  Article 7(2) of directive 80/777/EEC requires labels on natural mineral waters either to bear a declaration of the water's analytical composition or to state that the composition is in accordance with the results of the official analysis. A proposal to require the mandatory declaration of information on the analytical composition has already been made and the United Kingdom Government will press for such a proposal as being more informative to consumers.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise with the European Communities Commission the question of mineral water purity and labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Commission has already indicated that it intends to review Council directive 80/777/EEC and has asked member states for comments. Purity and labelling issues will likely be part of the review.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether describing the practice of the removal of carbon dioxide from water, its cleaning and then reinjection under pressure as naturally carbonated complies with the labelling rules; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Council directive 80/777/EEC defines naturally carbonated natural mineral water as"water whose content of carbon dioxide from the spring after decanting, if any, and bottling is the same as at source, taking into account where appropriate the reintroduction of a quantity of carbon dioxide from the same water table or deposit equivalent to that released in the course of those operations and subject to the usual technical tolerances".
  I have asked my officials to write to the European Commission to seek clarification on exactly how this provision operates when gas and water are extracted separately at the source and subsequently mixed during bottling.

  Rabies
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any contingency plans for the use of vaccinations of wild animals acting as vectors of rabies in the event of an outbreak in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Oral vaccination of wildlife is not appropriate in a rabies-free country. In the unlikely event of an outbreak in wildlife in the United Kingdom control measures would concentrate on the destruction of foxes in the infected area.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to report on his review of maneb, mancozeb and zineb.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report on immediate concerns was published on 31 January. The report of the ongoing review of remaining areas will be published as soon as possible.

  Animal Waste
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes have been made in the temperature levels defined as appropriate for the heat treatment of animal waste since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have strict controls which apply to animal protein processors' handling of animal waste, principally to minimise the risk of salmonella contamination, but it has never laid down specific heat treatment requirements.

  Commercial technological developments led to a move away from batch processing to continuous rendering. Both batch and continuous systems operate at a range of temperatures; batch between 100 and 150 deg. C, and continuous between 100 and 145 deg. C.

  Livestock (Transit Care)
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the trade in horsemeat between the United Kingdom and Europe in respect of the care of horses and other livestock in transit, and on any breaches of standards of care of animals; and if he has any proposals under consideration to bring this trade to an end.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1989 the United Kingdom exported 1,932 tonnes of meat derived from horses and other equines, valued at £2·85 million. There is no reason to end this trade. In Community negotiations we shall, however, press to retain existing controls designed to prevent the export of live horses and ponies for slaughter.

  Artificial Flavourings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 242, if he will introduce legislation to replace the legal term "flavour" with the term "artificial flavour" to assist consumers seeking to avoid the use of artificial flavourings.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. I believe that the term "artificial flavour" instead of "flavour" would not necessarily help consumers and might be misleading. While the term "strawberry flavour," for example, indicates that the flavour does not come wholly or mainly from strawberries, some of it may come from strawberries and the rest might come from other natural flavourings. The European Commission is, however, expected to make proposals on the labelling of flavourings in food and I shall be pressing for terminology which enables consumers to make an informed choice.

  Fish and Cetaceans (Disease)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there is any evidence of a change in the levels of disease suffered by fish or cetaceans in British coastal waters.

  Mr. Curry
  Disease levels in marine fish populations have been found to fluctuate from year to year and in some cases seasonally, but there is no clear evidence of a long-term trend of changing levels of disease in fish. There
  243
  has been no comprehensive collection of data on the incidence of disease in cetaceans, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering new research projects on cetaceans and marine mammals, including post-mortem analysis for stranded cetaceans and other marine animals found on our shores.

  Salmonella
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many laying breeding flocks in Britain have now been found to have been carrying salmonella enteritidis, and in what regions of the United Kingdom these flocks were found.

  Mr. Maclean
  Salmonella enteritidis has been isolated from one layer breeder flock located in south-west England.

  Eggs
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the production and sale by month over the last 12 months of British eggs; and what was the level of importation and sale month by month of eggs from overseas during the same period.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest monthly data for throughput at packing stations in Great Britain (that is excluding Northern Ireland) and in the United Kingdom and for imports into the United Kingdom are as follows. Figures are not collected on sales of eggs.

  thousand boxes (of 360 eggs)

  Great Britain Packing station throughput

  United Kingdom Packing station throughput

  Imports into United Kingdom

  1989

  February

  2,060

  2,202

  21

  March

  2,093

  2,231

  22

  April

  12,711

  12,889

  111

  May

  2,227

  2,367

  78

  June

  2,250

  2,393

  72

  July

  12,681

  12,843

  63

  August

  2,117

  2,256

  98

  September

  2,148

  2,296

  161

  October

  12,659

  12,847

  106

  November

  2,041

  2,203

  207

  December

  2,035

  2,186

  150

  Children who received a statement of special educational need1

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  377

  0·5

  187

  0·3

  213

  0·3

  Dyfed

  160

  0·3

  104

  0·2

  121

  0·2

  Gwent

  272

  0·4

  235

  0·3

  463

  0·6

  Gwynedd

  80

  0·2

  70

  0·2

  99

  0·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  537

  0·6

  575

  0·6

  643

  0·7

  Powys

  17

  0·1

  16

  0·1

  30

  0·2

  South Glamorgan

  217

  0·3

  201

  0·3

  174

  0·3

  West Glamorgan

  274

  0·5

  234

  0·4

  304

  0·5

  1 The figures shown indicate the number of children, in each calendar year, for whom statements of special education need were made for the first time.

  244

  Great Britain Packing station throughput

  United Kingdom Packing station throughput

  Imports into United Kingdom

  1990

  January

  12,681

  12,882

  105

  1 5 week months.

WALES

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many responses in total have been submitted to date on the review of the provision of cancer treatment services for the people of north Wales; and how many favour option 4.

  Mr. Grist
  Of the 18 responses to consultation received by 9 March, eight have specified a preference for a radiotherapy unit in north Wales (option 4).

  Roads
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from the local highway authority and others concerning the provision of a pedestrian crossing on the A487(T) at Tremadog; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Three. The request for a pedestrian crossing was refused but Gwynedd county council has been asked to prepare a scheme to improve pedestrian safety by widening the footpath and reducing the width of the carriageway thus making crossing easier.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children received a statement of special educational needs in each year from 1984 to 1989 in each local education authority in Wales; and what is each figure as a percentage of all pupils in maintained schools in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Data for 1989 are not yet available. Prior to 1986 information in the form requested was not collected centrally. Information for 1986, 1987 and 1988 is shown in the table:

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional finance he will give to borough councils, additional to the Bellwin formula, in north Clwyd consequent upon the February storms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Bellwin scheme represents an entirely appropriate and adequate Government response to the additional costs incurred by local authorities in dealing with emergencies. In view of the scale of the emergency, and the very high expenditure being incurred by the local councils directly affected by the recent flooding in north Wales, I am pleased to say that the rate of grant payable has, exceptionally, been increased to 85 per cent. of eligible expenditure. I have, in addition, announced a Government contribution of £150,000 to the appeal funds launched locally.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide help to farmers in north Wales whose land has been affected by sea water.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is too early to assess the full extent of the damage to farms in the affected areas. However, it is clear that immediate steps must be taken to counter the damaging effects of prolonged sea water flooding of agricultural land by the application of gypsum. In these wholly exceptional circumstances my Department will meet the costs of this measure and ADAS will provide free advice. Farmers will also be advised of the assistance available under existing grant schemes to help meet the costs of other work that may be necessary.

  Parliamentary approval to this exceptional measure will be sought in a revised estimate for the agricultural services, support for the fishing industry, regional and industrial development, Wales vote 2 (class XVI vote 2, 1990–91).

  Cash limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes making any further cash limits changes.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes. Provision for regional enterprise grants on class XVII, vote 2, is being reduced by

  Table 1 Documents issued pursuant to the White Paper "Working for Patients" CM 555, January 1989

  Date

  Reference number

  Consultation

  Title

  1. January 1989

  —

  Final

  The NHS in Wales: Proposals for Action

  2. August 1989

  —

  Final

  "Working for Patients", text of the Secretary of State letter of 1 August 1989 to Health Authority and Family Practitioner Committee Chairmen

  DOH working papers

  3. March 1989

  Working Paper 1

  Final

  Self-governing Hospitals

  4. March 1989

  Working Paper 2

  Final

  Funding and Contracts for Hospital Services

  5. March 1989

  Working Paper 3

  Final

  Practice Budgets for General Medical Practitioners

  6. March 1989

  Working Paper 4

  Final

  Indicative Prescribing Budgets for General Medical Practitioners

  7. March 1989

  Working Paper 5

  Final

  Capital Charges

  8. March 1989

  Working Paper 6

  Final

  Medical Audit

  9. March 1989

  Working Paper 7

  Final

  NHS Consultants: Appointments, Contracts and Distinction Awards

  10. March 1989

  Working Paper 8

  Final

  Implications for Family Practitioner Committees

  11. July 1989

  Working Paper 9

  Final

  Capital Charges: Funding Issues

  12. November 1989

  Working Paper 10

  Final

  Education and Training

  Resource Allocation

  13. February 1990

  RAWG(90)5

  Final

  Implications for Resource Allocation Working Group (RAWG) of the Government White Paper

  246
  £500,000 and the cash limit reduced from £86,448,000 to £85,948,000. This reduction will provide the necessary public expenditure cover for a temporary borrowing facility required by the Development Board for Rural Wales to meet its expenditure commitments during the remainder of the current financial year. The facility will not add to the board's overall resources but will ease its cash flow position pending the settlement of a substantial claim for repayment of VAT from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise not now expected until the next financial year.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if women's refuges in Wales are exempted from collective community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 8 March,Official Report, column 799.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from companies about the additional burden of cost and administration to be placed on them under the terms of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement Regulations) 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received no such representations.

  Community Care
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all working papers, implementation documents, consultative documents, departmental circulars, and other publications, whether in draft or final form, that have been issued to date in respect of Wales regarding(a) National Health Service matters and (b) care in the community matters arising from the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, the Government's White Papers on these topics, and associated Government initiatives.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: Relevant publications issued by the Department in Wales are shown in the tables:
  247

  Date

  Reference number

  Consultation

  Title

  14. July 1989

  RAWG(89)9

  Final

  RAWG further work

  15. July 1989

  RAWG(89)11

  Final

  RAWG Resident Population Resourcing Sub-Group Progress Report: Setting up an experiment to test the feasibility of involving GPs in the planning and development of DHA provided services.

  16. January 1990

  RAWG(90)l

  Final

  Capital Charges and Capital Allocations: A discussion paper

  17. January 1990

  RAWG(90)2

  Final

  Weighted Capitation Funding: Revenue Formula

  18. January 1990

  RAWG(90)3

  Final

  Implementing the White Paper: Contractual Arrangements

  Capital Charging and Asset Accounting

  19. March 1989

  EL(89) MB60 Department of Health (DOH) letter

  Final

  Capital Charges and Asset Registers: Report of Pilot Exercises

  20. July 1989

  —

  Final

  Capital Charges update 1989/1: Basis of valuation of land and buildings

  21. July 1989

  —

  Final

  Capital Charges update 89/2

  22. August 1989

  —

  Final

  Capital Charges update 89/3

  23. October 1989

  —

  Final

  Capital Charges update 89/4

  24. October 1989

  —

  Final

  Department of Health Booklet: "The Costing of Health Buildings for Capital Charging Purposes"

  25. November 1989

  —

  Final

  Asset Registers: Pro forma on Progress Report—covering letter

  26. November 1989

  —

  Final

  BCIS Cost Analyses for Wales—covering letter

  27. November 1989

  —

  Final

  Letter with sets of cost beacons

  28. December 1989

  —

  Final

  Capital Charges Update 89/5

  29. January 1990

  DGM(9O)5

  Final

  Capital Asset Registers: Valuation of Land and Buildings

  30. January 1990

  —

  Final

  Capital Charges Update 90/1 and 90/2

  Financial Management

  31. October 1989

  DGM(89)103

  Final

  Use of Private Sector Capital in the NHS (Unconventional Finance): Revised Guidance

  32. October 1989

  DGM(89)108

  Final

  Contracts for Health Services—Operational Principles

  33. October 1989

  DGM(89)108

  Final

  Discussion document on Pricing and Openness in Contracts

  34. December 1989

  —

  Final

  Consultation on Charging for WHCSA Services

  35. January 1990

  DGM(90)11

  Final

  Study of the feasibility of recording and reviewing patients' need for and use of hospital and community health services in general practice

  36. February 1990

  DGM(90)16

  Final

  Contracting for services and funding arrangements in 1991–92 and beyond

  37. February 1990

  —

  Consultation

  DOH paper: Contracts and Cash Limits

  Family practitioner services

  38. April 1989

  FPCL(W)22/89

  Final

  FPC Management Structures

  39. June 1989

  WHC(89)39

  Final

  Pay and Conditions of Service: FPC Managers

  40. October 1989

  WHC(89)62

  Final

  FPC Managers: Remuneration and Conditions of Service

  41. December 1989

  FPCL(W)97/89

  Final

  Practitioner Funding Scheme: Issue of Programme to GPs

  42. January 1990

  —

  Final

  Funding General Practice—booklet issued to all GPs

  Quality assurance

  43. August 1989

  WHC(89)47

  Consultation

  Quality Patient Care

  Information technology

  44. December 1989

  —

  Final

  Information and Information Technology strategic direction for the NHS in Wales

  45. May 1989

  —

  Consultation

  All-Wales Health Service IT Strategy: Impact of White Paper Draft for discussion

  46. July 1989

  —

  Final

  IT strategy: comments

  47. February 1990

  DOH Working Paper 11

  Final

  Framework for Information Systems

  NHS trusts and contracts

  48. September 1989

  —

  Final

  Self-Governing Hospitals: An Initial Guide

  49. September 1989

  DGM(89)94

  Final

  Self-Governing Hospitals: Outline Application document

  50. March 1990

  DGM(90)23

  Consultation

  Implementing the White Paper: Operating Contracts

  Health strategy

  51. July 1989

  —

  Final

  Strategic Planning in the NHS after the White Paper "Working for Patients"

  52. (a) November 1989

  Consultation

  Welsh Health Planning Forum (WHPF) Consultation Documents "Local strategies for health: a New Approach to Strategic Planning"; and "Strategic Intent and Direction for the NHS in Wales"

  (b) February 1990

  —

  Final

  Executive summaries of the documents in (a) above

  53. October 1989

  DGM(89)107

  Final

  Development of Business Plans 1990/91

  54. November 1989

  DGM(89)120

  Consultation

  Business Planning 1990/91: Draft Guidance

  55. January 1990

  DGM(90)l

  Final

  Business Planning 1990/91: Final Guidance

  CHCs

  248 249

  Date

  Reference number

  Consultation

  Title

  56. November 1989

  —

  Consultation

  Review of Community Health Councils in Wales: A consultation paper

  Manpower

  57. December 1989

  —

  Final

  The Health Service in Wales—Towards 2000 Manpower Planning, Education and Training

  58. November 1989

  DGM(89)115

  Consultation

  NHS: Medical and Dental Staff—Amendment of NHS (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations

  Table 2 Documents issued pursuant to the white paper "Caring for People: Community Care in the next decade and beyond" CM 849, November 1989

  Date

  Reference

  Consultation/ Final

  Title

  1. December 1989

  —

  Final

  Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond—The Proposals for Wales

  2. 26 January 1990

  —

  Consultation

  Draft Planning Guidance

  3. 16 February 1990

  —

  Consultation

  Community Care: Caring for People Independent Inspection Units

  4. 22 February 1990

  —

  Consultation

  Community Care—Future Central Funding of the Development of Services for the Elderly

  5. 29 December 1989

  —

  Consultation

  Services for People with Physical and/or Sensory Disabilities

  6. 8 March 1990

  —

  Consultation

  Community Care White Paper: Caring For People—Proposed Development Projects—Assessment and Case Management

  5. 29 December 1989

  —

  Consultation

  Services for People with Physical and/or Sensory Disabilities

  6. 8 March 1990

  —

  Consultation

  Community Care White Paper: Caring For People—Proposed Development Projects—Assessment and Case Management

  Health Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that all working papers, implementation documents, consultative documents, departmental circulars and other publications in regard to the implementation of(a) the National Health Service aspects and (b) the care in the community aspects of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and the associated White Papers in Wales shall be numbered sequentially and shall be available in the Vote Office and the Library, together with a comprehensive list of all such publications which is brought up to date from time to time.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: The Department's policy of providing the Vote Office and Library with copies of all major consultation documents, circulars, and other papers on National Health Service and community care issues will continue. Lists of such documents together with any other associated publications will be available in the Library and updated quarterly. The documents are not produced in a single series, so sequential numbering would not be appropriate.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figures for Great Britain and each Training Agency region for each month since November 1989 and the cumulative numbers of(a) referrals to ET from the employment service to training agents, (b) agreed ET action plans of training agents, (c) starts with ET training managers, (d) the number in training on ET each month and (e) the number on continuation training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information on referrals, action plans, starts and numbers in training is provided in the tables. Information is not separately available for those on continuation training.
  250

  Table 1 Employment training Referrals from employment service to employment training December 1989 to January 1990 (cumulative )

  Employment service region

  December

  January

  London and South East

  12,900

  29,900

  South West

  3,000

  7,300

  West Midlands

  5,800

  14,600

  East Midlands and Eastern

  4,600

  10,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,500

  14,900

  North West

  8,700

  21,300

  Northern

  4,600

  11,200

  Wales

  3,800

  9,200

  Scotland

  9,100

  20,600

  Great Britain

  59,100

  139,700

  Note:

  Regional figures may not equal Great Britain total because of rounding.

  Figures for February are not yet available.

  Table 2 Employment training Agreed action plans at training agents December 1989 to February 1990 (cumulative)

  Training agency region

  December

  January

  February

  South East

  2,400

  5,400

  9,300

  London

  3,900

  7,800

  12,500

  South West

  1,800

  3,900

  6,300

  West Midlands

  3,400

  7,600

  13,100

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,500

  4,900

  8,200

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,600

  9,400

  15,000

  North West

  4,400

  9,700

  16,400

  Northern

  3,400

  7,600

  12,300

  Wales

  1,900

  4,400

  8,000

  Scotland

  4,300

  8,800

  14,300

  Great Britain

  32,600

  69,500

  115,400

  Note:

  Regional figures may not equal Great Britain total because of rounding.
  251

  Table 3 Employment training Starts with training managers December 1989 to February 1990 (cumulative)

  Training agency region

  December

  January

  February

  South East

  1,500

  4,300

  6,900

  London

  2,600

  6,500

  10,600

  South West

  1,400

  3,400

  5,200

  West Midlands

  2,900

  6,500

  10,900

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,100

  4,600

  7,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,700

  8,000

  13,200

  North West

  3,600

  9,000

  14,900

  Northern

  2,900

  6,200

  10,300

  Wales

  1,900

  4,400

  7,500

  Scotland

  3,500

  7,400

  12,700

  Great Britain1

  26,100

  60,500

  100,100

  1 Great Britain total includes small number of starts at Residential Training Colleges and Large Contractors not inlcuded in regional totals.

  Table 4 Employment training Filled places: December 1989 to February 1990

  Training agency region

  December

  January

  February

  South East

  14,300

  14,700

  14,900

  London

  21,000

  21,800

  22,300

  South West

  11,900

  12,100

  11,800

  West Midlands

  22,500

  21,900

  22,400

  East Midlands and Eastern

  16,600

  16,400

  16,400

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25,100

  24,700

  25,000

  North West

  28,800

  28,900

  29,000

  Northern

  24,200

  23,700

  23,300

  Wales

  16,100

  15,900

  16,100

  Scotland

  26,100

  25,900

  26,300

  Great Britain1

  208,000

  207,000

  209,000

  1 Great Britain total includes small number of trainees at Residential Training Colleges and Large Contractors not included in regional totals.

  Acute Myeloid Leukaemia
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made an assessment of the incidence of acute myeloid leukaemia among telegraph, radio and radar operators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A limited review undertaken in 1988 suggests that there may be a small increase in relative risk of acute myeloid leukaemia for telegraph, radio and radar operators. I am not aware of any current studies on this topic.

  Gateshead Garden Festival
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance his Department is making available to NGF(90)Ltd., organisers of the Gateshead

  Table 1 Establishments covered by wages councils on register—as at January 1989

  Wages councils

  Divisions London

  South East

  Eastern

  South West

  Midlands

  North West

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Aerated waters

  7

  14

  57

  16

  111

  25

  24

  22

  66

  342

  Clothing manufacture

  3,006

  159

  306

  301

  1,282

  937

  452

  214

  307

  6,964

  Boot and shoe repairing

  764

  255

  258

  345

  373

  406

  111

  70

  130

  2,878

  Button manufacturing

  18

  4

  4

  4

  18

  4

  3

  1

  1

  57

  Coffin furniture and cerement making

  1

  —

  —

  2

  8

  2

  5

  —

  2

  20

  Cotton waste reclamation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  28

  8

  3

  2

  42

  Flax and hemp

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  8

  Fur

  147

  8

  8

  7

  14

  28

  11

  3

  36

  262

  252
  garden festival, for the employment and training of unemployed people during the festival; and if he will snake a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am making arrangements so that the organisers may employ and train up to 1,140 unemployed people during the festival from public funds. Parliamentary approval to this provision will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of Employment's training and enterprise programmes vole (class VI vote 1). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2·7 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many nationalised industries and public authorities ensure that at least 3 per cent. of their employees are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures showing the quota position of a range of individual public sector employers are published with their agreement in the Employment Gazette. In June 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, 26 of these firms employed 3 per cent. or more registered people with disabilities.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions there have been in the last 15 years against employers who fail to fulfil their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been three prosecutions in the last 15 years against employers who have failed to fulfil their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. The policy of successive Governments has been to use education and persuasion to secure and improve the policies and practices of all employers in relation to the employment of people with disabilities and to bring prosecutions only as a last resort.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the statistics on wages council employment and compliance with wages council rates in 1989, in the same format as in the reply given on 1 March 1989, Official Report, columns 201–06.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is given in the following tables:
  253

  Divisions Wages councils

  London

  South East

  Eastern

  South West

  Midlands

  North West

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  General waste materials reclamation

  124

  74

  107

  151

  291

  308

  240

  99

  137

  1,531

  Hairdressing undertakings

  4,482

  3,181

  3,302

  4,106

  5,362

  5,171

  3,029

  1,968

  2,840

  33,441

  Hat, cap and millinery

  25

  2

  44

  5

  12

  14

  8

  11

  2

  123

  Lace finishing

  —

  —

  —

  1

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74

  Laundry

  215

  281

  79

  114

  105

  68

  67

  35

  122

  1,086

  Linen and cotton handkerchief

  2

  1

  3

  3

  10

  80

  9

  1

  5

  114

  Made up textile

  34

  13

  36

  31

  51

  34

  42

  18

  33

  292

  Ostrich and fancy feather

  12

  1

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  30

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  3

  2

  5

  3

  11

  4

  6

  1

  1

  36

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  180

  55

  52

  38

  42

  52

  39

  14

  37

  509

  Rope, twine and net

  —

  1

  5

  12

  5

  20

  18

  5

  19

  85

  Sack and bag

  20

  —

  7

  5

  14

  20

  12

  2

  6

  86

  Toy manufacturing

  17

  16

  45

  30

  35

  40

  32

  15

  9

  239

  Retail non-food trades

  20,069

  11,990

  9,840

  12,085

  19,457

  13,350

  8,712

  4,495

  8,840

  108,838

  Retail food and allied trades

  11,770

  13,100

  10,066

  12,853

  13,339

  15,891

  10,018

  7,199

  10,881

  105,117

  Licensed non-residential

  6,263

  5,962

  6,363

  9,323

  12,406

  9,540

  6,452

  4,001

  5,429

  65,739

  Licensed residential and restaurant

  5,023

  3,901

  3,595

  6,842

  3,591

  3,355

  2,013

  1,418

  3,890

  33,628

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  4,143

  2,049

  1,540

  2,585

  1,746

  1,977

  1,324

  851

  1,497

  17,712

  Total

  56,325

  41,069

  35,728

  48,867

  58,357

  51,354

  32,801

  20,451

  34,301

  379,253

  Table 2 Establishments checked and underpayments found in wages council trades—1989

  Wages Councils

  Establishments checked by all methods

  Percentage of register checked

  Establishments checked by visit

  Percentage of register checked by visit

  Establishments found underpaying

  Percentage of all establishments checked underpaying

  Percentage of establishments visited underpaying

  Aerated Waters

  22

  6·4

  17

  4·9

  1

  4·5

  5·8

  Clothing Manufacture

  486

  6·9

  436

  6·2

  111

  22·8

  25·4

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  216

  7·5

  91

  3·1

  11

  5·0

  120

  Button Manufacturing

  5

  8·7

  5

  8·7

  1

  20·0

  20·00

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  3

  15·0

  3

  15·0

  —

  —

  —

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  3

  7·1

  3

  7·1

  —

  —

  —

  Flax and Hemp

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fur

  12

  4·5

  11

  4·1

  3

  25·0

  27·2

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  100

  6·5

  59

  3·8

  2

  2·0

  3·3

  Hairdressing Undertakings

  2,633

  7·8

  1,517

  4·5

  319

  12·1

  21·0

  Hat, Cap and Millinery

  11

  8·9

  6

  4·8

  —

  —

  —

  Lace Finishing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laundry

  95

  8·7

  66

  6·0

  16

  16·8

  24·2

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief

  14

  12·2

  14

  12·2

  3

  21·4

  21·4

  Made-up Textile

  27

  9·2

  24

  8·2

  5

  18·5

  20·8

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather

  6

  200

  4

  13·3

  —

  —

  —

  Perambulator and Invalid Carriage

  3

  8·3

  3

  8·3

  —

  —

  —

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  40

  7·8

  33

  6·4

  3

  7·5

  90

  Rope, Twine and Net

  11

  12·9

  10

  11·7

  —

  —

  —

  Sack and Bag

  6

  6·9

  5

  5·8

  —

  —

  —

  Toy Manufacturing

  18

  7·5

  16

  6·6

  3

  16·6

  18·7

  Retail Non-Food Trades

  9,551

  8·7

  3,993

  3·6

  1,108

  11·6

  27·7

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  10,111

  9·6

  6,228

  5·9

  2,289

  22·6

  36·7

  Licensed Non-Residential

  5,310

  8·0

  2,963

  4·5

  847

  15·9

  28·5

  Licensed Residential and Restaurant

  2,781

  8·2

  1,882

  5·5

  475

  17·0

  25·2

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  2,164

  12·2

  1,050

  5·9

  331

  15·2

  31·5

  Total

  33,628

  8·8

  18,439

  4·8

  5,528

  16·4

  29·9

  254 255

  Table 3 Workers covered by wages councils and results of checks—1989

  Wages Councils

  Number of workers covered by Wages Order (Est. 1988)

  Workers whose pay was checked by all methods

  Workers whose pay was checked by visit

  Workers found underpaid

  Per cent, underpaid of alt workers checked

  Per cent, underpaid of all workers checked by visit

  Arrears paid

  Arrears not pursued at workers request

  Arrears not pursued for other reasons

  Total arrears assessed as due

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Aerated Waters

  5,500

  848

  421

  1

  1

  0·2

  280

  —

  —

  280

  Clothing Manufacture

  147,000

  10,875

  10,025

  356

  3·2

  3·5

  30,306

  2,283

  3,039

  35,628

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  5,000

  477

  209

  12

  2·5

  5·7

  3,650

  3,165

  —

  6,815

  Button Manufacturing

  1,000

  133

  133

  1

  0·7

  0·7

  164

  —

  —

  164

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  200

  12

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  300

  25

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flax and Hemp

  500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fur

  1,500

  55

  46

  3

  5·4

  6·5

  323

  —

  —

  323

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  13,000

  967

  556

  7

  0·7

  1·2

  5,091

  —

  —

  5,091

  Hairdressing Undertakings

  64,000

  8,245

  4,784

  403

  4·8

  8·4

  47,191

  14,062

  4,540

  65,793

  Hat, Cap and Millinery

  4,000

  320

  288

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lace Finishing

  900

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laundry

  26,000

  3,100

  1,606

  36

  1·1

  2·2

  5,756

  —

  270

  6,026

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief

  2,500

  717

  717

  8

  1·1

  1·1

  366

  —

  —

  366

  Made-up Textile

  3,000

  348

  330

  18

  5·1

  5·4

  2,123

  —

  —

  2,123

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather

  500

  123

  113

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perambulator and Invalid Carriage

  2,000

  263

  263

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  4,000

  138

  108

  6

  4·3

  5·5

  62

  2,030

  —

  2,092

  Rope, Twine and Net

  2,500

  1,287

  1,283

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sack and Bag

  1,000

  96

  81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Toy Manufacturing

  11,000

  615

  609

  14

  2·2

  2·2

  818

  133

  22

  973

  Retail Non-Food Trades

  745,000

  68,184

  15,788

  1,820

  2·6

  11·5

  177,515

  74,696

  17,320

  269,531

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  465,000

  120,911

  23,793

  4,421

  3·6

  18·5

  360,350

  229,397

  38,788

  628,535

  Licensed Non-Residential

  492,000

  41,774

  19,599

  2,178

  52

  11·1

  147,060

  34,066

  9,100

  190,226

  Licensed Residential and Restaurant

  379,000

  40,962

  23,028

  1,092

  2·6

  4·7

  83,128

  8,991

  5,648

  97,767

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  96,000

  25,460

  6,094

  690

  2·7

  11·3

  45,936

  16,860

  2,683

  65,479

  TOTAL

  2,472,400

  325,935

  109,911

  11,066

  3·3

  10·0

  910,119

  385,683

  81,410

  1,377,212

  Table 4 Checks carried out and underpayments found in Wages Inspectorate divisions—1989

  Division

  Estabs checks by all methods

  Percentage of register checked

  Estabs checked by visit

  Percentage of register checked by visit

  Estabs found underpaying

  Percentage of all estabs checked underpaying

  Percentage of estabs visited underpaying

  London

  2,545

  4·9

  1,399

  2·1

  229

  8·9

  16·3

  South East

  4,462

  10·3

  1,815

  4·2

  478

  10·7

  26·3

  Eastern

  2,809

  7·1

  1,866

  4·7

  432

  15·3

  23·1

  South West

  4,297

  7·6

  2,531

  4·5

  960

  22·3

  37·9

  Midlands

  4,801

  7·8

  2,369

  3·8

  822

  17·1

  34·6

  North West

  4,939

  9·2

  3,161

  5·9

  1,104

  22·4

  35·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,494

  12·8

  1,804

  5·1

  569

  12·6

  31·5

  Northern

  1,989

  9·2

  1,306

  6·0

  387

  19·4

  29·6

  Scotland

  3,292

  9·5

  2,188

  6·3

  547

  16·6

  25·0

  Great Britain

  33,628

  8·8

  18,439

  4·8

  5,528

  16·4

  29·9

  All branches of multiple firms are recorded under the division in which the Head Office is located. Account has to be taken of this when comparing divisional figures.

  Table 5 Workers whose pay was checked in wages inspectorate divisions—7959

  Division

  Workers whose pay was checked by all methods

  Workers whose pay was checked by visit

  Workers found underpaid

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked by visit

  Arrears paid

  Arrears not pursued at workers request

  Arrears not pursued for other reasons

  Total arrears assessed as due

  £

  £

  £

  £

  London

  21,262

  10,540

  509

  2·3

  4·8

  54,330

  3,234

  3,522

  61,086

  South East

  44,799

  11,551

  833

  1·8

  7·2

  92,785

  27,520

  15,673

  135,978

  Eastern

  16,641

  11,419

  883

  5·3

  7·7

  82,643

  27,469

  2,568

  112,680

  South West

  38,613

  15,006

  1,691

  4·3

  11·2

  107,893

  45,899

  10,546

  164,338

  Midlands

  34,650

  14,908

  1,607

  4·6

  10·7

  85,734

  65,298

  9,795

  160,827

  North West

  35,515

  16,537

  2,272

  6·4

  13·7

  219,648

  114,988

  16,622

  351,258

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  88,437

  8,910

  1,172

  1·3

  13·1

  77,352

  56,277

  4,339

  137,968

  Northern

  16,693

  6,417

  846

  5·0

  13·1

  69,315

  13,731

  3,453

  86,499

  256 257

  Division

  Workers whose pay was checked by all methods

  Workers whose pay was checked by visit

  Workers found underpaid

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked

  Percentage underpaid of all workers checked by visit

  Arrears paid

  Arrears not pursued at workers request

  Arrears not pursued for other reasons

  Total arrears assessed as due

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Scotland

  29,325

  14,623

  1,253

  4·2

  8·5

  120,419

  31,267

  14,892

  166,578

  Great Britain

  325,935

  109,911

  11,066

  3·3

  10·0

  910,119

  385,683

  81,410

  1,377,212

  Note: The numbers of workers in branches of multiple firms are recorded under the division in which the Head Office is located. Account has to be taken of this when comparing divisional figures.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update the information given in his answer of 1 March 1989,Official Report, columns 201–02, with the levels of employment in each wages council for 1988 and 1989; and if he will explain the methodology behind the collation of these statistics.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No new estimates have been made. The figures given in the answer of 1 March 1989, as in earlier answers, were based essentially on data collected by wages inspectors in the course of inspections, supplemented where appropriate by other information obtained from employers in the trades concerned and such published material as is relevant.

  Employees in full or part-time employment, by age and industry—Great Britain Spring 1989

  Thousand

  Industry (Sic 1980)

  Full-time1 Age

  Part-time1 Age

  Divisions

  Classes

  Groups

  16 or 17

  18 to 20

  21 or over

  16 or 17

  18 to 20

  21 or over

  20–9

  —

  —

  296

  1,416

  15,339

  365

  217

  4,413

  0

  —

  —

  3—

  19

  193

  3—

  3—

  42

  1–5

  —

  —

  130

  524

  5,955

  18

  12

  525

  2–4

  —

  —

  99

  391

  4,488

  16

  10

  430

  —

  43

  —

  3—

  14

  157

  3—

  3—

  21

  —

  45

  —

  3—

  37

  207

  3—

  3—

  50

  6–9

  —

  —

  161

  872

  9,167

  333

  215

  3,841

  6

  —

  —

  73

  349

  2,202

  283

  155

  1,319

  —

  64/65

  —

  42

  196

  1,105

  209

  102

  803

  —

  —

  4651/2

  3—

  28

  174

  3—

  3—

  36

  —

  66

  —

  14

  62

  342

  66

  49

  406

  —

  —

  661

  3—

  24

  98

  40

  20

  87

  —

  —

  662

  3—

  3—

  46

  3—

  17

  112

  —

  —

  663

  3—

  3—

  24

  3—

  3—

  47

  —

  —

  664

  3—

  3—

  71

  3—

  3—

  107

  —

  —

  665

  3—

  20

  90

  12

  3—

  49

  —

  —

  667

  3—

  3—

  12

  3—

  3—

  3—

  8

  —

  —

  49

  236

  1,724

  3—

  3—

  344

  —

  91

  —

  3—

  54

  1,263

  3—

  3—

  169

  —

  92

  —

  3—

  3—

  133

  3—

  3—

  74

  —

  93

  —

  3—

  11

  970

  3—

  3—

  635

  —

  95

  —

  3—

  45

  675

  3—

  3—

  517

  —

  96

  —

  3—

  20

  404

  3—

  12

  403

  —

  97

  —

  3—

  26

  287

  12

  13

  128

  —

  98

  —

  3—

  30

  84

  3—

  3—

  48

  1 Based on the respondent's own assessment, not on the number of hours usually worked.

  2 Includes those who inadequately described their industry.

  3 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  4 Other groups in classes 64/65 are not separately identified.

  Source: 1989 LFS, preliminary results.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the January unemployment percentage figure in the Ashford travel-to-work area for each of the last 10 years.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the number of employees, broken down into full-timers and part-timers who are(a) under 18 years, (b) 18 years and over and (c) 21 years old and over in the following standard industrial classifications (i) zero to nine, (ii) one to five, (iii) two to four, (iv) six to nine, (v) zero, (vi) 43, (vii) 45, (viii) 6, (ix) 64 and 65 and their subgroups, (x) 66 and its subgroups, (xi) eight, (xii) 91, (xiii) 92, (xiv) 93, (xv) 95, (xvi) 96, (xvii) 97 and (xviii) 98.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Preliminary results from the 1989 labour force survey, as requested, are shown in the table.

  Mr. Nichols
  The information in the following table is available from the Library and is affected by seasonal influences, changes to the count, and a redefinition of travel-to-work areas.
  259

  "Narrow-based" unadjusted unemployment rates in Ashford travel-to-work area1: January each year

  Ashford Jobcentre based TTWA

  Ashford ward based TTWA

  Percentage rate

  Percentage rate

  1980

  4·5

  —

  1981

  8·5

  —

  1982

  12·0

  —

  1983

  11·9

  —

  1984

  11·3

  10·6

  1985

  —

  11·7

  1986

  —

  12·2

  1987

  —

  11·2

  1988

  —

  7·9

  1989

  —

  4·9

  1990

  —

  4·2

  1 The definition of travel-to-work areas changed in 1984. Earlier data are given for the old Ashford travel-to-work area.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: There were no fees paid to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Employment Department Group (excluding the Training Agency) in the financial period from 1979–80 to 1987–88 inclusive.

  Fees to the value of £369,000 were incurred in 1988–89.

  Costs incurred by the Employment Department Group in connection with the privatisation programme in 1989–90 and 1990–91 will be reported to Parliament in due course in the usual way.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: Expenditure on management consultancy in the Employment Department Group (excluding the Training Agency) in each year from 1984–85 to 1988–89 was as follows:

  £ thousands

  1984–85

  237

  1985–86

  174

  1986–87

  629

  1987–88

  415

  1988–89

  783

  The estimated outturn for the current year (1989–90) is £1,412,000 and the budget for 1990–91 is expected to be around £1·3 million.

SCOTLAND

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has recently gathered regarding the total number of homeless people who(a)
  260
  have no home or family to go back to, (b) have been forced to leave home by an adult member of the family, (c) left home after being abused or fearing abuse by another member of the family and (d) could safely return to their families; and what use he makes of this information in shaping his (1) housing and (2) social security policies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The homelessness statistics collected by the Scottish Development Department relate to households which apply to local authorities under the provisions of part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. For each applicant, the returns record information including the reason given for becoming homeless. Information in the detail requested is not available. However, on the basis of the returns, in 1988–89, 37 per cent. of applicants gave as their reason for homelessness that friends or relatives were no longer willing or able to accommodate them; 14 per cent. said they had had a violent dispute with the spouse or co-habitee.

  The Government take account of all relevant available information in formulating their policies. Social security matters are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Ticket Touts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to increase the powers of the police to deal with ticket touting.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Ticket touting can in certain circumstances already lead to an offence in Scotland under section 55 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The Government are currently considering whether existing powers under the 1982 Act are adequate.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce legislation to make ticket touting illegal.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A review of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 is already under way arid the Government are currently considering whether the existing powers under this Act relating to the activity of ticket touting are adequate.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a study into ticket touting at major sporting events.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss ticket touting at major sporting events when he next meets the chief constables of Strathclyde and of Midlothian and the Borders.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss ticket touting when he next meets the chairman of the Scottish Sports Council.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to do so

  White Fish
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value at first sale of the main species of white fish landed into Scotland by United Kingdom vessels in January 1990 and the corresponding figure for January 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  The provisional value of cod, haddock, whiting and saithe landed by United Kingdom vessels in Scotland in January 1990 was £7·4 million, compared with £7·1 million in January 1989. The value of these landings therefore increased by 4 per cent. despite the reduction of 26 per cent. in the volume landed. Unit prices increased by as much as 57 per cent. in the case of whiting and 53 per cent. in the case of haddock.

  Operations for ruptured aortic aneurysm 1981–88 Scotland

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total

  Inverclyde Royal

  Episodes

  3

  3

  1

  3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  16

  Episodes where outcome known1

  3

  3

  1

  3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  16

  Deaths

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  10

  Percentage deaths over known outcome

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  62·5

  All Scotland

  Episodes

  99

  108

  94

  124

  122

  143

  140

  140

  970

  Episodes where outcome known1

  56

  52

  47

  58

  45

  57

  53

  58

  426

  Deaths

  31

  27

  34

  43

  32

  41

  33

  41

  282

  Percentage deaths over known outcome

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66·2

  1 Patients at Inverclyde Royal suffering from Aortic Aneurysm are not transferred to other facilities but elsewhere in Scotland they are. The records of transferred patients could only be correlated at disproportionate cost; therefore numbers of deaths have been compared in each case with the known outcomes of patients being discharged from or dying in the same unit.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the research projects on heart diseases carried out or sponsored by his Department for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Year and Project Title

  1975

  Correlation of certain pathological findings in the heart and coronary arteries, obtained by a post mortem investigation including sterioarteriography with clinical observations made before death.

  Fibroblast viability in allograft heart valve leaflet.

  1977

  ECG interpretation by computer.

  Genetic variation in the regulation of cholestrol synthesis in relation to coronary heart disease.

  Computer assisted radionuclide cardiovascular diagnosis

  1978

  Computer assisted reporting on electrocardiograms

  Computer analysis of instantaneous pressure and velocity signals to assess ventricular contractility power and output impedance in patients with coronary and valvular heart disease before and after surgical heart treatment.

  1980

  A study of cardiac and respiratory rate and rhythm in the new born to determined (i) their relationship to each other, (ii) whether or not this changes during the first few months of life, (iii) if recordings at home differ from those in hospital and (iv) their possible roll in sudden infant death.

  Comparison of nuclear angiography and echocardiography (M-mode and phased array) in the investigation of left ventricular performance

  Surgery (Fatalities)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the death rate for ruptured aortic aneurysm operations in (a) the Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock, for each of the past eight years and (b) other hospitals in Scotland for the same years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The death rate for ruptured aortic aneurysm operations in both Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock and other hospitals in Scotland over the past eight years is shown in the table. In Scotland 66·2 per cent. of cases result in death, compared with 62·5 per cent. in the Inverclyde royal hospital at Greenock.

  1981

  A study of biochemical origins and prevention of lethal ventricular arrythmias during acute myocardial ischaemia.

  1983

  Metabolic electrophysiological and epidemiological aspects of sudden cardiac death: purchase of fast analyser.

  Acute experimental myocardial ischaemia—the role of substances derived from arachidonic acid.

  1983

  Myocardial effects of prolonged exposure to lead ethanol.

  1984

  Investigations into mechanisms of serious ventricular arrhythmias during the early hours of acute myocardial infarction in man.

  1985

  Strategy for screening for risk of coronary heart disease.

  1986

  The role of the neutrophil in acute myocardial infarction.

  Acute experimental myocardial ischaemia—possible role of locally released coronary vasoconstrictor and platelet aggregating agents, with particular reference to substances derived from membrane phospholipids.

  The activity of antiarrhythmic drugs in myocardial ischaemia

  The importance of neuropeptide Y in the central control of blood pressure and heart rate.

  1987

  The effect of physiological and pathological factors and of xenobiotics on the distribution of high density lipoprotein subspecies in relation to coronary heart disease.

  Non-invasive recording of small signals from the conduction system of the heart.

  The development and evaluation of a self-help manual for use in the rehabilitation of myocardial infarct patients.
  263
  1988

  A prospective evaluation of the Bjork-Shiely Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards Heart Valve Prostheses.

  1989

  Application of Stable Isotope Technology to the study of lipoprotein metabolism.

  1990

  Sympathetic and parasympathetic interaction and the development of serious arrhythmias during acute myocardial ischaemia.

  In addition, the Scottish Home and Health Department has, since 1981, provided core funding for the programme of research of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at Dundee university. It is also providing funding for the Scottish centre of the World Health Organisation MONICA project: a multinational long-term study to monitor trends and determinants in cardiovascular disease.

  Also the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust has supported the following projects:

  Year and Project Title

  1976

  Electrophysiological evaluation of the Wolff-ParkinsonWhite syndrome and post-operative conduction abnormalities in patients with congenital heart disease.

  1977

  The effect of anaesthetic agents and techniques on myocardial blood flow during acute experimental myocardial ischaemia.

  Investigation of the experimental basis of surgery for coronary artery stenosis.

  1978

  Experimental study of methods for assessment and prevention of myocardial injury during cardiac surgery.

  The effects of six months physical training on plasma lipoprotein distribution echocardiography and exercise cardiography in male survivors of myocardial infarction.

  1983

  An experimental study of left ventricular assistance.

  1984

  An investigation into sudden death in Glasgow.

  A study of metabolism of atherogenic lipoproteins in the plasma.

  1986

  Investigation into the cellular mechanisms underlying arrhythmias in cardiac cells and into the action of antiarrythmic drugs.

  A population study of blood viscosity, plasma viscosity, haematocrit and fibrinogen in relation to cardiovascular risk factors.

  1987

  Membrane vesicles from cardiac muscle.

  Prospective study of the effect of intravenous insulin infusion in diabetics with acute myocardial infarction.

  The effects of hypothermia on postoperative energy expenditure in cardiac surgical patients determined by the doubly labelled water and indirect calorimetry techniques.

  Normal limits of the paediatric electrocardiogram and echocardiogram.

  1988

  The role of vascular endothelium as a target in renal allograft rejection.

  Protection of the ischaemic myocardium: a clinical and experimental evaluation of the influence of ionised calcium during cardiopulmonary bypass.

  The plasma high density lipoprotein profile as an index of coronary status: a comparison of lipoprotein and clinical data in coronary patients.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to the Government of Iraq about the refusal to permit the editor of The Observer to attend the trial of Farzad Bazoft in Baghdad.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes.

  Deputy Secretaries
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in his Department and the numbers and grades of staff reporting to each.

  Mr. Maude
  There are seven deputy secretaries in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, six in the diplomatic wing and one in the ODA. Broad areas of responsibility are as follows. A full range of diplomatic service grades (senior grade to DS10), specialist staff, secretaries and certain home civil service grades report to each diplomatic. wing deputy secretary. Numbers of staff in London reporting to each are indicated in brackets.

  (i) Europe and the United Nations (129);

  (ii) Commercial and certain functional areas including scientific environmental departments (129);

  (iii) Public related (e.g. consular, migration and visa) and administration departments (2,717);

  (v) Geographical departments covering the Americas, Asia and the Pacific (144);

  (v) Geographical departments covering Africa and the Middle East (113);

  (vi) Remaining political departments including areas such as security and defence (97).

  A few specialist departments are not under the remit of a deputy secretary, for example legal advisers. Others are under the direct authority of the permanent undersecretary, for example research and economic advisers. Staff in these total 251.

  The ODA's one deputy secretary is responsible for all expenditure, both bilateral and multilateral, under the aid programme. The ODA's operations are managed by 625 staff at home and 52 staff overseas across a full range of grades.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with the Foreign Minister of Guatemala.

  Mr. Maude
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Rivera on Monday 19 February. They discussed bilateral relations, human rights and Belize.

  West Bank and Gaza
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Israel concerning the continued closure of six universities in the West Bank and Gaza strip; and what response he has received.
  265
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We take every opportunity to urge the Israelis to allow all higher education institutions in the occupied territories to reopen. I reiterated our concern to the Israeli Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Olmert, on 5 March.

  Katyn Massacre
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress on his Department's studies into the responsibility for the Katyn massacre.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are following developments closely. There is substantial circumstantial evidence pointing to Soviet responsibility for the Katyn massacre. We urge the Soviet authorities to help establish the facts quickly.

  South Africa
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the British companies that have invested in South Africa for each of the past 10 years; and how much investment in pounds sterling that has amounted to.

  Mr Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, the names of United Kingdom companies which furnish such information are confidential. The most recent estimate (end of 1987) of the book value of United Kingdom direct investment in South Africa is £1,821 million.

ENVIRONMENT

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the impact of the unified business rate on small business growth in the midlands.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the impact of the unified business rate on small business growth in the midlands.

  Mr. Chope
  The uniform business rate and the non-domestic revaluation do not come into effect until 1 April 1990, but when they do, average non-domestic rate bills will fall in real terms by 6 per cent. in the west midlands and 4 per cent. in the east midlands in 1990–91 and, once transition to the new system is complete, by 28 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively. This will be a stimulus to business growth.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the new money recently announced for inner cities is to go to the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Spending on the programmes which come within the "Action for Cities" initiative is planned to increase by £500 million in 1990–91 to a total of around £4 billion. It is not possible to estimate the amount which will be spent in any individual local authority's area.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reform the community charge 266
  system in England to enable the amount of revenue support grant attributable to county and district councils respectively to be separately identified either on the basis that it is currently separately identified in Wales or on the basis that it is currently separately identified for regional and district councils in Scotland.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: No.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce in the Official Report the full calculation underlying his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on 12 February, Official Report, column 58, that under the community charge system about 15 times as much will be contributed to the cost of local government by the top 10 per cent. of householders by income compared with the poorest 10 per cent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: I will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Government have to alleviate the effects of recent increases in council rents.

  Mr. Chope
  It is for local authorities to determine their own rent levels. The Government allocate sufficient HRA subsidy to enable council rents to be set at reasonable levels. Rent rebates give assistance to those who need it.

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce controls relating to exposure levels within electromagnetic fields.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have no plans at present to introduce specific controls relating to the exposure to electromagnetic fields.

  USSR (Exposure Levels)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made an assessment of the permitted exposure levels to microwave and RF EM fields in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Trippier
  I understand that the NRPB is currently assessing all the available biological and epidemiological evidence and will be publishing an assessment during the year.

  Water Flotation (Cost)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the full cost of the flotation of the water industry including(a) the total cost to public funds of advertising and (b) the total cost to public funds in fees to City advisers, will be available to Parliament.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Figures for overall costs to the Government are being compiled and will be reported shortly.

  Acid Mist (Lincolnshire and Norfolk)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has investigated the causes of the acid mist that blighted acres of hawthorn trees in Lincolnshire and Norfolk on 9 September 1989.
  267
  Mr. Trippier
  My Department commissioned the scientists who were working on the Halvergate marshes at the time to collect all available information and to report on the acid mist incident. The report is expected soon and I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Energy Conservation
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are being taken to alert builders erecting or converting homes of the need to conserve energy; and whether he intends to introduce any regulations to ensure that builders respond to such needs.

  Mr. Chope
  The Building Regulations 1985 already include requirements relating to energy conservation measures in new buildings and extensions. The Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which are due to come into force on 1 April, will make the existing requirements more stringent, and the changes have been widely publicised.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which voluntary organisations he consulted on "Local Government and Housing Act 1989: Implementation of Part VIII, House Adaptations for Disabled People".

  Mr. Chope
  We made copies of a draft of a circular entitled "House Adaptations for Disabled People" generally available, and welcomed comments from any organisation or individual with an interest. We specifically sought the views of:

  The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People

  The Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation "Panel of Four" c/o Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Access Committee for England

  The Centre on Environment for the Handicapped

  MIND

  MENCAP

  The Disability Income Group

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux Shelter

  Age Concern

  Sewage Disposal
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to prohibit the use of long sea outfalls for sewage disposal in the Bristol channel and set a date for this prohibition.

  Mr. Trippier
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 5 March, the Government have decided that in general municipal sewage should receive secondary treatment, but that primary treatment would be more appropriate for discharges to coastal waters, where it can be shown that this does not adversely affect the environment,Official Report, volume 168, column 452.

  It will be for the National Rivers Authority to implement this policy by using its powers to consent discharges.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to conduct a survey, similar to the one initiated by his Department called "Survey of Local Authority Domestic Waste Recycling Activity", directed at the recycling industry, 'to assess its view of waste recycling capability and potential.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: Yes.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply of 5 March,Official Report, column 448, how many display signs were purchased by the Leeds development corporation for the £26,500 referred to in that reply; and how many of those signs are still in place.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: Leeds development corporation's expenditure on display signs of £26,500 since designation in June 1988 covers design work, materials and erection costs. Some 40 signs have been purchased and erected during that period, including 10 replacements. Thirty are currently in place, of which two have recently been blown down and two affected by storm damage. Work is in hand by the corporation to reinstate these signs.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the main items of expenditure by the Leeds development corporation under the budget heading of £320,000 in 1989–90 and £480,000 in 1990–91 for promotion and publicity.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The key objective of Leeds development corporation's promotion and publicity budget is to promote the economic regeneration of the Leeds urban development area. The main items of expenditure are the promotion and marketing of the urban development area and of Leeds in general; the promotion and marketing of specific sites; exhibition material; keeping the local community informed of the development corporation's activities, including a bi-annual newspaper; community sponsorship; and the production of an annual report.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those properties currently vested in the London residuary body for which he has refused consent to its sale to the relevant London borough under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972; and if he will state the date and the reasons for refusal in each case.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  An application by the London residuary body for consent to the sale of 67–69 Cowcross street, London EC1 to the London borough of Islington was refused on 26 February 1990 for the reasons given in my letter of the same date to the hon. Member. No other properties currently vested in the London residuary body have been refused for disposal under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972.

  Lakes
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment has been made of the effects of agricultural uses of fertiliser on British lakes in increasing nitrogen and phosphate contents;

  (2) what assessment has been made of the effects of eutrophication on species diversity in British lakes; and what steps are being taken to reduce eutrophication;

  (3) what studies his Department has made into the eutrophication of British lakes; and what causes of eutrophication have been identified.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: A number of surveys have been carried out in recent years by the water authorities into the eutrophication of British waters. These have concluded that eutrophication is not increasing in the United Kingdom and is limited to a small number of areas, for example, the Norfolk Broads, Loch Leven and Lake Windermere. In nearly all cases it is phosphorus which is the cause of eutrophication. To reduce eutrophication action is best taken at local level because the sources contributing to excess nutrients vary from place to place. Phosphorus stripping at sewage works is nearly always an effective control option.

  Coniferous Afforestation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has about the acidification of upland soils and waterways by coniferous afforestation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: A number of recent reviews and reports on the relationship between coniferous afforestation and possible acidification of upland soils and waterways have been placed in the Library of the House. They include;

  (i) The United Kingdom Acid Waters Review Group Second Report "Acidity In United Kingdom Freshwaters" December 1988.

  (ii) "Lake Acidification in the United Kingdom" prepared for the Department of the Environment by the Paleoecology Research Unit, University College of London.

  (iii) "Acidification in Scotland" Symposium Proceedings, 8th November 1988, published by the Scottish Development Department, December 1989.

  (iv) "Acid Waters in Wales" by Edwards, Stoner and Gee, Welsh National Rivers Authority, March 1990.

  (v) "Forests and Surface Water Acidification", Forestry Commission Bulletin No. 86, March 1990.

  Additional information on this issue is also available from a number of research projects being funded by the NERC, DOE and CEGB.

  NATIONAL FINANCE
  Increase in income after tax1 (£ per week) compared with indexation2 in 1990–91 for married man3 with two children.

  Multiple of average earnings4

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  Increased derived from

  (i) 1p cut in basic rate

  0·61

  1·37

  2·13

  3·65

  4·29

  4·29

  4·29

  (ii) 7·5 per cent increase in main income tax allowances

  1·59

  1·59

  1·59

  1·59

  2·54

  2·54

  2·54

  (iii) Increase in child benefit

  (a) £3·15 per week per child5

  6·30

  6·30

  6·30

  6·30

  6·30

  6·30

  6·30

  (b) £2·45 per week per child6

  4·90

  4·90

  4·90

  4·90

  4·90

  4·90

  4·90

  (iv) reduced rate band of 20 per cent, on first £1,450 of taxable income

  1·40

  1·40

  1·40

  1·40

  1·40

  1·40

  1·40

  (v) reduced rate band of 15 per cent, on first £700 of taxable income

  1·35

  1·35

  1·35

  1·35

  1·35

  1·35

  1·35

  1 Disregarding any change to entitlement to social security income-related benefits except in item (iii) (b).

  2 Calculations based on the standard assumption that 1989–90 allowances and the basis rate limit have been indexed by 7·7 per cent, for 1990–91.

  3 Assumed to have no reliefs and allowances other than the personal allowance and the married couple's allowance.

  4Average earnings assumed to be £303·8 per week, an increase of 8·5 per cent, on 1989–90 in line with the assumptions used by the Government Actuary for reviewing national insurance contributions (paragraph 3·02 of the Autumn Statement 1989).

  5 Assuming no change in income support and family credit children's rates.

  6 Assuming corresponding changes in income support and family credit children's rates.

  Productivity
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the trends of manufacturing industry productivity over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Lamont
  Indices of United Kingdom manufacturing productivity can be found on the CSO databank, which is accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of interest rates on manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of interest rates on manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of interest rates on manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of interest rates on manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of interest rates on manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Interest rates have been set at their current level to put downward pressure on inflation. Inflation is the greatest threat to the future prosperity of manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from small businesses on interest rates.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him concerning the effect of the present level of interest rates on the costs of manufacturing industry.

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

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses on the exchange rate.

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

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the trade deficit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend receives a few letters each month from members of the public concerning the trade deficit.

  Imports
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest trends in imports.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the three months to January, import volumes (less oil and erratics) were 1 per cent. lower than in the previous three months, and only 2 per cent. higher than in the same period a year earlier. This is clear evidence that imports are responding to the tightening of policy.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 21 December 1989,Official Report,

  271
  columns 368–69, on mortgage interest tax relief and investment income, whether he will provide for 1989–90 the numbers in each range of income with investment income of more than £200 and less than £500, and those with investment income of more than £500.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is in the table. These estimates are provisional and subject to revision.

  Single People and Married Couples Receiving Mortgage Interest Relief:

  Range of total income (£)

  Numbers with annual investment income of

  more than £200, but less than £500

  more than £500

  (thousands)

  (thousands)

  0–4,999

  30

  20

  5,000–9,999

  90

  260

  10,000–14,999

  260

  290

  15,000–19,999

  300

  350

  20,000–29,999

  280

  450

  30,000 +

  140

  490

  Total

  1,100

  1,860

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing investment.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing investment.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing investment.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing investment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Manufacturing investment reached a record level in 1989 after six years of growth averaging 8 per cent.

  Foreign-owned Companies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what profits and other capital payments have been remitted back to the host country from Britain from foreign-owned concerns for each of the last 10 years.
  272
  Estimates are based on the 1987 family expenditure survey and the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes projected to 1989–90.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the table in the answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 10 January 1989,Official Report, columns 632–34, stating the effects at different income levels of alternative policies based on Exchequer expenditure equal to a 1p cut in income tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The effects of the various changes to income tax and child benefit on a married man with two children are shown in the table. Each of the changes would cost £1·7 billion a year, that is the cost in a full year of a 1 p cut in the basic rate of income tax. Estimates are based on projections of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes in line with forecasts in the Autumm Statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest available information on profits and capital flows remitted back to the host country by foreign-owned concerns in the United Kingdom is given in table 2·1 of Business Monitor MA4 "Overseas Transactions 1987". The relevant items in net earnings and net direct investment are:

  (i) interest paid to, net of interest received from, overseas parent companies;

  (ii) dividends paid to overseas parent companies;

  (iii) net profits from United Kingdom branches;

  (iv) disposals of United Kingdom companies' share and loan capital.

  In addition, the categories "increase in amount due to overseas parent on inter company account" and "increase in indebtedness to overseas parent companies on branch head office account" may include indistinguishably certain capital flows from United Kingdom subsidiaries, associates and branches to their overseas direct investors.

  Inflation
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to align with the practice in other European Community countries in calculating inflation.
  273
  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has no plans to do so at present. The practices followed in compiling consumer prices indices vary between Community countries. The United Kingdom regularly joins in discussions with other members with a view to understanding the differences in methodology. When changes in the retail prices index have been proposed they have always been considered by the RPI advisory committee and due account taken then of practice elsewhere.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers paid capital gains tax in 1987–88.

  Mr. Lilley
  The number of individuals and trusts who have a liability to pay capital gains tax from gains on disposals made in 1987–88 is provisionally estimated at 170,000.

  Investment
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the business fixed investment figures in the United Kingdom for the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest annual data for business investment are:

  £ billion

  1985 prices

  1984

  36·9

  1985

  39·7

  1986

  39·5

  1987

  43·7

  1988

  51·4

  In the five years to 1988 (1983–88) business investment grew by over 50 per cent. in real terms.

  Currency
  Mr. Robert Sheldon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to introduce a £100 note.

  Mr. Major
  The Bank of England is responsible for the note issue. It has no plans to introduce a £100 note.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures on capital investment by business.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Business investment was 12¼ per cent. higher in real terms in the first three quarters of 1989 than in the same period in 1988. In the two years to 1988 business investment grew by over 30 per cent.

  Taxation
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer(a) whether he will raise the income limits which govern the Inland Revenue's practice for remitting arrears of tax where information provided to the Revenue had not been used within a reasonable time and (b) what are the implications of independent taxation for the income limits.
  274
  Mr. Lilley
  I am pleased to announce that limits are to be increased from today. From 6 April 1990 the income scale will apply separately to the incomes of husbands and wives.

  (a) The Inland Revenue's practice of remitting tax in cases where the Department has not made timely use of information available is set out in a White Paper of July 1971 (first report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration: Session 1970–71: Cmnd 4729). The proportion of arrears collected varies according to the size of the taxpayer's gross income; the balance of the arrear is remitted.

  The new scale of limits will apply to arrears of tax, the actual of likely amount of which is first notified to the taxpayer of his agent on or after today.

  New scale Gross income

  Percentage of arrears remitted

  Old scale Gross income

  £

  £

  0 to 12,000

  All

  0 to 8,500

  12,001 to 14,500

  0·75

  8,501 to 10,500

  14,501 to 18,500

  0·50

  10,501 to 13,500

  18,501 to 22,000

  0·25

  13,501 to 16,000

  22,001 to 32,000

  0·10

  16,001 to 23,000

  Over 32,000

  None

  Over 23,000

  For taxpayers aged 65 or over or who are in receipt of the national insurance retirement or widows' pension each of the bands is increased by the following:

  Pensioners addition to each band

  New scale

  Old scale

  £

  £

  3,300

  2,500

  If a taxpayer in this category has gross income of £15,300 or less the whole of the arrear will be remitted, whilst some remission will be allowed on gross income up to £35,300.

  (b) At present income limits for the purposes of the concession apply equally to a single person or the joint incomes of a husband and wife. With the introduction of independent taxation the income scale will apply only to the spouse assessed.

  This new rule will apply to arrears of tax, the actual or likely amount of which is notified to a taxpayer on or after 6 April 1990.

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

  Mr. Ryder
  The ECOFIN Council met in Brussels on 12 March. Before the formal meeting of the Council, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the lunch at which prospects for Germany monetary union were discussed. The Chancellor also stressed the importance of making good progress in establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and emphasised the attractions of London as its location.

  During the formal Council, I represented the United Kingdom. A common position was established on the proposal to revise the financial perspective which sets out EC budgetary ceilings. A Council declaration identifying

  275
  areas in which further measures against EC budget fraud are needed was also agreed. I stressed the importance of simplifying the relevant EC legislation, improving reporting by member states and agreeing on administrative sanctions. The Court of Auditors' annual report for 1988 formed the basis of an agreed opinion on the discharge of the 1988 budget.

  Revised Council decisions on the promotion of economic convergence and co-operation between central banks during stage I of EMU were formally adopted, and the Council took note of reports on multilateral surveillance of member states' economies during stage 1 from the monetary committee, the economic policy committee and the committee of central bank governors. I also stressed the need for early proposals from the Commission and a discussion in the Council on technical VAT and statistics systems after 1992.

  Consumer Spending
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the retail price index takes full account of the increase since 1979 in (i) imputed rent and (ii) mortgage interest given in the reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 19 February,Official Report, column 524–25, concerning consumer's expenditure detailed in table 1.6 of the Monthly Digest of Statistics.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: Imputed rents have not been used as a measure of owner-occupiers' housing costs in the retail prices index since 1975. They were then replaced by mortgage interest payments following a standardised formulation recommended by the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee.

  Female Earnings
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women in work, and how many of those with children under five, have earnings below £8,500.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: Information on the distribution of weekly earnings of women in employment is published in the 1989 new earnings survey report and information on dependent children of women in work is given in chapter 9 of the report on the 1987 general household survey. Further information is not available.

  Public Sector Asset Creation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the series of total public sector asset creation as given in table 21.2.15 of the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 1021, as far back as possible both in cash and in 1988–89 prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 March 1990]: Information on total public sector asset creation is available for the years since 1978–79 and is given in table 21.2.16 of chapter 21 of the 1990 public expenditure White Paper in both cash and real terms (1988–89 prices).

  Pay Figures
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the pay figures for the financial year 1983–84, and as far back as is possible, on 276
  the same basis as those figures given in table 21.02.13 of Cm. 1021; if these figures, are available on a quarterly basis; and where both sets of data are published.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: Figures on a consistent basis with those given in table 21.2.13 are not readily available for earlier years. Calendar years figures for general government expenditure on wages and salaries and so on, consistent with table 9.4 of the 1989 edition of the "United Kingdom National Accounts" (the CSO Blue Book), are given in the table. These data are not on exactly the same basis as that provided in the public expenditure White Paper.

  £ million

  1961

  2,534

  1962

  2,722

  1963

  2,929

  1964

  3,161

  1965

  3,473

  1966

  3,778

  1967

  4,083

  1968

  4,382

  1969

  4,690

  1970

  5,402

  1971

  6,372

  1972

  7,460

  1973

  8,423

  1974

  10,556

  1975

  14,815

  1976

  16,907

  1977

  18,281

  1978

  20,377

  1979

  23,258

  1980

  29,469

  1981

  33,577

  1982

  35,773

  1983

  39,060

  1984

  41,271

  1985

  43,695

  1986

  46,896

  1987

  50,914

  1988

  55,219

  The CSO figures are higher than those in the public expenditure White Paper mainly because the former include with wages and salaries and so on, the pension increase elements of pensions paid to members of the teachers' and NHS superannuation schemes and payments to community programme participants engaged by local authorities.

  Quarterly figures on either basis are not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The expenditure for 1988–89 is £548,264, the estimated expenditure for the current year is £550,525 and the budget provision for 1990–91 is £599,680. Comparable figures for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 are not available because of the machinery of Government changes, and could be given only at disproportionate cost.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising,
  277
  (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The expenditure for 1988–89 is £49,310 and the estimated expenditure for 1989–90 is £52,486, none of which is on television or radio advertising; the 1990–91 budget is £49,313, none of which is likely to be on television or radio advertising.

  Comparable figures for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 are not available because of the machinery of Government changes, and could be given only at disproportionate cost.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: For 1979–80 and each ensuing year up to and including 1987–88, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 17 March 1989, Official Report, column 383, by my right hon. Friend the then Paymaster General. The fees paid in 1988–89 were £2,334,613, the estimated fees for the current year are £2,757,110 and the budget provision for 1990–91 is £3,157,489.

  National Income
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage, in the latest available year, of the national income of the United Kingdom was made up of interest, dividends and private rents.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: Interest and dividends are redistributive transactions which have no net impact on national income. The share of rent in total domestic income is given in table 16.3 of the CSO publication "United Kingdom National Accounts", 1989 edition.

  In-patient cases treated, by district health authority. Northern RHA, 1983 to 1988–89

  Health authority

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Hartlepool

  16,096

  16,315

  16,876

  18,845

  18,825

  18,857

  North Tees

  22,670

  23,887

  24,491

  24,777

  24,338

  23,833

  South Tees

  47,035

  48,450

  51,246

  54,262

  56,389

  55,464

  East Cumbria

  22,508

  22,908

  22,217

  23,483

  24,503

  25,764

  South Cumbria

  17,744

  18,194

  19,736

  20,245

  22,088

  22,483

  West Cumbria

  14,702

  15,400

  15,819

  15,616

  16,019

  15,682

  Darlington

  16,656

  17,321

  18,126

  17,977

  19,066

  18,858

  Durham

  16,725

  16,858

  17,409

  17,470

  18,756

  18,991

  North West Durham

  13,220

  13,449

  13,459

  13,295

  13,020

  12,603

  South West Durham

  14,846

  14,905

  15,533

  16,293

  16,969

  17,620

  Northumberland

  25,303

  25,767

  27,018

  27,713

  29,236

  28,433

  Gateshead

  19,927

  20,004

  21,050

  21,105

  21,729

  20,685

  Newcastle

  79,645

  80,748

  82,086

  84,769

  92,352

  92,094

  North Tyneside

  17,304

  18,031

  19,329

  19,102

  20,265

  20,387

  South Tyneside

  15,509

  16,898

  17,626

  17,323

  17,055

  17,604

  Sunderland

  49,225

  50,945

  51,110

  48,820

  52,156

  51,675

  Northern RHA

  409,115

  420,080

  433,131

  441,095

  462,766

  461,033

  Income Tax
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income tax payers are currently paying tax at the higher rate.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: About 7 per cent. of taxpaying single people and married couples are liable at the higher rate in 1989–90. The estimate is based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and is, therefore, provisional.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the name and status of the report of the working party which reported to the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community, referred to by the Economic Secretary in his speech on 27 February,Official Report, column 243, the date of the Council meeting at which the report was considered, and the action then agreed; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The working party referred to by my hon. Friend was an expert group chaired by the European Commission, whose report was sent to the Council of Ministers in June 1989. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library. Subsequently the Council adopted regulation 3757/89 introducing compulsory physical stock checks in intervention stores. The Commission has also made regulations adjusting the flat-rate systems for financing storage and interest costs, and adopted other measures to improve the management of public storage.

HEALTH

  Northern RHA (Statistics)
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each district of the Northern regional health authority the number of(a) in-patients, (b) qualified nursing staff and (c) consultants for the latest available year; and if he will give figures for the five previous years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the tables.
  279

  (b) Qualified nursing and midwifery staff at 30 September 1983–1988 (Excludes agency staff)

  Whole-time equivalents1

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Northern RHA

  15,730

  16,040

  16,590

  16,910

  17,230

  17,410

  Northern HQ

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Hartlepool

  500

  490

  520

  540

  570

  580

  North Tees

  700

  700

  700

  750

  820

  820

  South Tees

  1,740

  1,710

  1,770

  1,780

  1,860

  1,870

  East Cumbria

  930

  920

  940

  960

  980

  990

  South Cumbria

  670

  710

  730

  730

  730

  740

  West Cumbria

  680

  710

  710

  710

  700

  700

  Darlington

  790

  800

  810

  800

  780

  730

  Durham

  700

  710

  760

  750

  760

  770

  North West Durham

  450

  450

  460

  470

  470

  470

  South West Durham

  890

  930

  950

  950

  950

  970

  Northumberland

  1,500

  1,610

  1,640

  1,670

  1,750

  1,730

  Gateshead

  800

  800

  810

  870

  870

  870

  Newcastle

  2,750

  2,740

  2,960

  3,050

  3,090

  3,280

  North Tyneside

  580

  640

  640

  660

  670

  660

  South Tyneside

  560

  610

  600

  620

  620

  620

  Sunderland

  l,490

  1,490

  1,560

  1,590

  1,600

  1,610

  Source DH (SM13C) Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalent.

  2Excludes midwifery students and health visitor students.

  (c) Hospital medical and dental consultants at 30 September each year

  Northern region

  Newcastle district health authority (teaching)

  1983

  908

  289

  1984

  922

  291

  1985

  954

  297

  1986

  973

  302

  1987

  1,000

  308

  1988

  1,003

  277

  Note: Includes permanent paid and honorary staff.

  Contracts for consultants in non-teaching district health authorities are held by the regional health authorities. Districts where these staff work cannot be identified centrally, and are therefore included with the regional total.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the latest conveniently available figures for the shortage of kidneys to transplant.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 20 February at column 720.

  Health Authorities (Land Sales)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contribution he expects land sales to make to the revenue of health authorities in London during the coming financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the coming financial year surplus property with an estimated value of £163 million will be available for disposal by the four Thames regional health authorities. However, the need to obtain planning permission, and the depressed and uncertain state of the property market, preclude a reliable forecast of what receipts will actually be received.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the representatives of community health councils; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not met representatives of community health councils (CHCs). However, I met the chairman and officers of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales on 23 November 1989 to discuss the role of CHCs. Questions arising from the meeting are still being considered.

  Dental Staff
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to issue guidance on changes to disciplinary procedures for hospital and community medical and dental staff.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A circular containing guidance on new and revised disciplinary procedures for hospital doctors and dentists, and for community doctors, has been published today. This follows negotiations with the professions on the basis of recommendations from a. joint working party. A copy of the circular, HC(90)(9), is: being placed in the Library.

  The circular amends the procedure for holding inquiries into doctors' alleged serious professional misconduct or incompetence—the HM(61)112 procedure—as well as the right of appeal against dismissal. Improvements include setting time limits to help reduce the cost and delay of these procedures.

  Two new procedures are being introduced: professional review machinery, a peer group approach for reviewing the conduct of hospital consultants said to have failed repeatedly to honour their contractual commitments, and an intermediate procedure, which deals with allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence which are sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action but are unlikely to lead to dismissal.
  281
  These changes should result in a more comprehensive disciplinary framework for medical and dental staff and should make it easier for health authorities to take appropriate action where necessary.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner practices have registered their interest in becoming fund holders under the Government's proposed reforms for the National Health Service set out in "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I announced this morning that 850 GP practices have so far registered their interest in becoming fund-holding practices. The response so far is a clear endorsement of the attractiveness of the scheme. It shows that significant numbers of GPs recognise the advantage of being able to choose to take control of some NHS funds to finance a range of local services for their patients and to having more influence over the quality of hospital services.

  South Western RHA
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the position of the chairman of the South Western regional health authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Sir Vernon Seccombe's appointment as chairman of South Western regional health authority ends on 31 July. After seven years as regional health authority chairman, Sir Vernon has told me that he would like to continue in the National Health Service but in a position which is much nearer to his home. I have therefore asked if he would be willing to take over the chairmanship of Plymouth health authority after the current chairman retires on 31 March. I am pleased to say that Sir Vernon has accepted. I am grateful to him for all that he has achieved during his successful period of office as regional health authority chairman and glad that he will continue as a district health authority chairman. The precise date for Sir Vernon to take up his new responsibilities will be announced shortly. Sir Vernon's successor as regional health authority chairman will also be announced shortly.

  Salmonella
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of salmonella infection in human beings have been proved absolutely to have arisen from the consumption of eggs; and in how many cases it was impossible to trace back to an egg or to an egg farm such infection and assumptions made that it originated in this manner.

  Mr. Freeman
  The evidence linking eggs and salmonella infection in man is based on many different kinds of information. It is not often possible to prove absolutely the cause and effect in individual cases—any more than individual cases of cancer of the lung can be proven as due to cigarettes.

  Since the beginning of 1988, the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre (CDSC) has investigated 11 outbreaks (involving at least 759 people) of salmonella infection in which a statistical association with eggs was
  282
  found. In five of these (involving at least 341 people) there was supporting microbiological evidence. Most of these investigations have been published in the medical literature.

  In 1988 and 1989, public health professionals reported to CDSC 76 outbreaks (involving at least 1,257 people) which they attributed to eggs or foods which contained egg.

  Egg packaging is required to show certain information, for example, the packaging station number which will assist investigations to trace back eggs implicated in food poisoning outbreaks. However, the packaging may not always be available and, when it is, it is not always possible to identify a producer particularly in those cases where a packing station is handling eggs from more than one source.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what insurance cover is provided to district health authorities for the protection of hospitals and other buildings against storm damage; what estimates he has received of the damage inflicted by storms in January and February on property belonging to district and regional health authorities; and what funds will be made available to repair the damage caused.

  Mr. Freeman
  NHS property is not covered by commercial insurance. Authorities are therefore expected to make some provision within their allocations to meet such contingencies. Information is not held centrally on the total damage to NHS property in January and February. Initial provisional estimates from regions which suffered damage arising from the storm on 25 January amount to about £12 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dogs (Hunting)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to prohibit hare coursing and deer hunting with dogs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government believe that participation in field sports is a matter for the conscience of the individual and have no plans for legislation to prohibit or restrict such activities.

  Grants to Local Government
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the main purposes for which grants under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 are paid to local authorities.

  Mr. Waddington
  [pursuant to the reply, 7 December 1989, c. 395]: I have today published my proposals for the improved administration of section 11 grant in the form of a draft circular to local authorities on which I am inviting comments. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The new arrangements are the outcome of the Government's consideration of the scrutiny report into the workings of the grant. Some £89 million section 11 grant was paid out in 1988–89 (the latest year for which figures are available); provision of £110 million has been secured for 1990–91.
  283
  Our ethnic minorities make a substantial contribution to this country. The Government are committed to equality of opportunity and good community relations. Barriers which prevent ethnic minorities from making their full contribution to the life of the country must be broken down. The reforms that we propose are designed to enable section 11 to make a major contribution to this objective. The grant has an important role in enabling people from the ethnic minorities to participate fully in the mainstream of British life. This is the Government's prime objective in the reforms proposed for the policy and administration of the grant in the light of the scrutiny report.

  The scrutiny report shows that new legislation will be needed for any fundamental reform of section 11.

  The Government agree that it is desirable to make the existing legislation more relevant to current needs, but believe that much can be done, in advance of any possible legislative change, to improve the way in which section 11 funding is administered. The main changes in funding arrangements set out in the draft circular are:
  the emphasis of the grant in future will be put on practical projects working to identified needs, such as a lack of English language or low achievement in schools and local authorities will in future bid for funding for projects to be judged against such specific criteria;
  all projects will have to be regularly monitored and reviewed against recognisable performance targets;
  in advance of formal legislative change arrangements are being made for some section 11 funding to be redirected to innovative projects that tackle ethnic minority need, to be sponsored by the new training and enterprise councils (TECs), with task forces and city action teams in support;
  local authorities will be strongly encouraged to work with voluntary organisations and to identify a proportion of projects for the voluntary sector;
  new administrative arrangements would come into effect on 1 October 1991. Bids for funding will be invited on an annual basis to a fixed timetable.

  The new arrangements will allow for wider and more innovative proposals, but existing projects will still be able to continue if they are brought within the new criteria. To increase effectiveness, all projects, whether local authority or voluntary sector-based, will need to set clear objectives for achievement. For example, specific objectives for section 11 funding in education are:
  to give school age children whose mother tongue is not English a command of English and to help them achieve at the same level as others in their age group in all areas of the curriculum;

  Number of income support applicants

  Lone parents

  Disabled1

  Pensioners

  Unemployed

  BRADFORD EAST

  Budgeting loans 1989

  January

  885

  386

  70

  35

  337

  February

  963

  429

  74

  33

  367

  March

  1,012

  448

  72

  39

  392

  April

  1,066

  470

  70

  45

  418

  May

  1,101

  490

  70

  48

  433

  June

  1,160

  516

  74

  49

  456

  July

  1,208

  535

  73

  50

  479

  August

  1,170

  528

  71

  47

  458

  September

  1,193

  532

  65

  40

  490

  October

  1,167

  540

  56

  34

  472

  November

  1,212

  572

  50

  38

  483

  December

  1,181

  559

  47

  39

  471

  Crisis loans 1989

  January

  89

  17

  2

  1

  58

  February

  127

  29

  5

  2

  82

  284 to strengthen ties between schools and the parents of ethnic minority pupils, where those ties are hard to establish because of parents' lack of English or because of cultural factors;to give ethnic minority adults, who have an inadequate command of English or who lack numeracy or literacy skills, sufficient knowledge and skills to compete for jobs and participate fully in the mainstream of national life.
  Some specific objectives in the area of employment, training and enterprise are:
  to increase the awareness and take-up of the range of educational and employment opportunities by young people from ethnic minorities and to advise employers and community groups on the potential and training needs of such people;
  to secure better take-up by ethnic minorities of small business support services to promote the creation and growth of small firms and self-employment.

  The grant can help ethnic minorities in need in a number of ways by providing or aiding the provision of:
  Services that cater for the particular problems faced by ethnic minority women and their children, for example, family and women's refuges and maternity social workers.
  Social workers able to give help to ethnic minorities who are isolated, speak and write little or no English and experience cultural barriers to full use of services of the elderly; advice on fostering and adoption and help in the case of mental and physical illness.

  The proposals in the circular will encourage the widest take-up in grant while at the same time ensuring that grant-seekers do not become wholly dependent on funding.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide for the Bradford social security offices the information on social fund budget and crisis loans provided in his reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) of 25 January,Official Report, columns 809–12.

  Mr. Scott
  The information given in the table represents the number of loans being repaid on the last day of each month.
  285

  Number of income support applicants

  Lone parents

  Disabled1

  Pensioners

  Unemployed

  March

  124

  26

  1

  3

  82

  April

  115

  28

  0

  3

  79

  May

  129

  34

  1

  5

  82

  June

  139

  33

  1

  2

  98

  July

  141

  23

  3

  1

  101

  August

  422

  29

  5

  2

  79

  September

  143

  39

  3

  4

  88

  October

  158

  40

  2

  4

  100

  November

  167

  49

  3

  1

  102

  December

  143

  40

  4

  0

  91

  BRADFORD SOUTH

  Budget Loans 1989

  January

  771

  402

  48

  27

  256

  February

  833

  428

  46

  32

  290

  March

  894

  463

  42

  38

  312

  April

  982

  506

  42

  35

  353

  May

  1,075

  534

  48

  38

  410

  June

  1,149

  595

  50

  39

  413

  July

  1,178

  608

  51

  48

  414

  August

  1,171

  606

  47

  39

  414

  September

  1,210

  639

  48

  43

  418

  October

  1,217

  642

  52

  46

  416

  November

  1,202

  634

  52

  44

  411

  December

  1,192

  635

  54

  47

  393

  Crisis Loans 1989

  January

  96

  26

  2

  2

  55

  February

  108

  25

  3

  3

  66

  March

  118

  25

  5

  1

  76

  April

  101

  23

  3

  2

  65

  May

  116

  19

  3

  2

  84

  June

  113

  21

  4

  2

  77

  July

  120

  26

  4

  2

  77

  August

  134

  35

  3

  1

  86

  September

  147

  28

  3

  2

  103

  October

  162

  28

  5

  1

  112

  November

  159

  36

  3

  1

  106

  December

  156

  36

  4

  3

  103

  BRADFORD WEST

  Budget Loans 1989

  January

  826

  312

  76

  46

  327

  February

  879

  346

  71

  49

  351

  March

  929

  358

  77

  56

  373

  April

  951

  375

  73

  62

  380

  May

  979

  377

  71

  63

  405

  June

  1,015

  403

  70

  64

  419

  July

  1,024

  411

  67

  63

  426

  August

  990

  405

  67

  57

  406

  September

  967

  399

  62

  59

  395

  October

  977

  396

  71

  64

  390

  November

  1,002

  412

  70

  62

  402

  December

  984

  416

  64

  55

  402

  Crisis Loans 1989

  January

  91

  19

  3

  0

  55

  February

  93

  22

  2

  1

  57

  March

  90

  25

  3

  0

  52

  April

  92

  25

  2

  1

  57

  May

  92

  21

  4

  1

  54

  June

  88

  26

  4

  1

  45

  July

  101

  29

  3

  0

  60

  August

  116

  32

  7

  1

  62

  September

  105

  38

  1

  0

  55

  October

  95

  29

  3

  1

  52

  November

  99

  24

  3

  3

  58

  December

  100

  30

  3

  3

  56

  1 Applicants receiving a disability premium. It is not possible to identify separately applicants who are sick and not receiving a disability premium.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide for the Bradford social security 286
  offices the information on the proportion of income support claimants repaying budget and crisis loans

  287
  provided in the manner of his reply of 25 January to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), Official Report, columns 811–12.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about the local income support caseload is collected on a quarterly basis and the percentage of loans being repaid on the last day of each quarter is shown in the table.

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Bradford East

  February 1989

  7·390

  0·975

  May 1989

  8·526

  1·000

  August 1989

  8·800

  0·918

  November 1989

  9·600

  1·323

  Bradford West

  February 1989

  7·530

  0·797

  May 1989

  8·570

  0·805

  August 1989

  8·349

  0·978

  November 1989

  8·464

  0·836

  Bradford South

  February 1989

  7·215

  0·935

  May 1989

  9·244

  0·998

  August 1989

  9·775

  1·119

  November 1989

  10·254

  1·356

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide for the Bradford social security offices the information on budgeting and crisis loans provided in his reply of 25 January to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley),Official Report, columns 812–13.

  Mr. Scott
  The information given in the table represents the provisional amounts outstanding on the last day of each calendar month.

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  £

  £

  Bradford East

  1989

  January

  140,942·21

  14,687·02

  February

  160,510·33

  15,047·83

  March

  179,816·99

  16,159·13

  April

  200,618·34

  18,989·92

  May

  212,374·59

  22,085·93

  June

  221,129·65

  23,728·09

  July

  221,455·57

  27,380·30

  August

  212,477·88

  28,356·86

  September

  209,111·24

  31,752·55

  October

  200,938·20

  31,795·34

  November

  210,934·55

  34,952·49

  December

  205,800·39

  36,913·19

  Bradford West

  January

  159,897·95

  13,646·82

  February

  172,273·28

  15,293·81

  March

  188,264·30

  16,729·69

  April

  198,362·53

  19,359·65

  May

  213,301·91

  21,475·74

  June

  220,080·00

  23,300·79

  July

  221,823·79

  26,507·36

  August

  n/a

  n/a

  September

  208,432·73

  30,134·77

  October

  207,862·58

  32,164·37

  November

  218,004·89

  32,627·23

  December

  214,927·04

  33,851·43

  Bradford South

  January

  127,454·88

  11,808·44

  February

  149,906·97

  14,365·61

  March

  176,022·78

  16,381·78

  April

  188,297·91

  18,135·07

  288

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  £

  £

  May

  200,714·97

  19,250·12

  June

  210,627·92

  19,429·18

  July

  215,742·32

  22,417·17

  August

  208,884·30

  24,592·56

  September

  214,962·19

  27,549·72

  October

  215,997·96

  30,741·48

  November

  217,045·99

  34,157·41

  December

  210,550·69

  34,192·18

  Community Care Grants
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many refusals of community care grants one of the grounds for refusal has been insufficient funds.

  Mr. Scott
  In the period April 1989 to January 1990 43,000 community care grants were refused on the grounds that they were of insufficient priority for an award to be made.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the application forms and leaflets on benefits produced in the Welsh language with their reference numbers; and if his Department has any plans to produce any other leaflets or application forms in the Welsh language between the present date and the beginning of April.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: Social fund claim forms SF100 (maternity payments) and SF200 (funeral payments) have been translated and are in use.

  We have no plans to produce any more leaflets in Welsh before April 1990. However, recommendations of a working party for additional Welsh language material have been made and will be implemented as soon as practicable.

  Claimants, Scotland
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security ( 1) how many people in Scotland depend entirely on state benefits for their income;

  (2) how many people in the area covered by his Department's office in Cumbernauld depend entirely on state benefits for their income.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the number of people depending entirely on state benefits is not available. However, in November 1989 there were 505,052 people in Scotland claiming income support, 9,179 of whom are claiming income support from Cumbernauld local social security office.

  Note:

  Data is derived from a 100 per cent. count of cases in action, which includes a number where benefit payment has ceased but other action is continuing.

DEFENCE

  Lieutenant Commander Taylor Scott
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he asked British Aerospace to provide for the official inquiry into the causes of the accident involving Lt. Cdr. Taylor Scott on 22 October 1987.
  289
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Following the accident the director of quality assurance of the Ministry of Defence took possession, under the terms of the Ministry of Defence's contract with British Aerospace, of all documents known to be of relevance and these were presented to the board of inquiry. The board was also able to have access to additional documents which subsequently appeared relevant in the light of its inquiries.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what statutory powers he had to obtain evidence for his inquiry into the causes of the accident involving Lt. Cdr. Taylor Scott on 22 October 1987;

  (2) what was the statutory basis of his inquiry into the causes of the accident involving Lt. Cdr. Taylor Scott on 22 October 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is the standard practice of the Ministry of Defence to hold formal boards of inquiry into the causes of all serious accidents involving military aircraft in the United Kingdom but these boards have a basis in statute, and statutory powers to obtain evidence, only when the pilot is a serving member of Her Majesty's armed forces. Since Lt. Cdr. Taylor Scott had retired from the Royal Navy and was employed by British Aerospace the board of inquiry did not have a basis in statute or statutory powers to obtain evidence.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to seek further evidence from British Aerospace into the causes of the accident involving Lt. Cdr. Taylor Scott on 22 October 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. The British Aerospace memorandum which has recently been reported in the press was not available to the board of inquiry that investigated the accident but has now been examined thoroughly by Ministry of Defence experts. It contains two main points, the first of which is that British Aerospace had identified a problem whereby a foul between the aircraft structure and seat linkage caused an automatic eject of the top portion of the personal equipment connector when the seat was raised and lowered. Ministry of Defence experts have found that a modification needed to overcome this problem was carried out on Lt. Cdr. Taylor Scott's aircraft, Harrier GR5 ZD325, some five weeks before the accident occurred. This particular problem could not have caused the accident on 22 October 1987. The second main point in the British Aerospace memorandum is that documentation was inadequate. The board of inquiry independently expressed a number of concerns over British Aerospace's documentation and certification of work and recommended corrective action. This action has since been taken.

  In the light of these findings, I am satisfied that there is no need to seek further evidence from British Aerospace.

  AWACS
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the Boeing/AWACS offset arrangements.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Boeing has to date submitted five progress reports listing contracts placed with United Kingdom companies to the value of $1,176 million, of which we have so far agreed some $672 million to count for offset credit purposes.

  NATO Weapons Systems
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of the redistribution to other NATO Governments of weapon systems removed by NATO nations as the result of a CFE treaty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We need to ensure that, while complying fully with a CFE treaty to reduce certain categories of equipment holdings in both alliances, NATO retains an effective defence capability. NATO is consequently examining the scope for reallocating equipment between allies so that the less efficient items currently in service would be destroyed first. Any such reallocations would have to be fully compliant with CFE treaty obligations.

  Harrier GR5
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature of the contractual arrangements for development of the Harrier GR5.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence placed a target cost incentive contract with a maximum price on British Aerospace for the development and initial production of the Harrier GR5.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Steel
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his assessment of the United Kingdom's need for high-integrity founding plants such as that at the Atlas steel works at Armadale, West Lothian.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  High integrity castings are of crucial importance to customer industries which depend upon a high quality and high performance product. British foundries can expect to achieve a share of that market if they can satisfy customers on price, delivery and quality.

  Post Office
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Post Office; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Post Office; and what will be discussed.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Post Office; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to meet the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, on 27 March. They will discuss various matters on mutual interest.

  Exporters
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to help British exporters.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to help British exporters.
  291
  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) earlier today.

  Recycling
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Recycling Advisory Group to report on its consideration of recycling of domestic and industrial waste.

  Mr. Forth
  The group is expected to complete the current phase of its work before the end of May.

  Product Liability
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last discussed product liability with(a) consumers' associations, (b) the Confederation of British Industry, (c) trading standards officers and (d) the European Commission.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last discussed product liability with(a) consumers' associations, (b) the Confederation of British Industry, (c) trading standards officers and (d) the European Commission.

  Mr. Forth
  The European product liability directive was implemented in part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and came into force on 1 March 1988. The consumers' associations, the Confederation of British Industry and the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards were included in the consultation exercise.

  I have had no meetings with these organisations or the European Commission on this subject in the last 12 months.

  East Germany
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom's trade deficit with East Germany in 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1989 the crude deficit in United Kingdom visible trade with East Germany was £63 million.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider direct action by his Department to improve the United Kingdom's trade deficit figures with other advanced economies.

  Mr. Redwood
  Exports from the United Kingdom are running at record levels. The present deficit has been caused mainly by excessive growth in domestic demand in relation to domestic industrial capacity. It is therefore a macro-economic problem which will be resolved by the sound macro-economic policies which the Government are pursuing. The Government administer a number of schemes to help promote exports.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the east and west European countries with which the United Kingdom has a trade surplus in manufactures.
  292
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the east and west European countries with which the United Kingdom has a trade surplus in manufactures.

  Mr. Redwood
  The European countries with which the United Kingdom in 1989 had a crude surplus in trade in manufactured goods are, in decreasing size of surplus:

  Irish Republic

  Spain

  Soviet Union

  Greece

  Malta

  Gibraltar

  Bulgaria

  Turkey

  Hungary

  Iceland

  Yugoslavia

  Andorra

  Faroe Islands

  Vatican City

  Albania

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom's balance of trade with the EEC(a) in 1972 and (b) currently, in (i) the manufacturing sector and (ii) the financial services sector.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1972 United Kingdom exports of manufactures to the countries currently comprising the EC exceeded imports by £168 million. The same comparison for 1989 shows that exports were exceeded by imports by £14·4 billion. Corresponding information on trade in financial services is not available.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has made to retail outlets on the rates of interest being charged to customers for credit.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has made no such representations. In a competitive market each retailer decides what credit terms to offer and consumers have a choice between alternative sources of credit.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has made to retail outlets on the rates of interest being charged to customers for credit.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has made to retail outlets on the rates of interest being charged to customers for credit.

  Mr. Forth
  I have made no such representations. In a competitive market each retailer decides what credit terms to offer and consumers have a choice between alternative sources of credit.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's policy on the training of senior staff in the application of information technology.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's policy on the training of senior staff in the application of information technology.
  293
  Mr. Forth
  The Department's policy is to ensure that sufficient training on the application of information technology is available to meet departmental needs. To this end, a great deal of training on and about IT is available for all departmental staff, incuding senior members.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from the information technology sector on the subject of skill shortages.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been representations from the information technology sector in the past with regard to IT skills shortages. My Department supports a number of programmes aimed at increasing skills in this sector.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from the information technology sector on the subject of skill shortages.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been representations from the information technology sector in the past with regard to IT skills shortages. In recognising this, my Department announced support of up to £440,000 over three years for the recently launched Women into Information Technology (WIT) campaign, where this support is appropriately matched by industry. My Department supports a programme aimed at stimulating the production of distance learning video courses on subjects directly relating to skills in micro-electronics, information technology, and their applications. Support is also being given to an industry-further education collaborative programme aimed at producing interactive video courses relating in the main to IT skills.

  My Department also has an Information Technology Advisory Board (ITAB) with representatives from industry commerce, and academia. One of ITAB's support committees advises specifically on education and training and comments on IT skills issues.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of regional development grant and regional selective assistance(a) between May 1978 and May 1979 and (b) in the last financial year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the period 1 May 1978 to 30 April 1979 expenditure in Great Britain on regional development grants and regional selective assistance was £422·2 million and £112·9 million respectively while in 1988–89 expenditure was £297·3 million and £216 million respectively.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of regional development grants and regional selective assistance in(a) 1978–79 and (b) the last financial year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1978–79 expenditure in Great Britain on regional development grants and regional selective assistance was £416·9 million and £104·5 million respectively while in 1988–89 expenditure was £297·3 million and £216 million respectively.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the most recent meeting of the EEC Internal Market Council.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the most recent meeting of the EEC Internal Market Council.

  Mr. Redwood
  The most recent meeting of the Internal Market Council was held on 22 February 1990. The Council reached a satisfactory agreement on the main agenda item: a directive on public procurement in the water, transport, telecommunications and energy sectors. This represents an important step towards the liberalisation of public procurement in the Community. The Council also received a progress report from the Commission on further work in this area.

  The Council also agreed a timetable for future work towards liberalisation of the insurance market in the Community, and discussed amendments to the fourth and seventh company law directives.

  This was a satisfactory first Council under the Irish presidency, which maintains the momentum on the single market.

  European Commission
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his counterparts in the European Commission; and what topics were discussed.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his counterparts in the European Commission; and what topics were discussed.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his counterparts in the Europan Commission; and what topics were discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  I keep in close contact with the European Commission on a whole range of issues.

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the stock exchange; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the stock exchange; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers meet the chairman of the stock exchange whenever appropriate to discuss topics of mutual interest.

  Competition Policy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to review his policy on competition.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to review his policy on competition.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to review his policy on competition.
  295
  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Product Safety
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures his Department is taking to improve the safety of retail goods.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures his Department is taking to improve the safety of retail goods.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures his Department is taking to improve the safety of retail goods.

  Mr. Forth
  Safety of retail goods will continue to be a high priority for my Department. Arrangements exist for the collection and analysis of accident statistics and for the promotion of effective safety campaigns. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it a criminal offence to supply any consumer product that is not reasonably safe. This is supported by safety regulations, where necessary, and by the promotion of safety standards. This framework facilitates the promotion of reasonable standards of safety in the marketing of consumer goods.

  GATT
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on current progress in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations concerning clothing imports.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on current negotiations concerning the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The GATT negotiating group on textiles and clothing is discussing how best to return trade in textiles and clothing to GATT rules after the MFA expires next year. There is general agreement that a transitional period will be necessary, but its length has not yet been determined nor has the exact nature of the transitional arrangements. The Community continues to argue that integration of the sector into GATT rules must be paralleled by the strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines, particularly in relation to safeguards, intellectual property, unfair trade and access to raw materials coupled with a greater commitment to market opening, especially from the newly industrialised economies. The group is now meeting more frequently with the aim of making more rapid progress.

  Investment
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has as to the amount of inward investment that has taken place in the north-west of England over the past five years; and what steps he is taking to encourage further such investment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to the latest figures readily available to the Invest in Britain Bureau, in the five years from 1985 to 1989, a total of 150 inward investment decisions were made to locate in the north-west of the United Kingdom. These included the establishment of a new business, expansion or acquisition of an existing business and involvement in joint venture. The projects 296
  were expected to create about 8,400 new jobs and to have safeguarded a further 11,900. The figures are based on information provided by the companies themselves at the time of the investment and do not take into account subsequent developments.

  In addition to the activities of my Department's Invest in Britain bureau, which promotes the attractions of all parts of the United Kingdom, the Department is the major source of funds for Inward (the regional development body for the north-west). To assist Inward in its activities, I announced on 8 March that it would be offered grant of £840,000 in 1990–91. This is a very large uplift on the 1989–90 grant of £541,000 and will allow Inward to devote extra resources towards encouraging inward investment.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the real value of his Department's total expenditure in(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the real value of his Department's total expenditure in(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the real value of his Department's total expenditure in(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the real value of his Department's total expenditure in(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated outturn for total Department of Trade and Industry expenditure in 1989–90 (including public corporations) is £1,363 million. Department of Trade and Industry expenditure plans for 1990–91 and 1991–92 total £1,247 million and £1,000 million respectively (the 1991–92 figure is rounded to the nearest £10 million). These planned levels of expenditure are equivalent to £1,187 million (1990–91) and £920 million (1991–92) at 1989–90 prices, based on the GDP deflator assumed for the public expenditure plans.

  Japan
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will discuss with his EEC counterparts the possibility of introducing trade sanctions against Japan.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Imposing trade sanctions against Japan would contravene the international obligations of both the United Kingdom and our Community partners under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. In 1989, United Kingdom exports to Japan increased by 30·1 per cent. to £2·3 billion compared with 1988, a growth rate over three times faster than Japan's exports to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding access for British exporters to the Japanese market.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government attach great importance to Britain's trade with Japan. Representations on
  297
  market access are received from British companies from time to time and, where appropriate, we take them up vigorously with the Japanese authorities, both directly and through the European Commission.

  In January our exports to Japan increased in value by 27·4 per cent. compared with the same month last year.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his future plans for regional policy.

  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his future plans for regional policy.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his future plans for regional policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Regional policy is kept under continuing review.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last reviewed the regulations to deal with insider dealing.

  Mr. Redwood
  As I told the House on 8 December, the Government that day published a consultative document on proposals to change the law on insider dealing. A copy is in the Library. I am grateful to all those who responded; careful consideration is being given to their comments.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current best estimate of the balance of trade in biotechnology products.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current best estimate for the balance of trade in biotechnology products.

  Mr. Redwood
  Biotechnology is just emerging from the research phase. It will find expression in such sectors as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, food, agriculture and process equipment. Data on trade in biotechnology are not identified separately in statistics for these sectors.

  Grants to Industry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of grants in aid to industry on those enterprises which are not eligible.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The likely effects of grant on non-eligible businesses and also on non-recipients are considered in the appraisal of all applications under schemes where grant amounts might be substantial (for example, regional selective assistance). These effects are also studied as part of the evaluation of all industrial support schemes.

  Exports
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his future plans for his Department's export programme.
  298
  Mr. Redwood
  The British Overseas Trade Board's forward plan, published on 23 January, sets out the priorities for the use of the resources available for official export promotion—over £120 million a year—in 1990–91 and provides a basis for their use in the next two years. This will ensure that resources are used where they will have the greatest effect on our exports.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that the Financial Services Act is being operated to the benefit of the investor.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that the Financial Services Act is being operated to the benefit of the investor.

  Mr. Redwood
  I believe that the Financial Services Act has already brought benefits for investors, not least the SIB compensation scheme. However, investors also benefit financially when regulation of the firms with which they deal is least burdensome, and the amendments introduced in the new Companies Act should make the system of investor protection more flexible and cost-effective.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms were permitted to trade on the basis of interim authorisation by SIB and FIMBRA 18 months after their applications under the Financial Services Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Only applications received by 27 February 1988 were given interim authorisation. Eighteen months later 120 applications to FIMBRA and seven to SIB were still operating under interim authorisation.

  Government Support for Business
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent in real terms on Government support for business in(a) 1979, (b) 1984 and (c)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Total DTI expenditure (including expenditure in respect of public corporations) was £2,257 million in 1979–80 and £1,814 million in 1984–85: it is now expected to be £1,363 million in 1989–90. The levels of expenditure in 1979–80 and 1984–85 are equivalent to £4,548 million and £2,387 million respectively in 1989–90 prices, based on the GDP deflator.

  Advice Centres
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding he proposes to give citizens advice bureaux and consumer advice centres for 1990–91.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding he proposes to give citizens advice bureaux and consumer advice centres for 1990–91.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department does not provide any funds specifically for consumer advice centres or directly to citizens advice bureaux. Details of the DTI grant in aid for
  299
  the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland in 1990–91 will not be available until after the Chancellor's annual statement on 20 March.

  Car Manufacturers
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the major car manufacturers; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the major car manufacturers; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the major car manufacturers; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department has regular contacts with the major car manufacturers on a range of issues of interest to the industry.

  Procurement Markets
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implications for British industry of the opening up of public procurement markets within the European Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  The opening up of EC public procurement markets will provide important new opportunities for British industry in markets in other member states which are closed at present. The British market, unlike some others, is already more open.

  To put this into context, the annual value of EC public procurement is around £430 billion at 1989 prices. About half this amount is under contracts which are, or will soon be, subject to Council directives. Purchasers affected are Government Departments, regional and local authorities and public utilities. Also covered will be private sector firms in the energy, water, telecommunications and energy sectors operating on the basis of special or exclusive rights granted by public authorities. Suppliers harmed by infringements will be able to seek remedies from judicial or administrative review bodies.

  Confederation of British Industry
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I look forward to a continuation of constructive dialogue with the president of the CBI on matters relevant to the well-being of British business.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I met the director general of the CBI on 1 February to discuss industrial representation and services to business.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss issues of mutual interest as frequently as is necessary. No date has been fixed for the next such meeting.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend last met the Chairman of the Securities and Investments Board on 7 November and I saw him on 17 January. On each occasion a range of topics was discussed.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of local authority trading standards officers to discuss consumer matters.

  Mr. Forth
  I met representatives of local authority trading standards offices on three occasions in 1989 to discuss consumer matters and my officials have frequent meetings with trading standards officers.

  Departmental Structure
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on his plans for the future structure of his Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 783–84.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about his plans for the future structure of his Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 783–84.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on his plans for the future structure of his Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 783–84.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None, as of 13 March 1990.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the future of the shipbuilding industry in Britain.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the future of the shipbuilding industry in Britain.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The future of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom will depend on the level of demand and on its ability to obtain orders in the face of
  301
  international competition. The Government provide substantial support to the industry to assist its return to normal competitive conditions.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, 28 February,Official Report, column 207, which sentences in the statement by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), 14 November 1988, Official Report, column 748, state the reasons why his Department rejected the bid by Mr. Nat Puri to acquire North-East Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  References to the reasons for the rejection of the original bids received for NESL are contained in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on 14 November 1988,Official Report, column 748.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has held with the European Commission as to the implications for the sixth directive on shipbuilding arising from the amalgamation of the West German Shipbuilders Association and the German Democratic Republic Shipbuilders Association.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Rechar Initiative
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding he expects the objective 2 areas of the east midlands in Retford, Worksop and Mansfield to receive from the Rechar initiative for coal mining areas from the European Commission.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is too early to say. The European Commission has first to determine and publish a list of eligible coal mining areas for the purpose of Rechar and then to consider programmes of measures for such areas. I hope that its decisions on the amounts of Rechar grants will be reached before the end of this year.

  Batteries
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to manufacturers and retailers about the lead content of batteries.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to manufacturers and retailers about the lead content of batteries.

  Mr. Forth
  Most lead-containing batteries are covered by the scope of a draft EC directive which aims to reduce the amounts of that metal going in spent batteries to landfill or incineration for disposal. Negotiations on the draft directive have recently begun in Brussels. Officials in my Department have been in regular contact with representatives of the lead and battery industries over the past months.

  Industry Council
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what matters he expects to discuss at the next meeting of the EEC Industry Council.
  302
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).

  FIMBRA
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the role of FIMBRA in regulating the investment company C. J. How.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has received a number of such representations.

  Liquidation
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms have gone into voluntary liquidation during 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A total of 10,840 companies in Great Britain went into voluntary liquidation in 1989. Of these, 6,633 were creditors voluntary liquidations and 4,207 were members voluntary liquidations. Figures of company liquidations in Northern Ireland are not available for the whole of 1989, but in the 10 months up to October, 92 companies went into voluntary liquidation; of these, 47 were creditors voluntary liquidations and 45 were members voluntary liquidations.

  National Economic Development Council
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the director general of the National Economic Development Council; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the director general of the National Economic Development Council; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department has frequent contacts with the director general of NEDO and his staff on a wide range of business matters and I look forward to continuing these when I chair the council on 4 April.

  West Germany
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his West German counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  My colleagues and I keep in close contact with our West German counterparts on a range of issues.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the contributions being made by British companies to the aerospace industry in Europe and the United States of America.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am well aware of the significant contribution made by United Kingdom companies to the aerospace industry worldwide; indeed the United
  303
  Kingdom has a large trade surplus in aerospace products. United Kingdom firms are prominent in all areas of the industry—as aircraft and aero-engine manufacturers, as partners in international collaborative programmes such as Airbus, EFA and the V2500 engine, and as major suppliers of equipment and components to other European and United States manufacturers such as Fokker, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.

  Electronics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from the electronics industry on the subject of skills shortages.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been no direct representations from the electronics industry on skills shortages during the past two months, but there have in the past been approaches with regard to IT skills shortages. My Department supports a number of programmes aimed at increasing skills in the sector.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest annual estimate of the balance of trade in electronic components.

  Mr. Forth
  Estimates based on figures published by the Central Statistical Office suggest that the United Kingdom had a crude trade deficit' in electronic components2 of Eli billion in 1989.

  Notes:

  1 Imports (cif) less Exports (fob).

  2 Principal Products of Activity Headings 3444 and 3453 of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980).

  Financial Regulations
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of self-regulation of the financial regulations.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Securities and Investments Board is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate standard of protection for investors is provided by the self-regulating bodies recognised under the Financial Services Act.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Rover Group concerning the future of Cowley.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no plans to meet representatives of the Rover Group concerning the future of its operation at Cowley.

  Fur Exports
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the export of British furs and pelts.

  Mr. Redwood
  Available statistics show that exports (including re-exports) of furs and pelts (group 212 of the SITC) from the United Kingdom amounted to £53 million in 1989.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the latest figures for the level of bankruptcies.

  Mr. Redwood
  A total of 8,115 bankruptcy orders were made in England and Wales in 1989. In the same year, 2,294 sequestrations (the equivalent of bankruptcy orders in England and Wales) were awarded in Scotland and 146 bankruptcy adjudication orders were made in Northern Ireland.

  Hulme and Moss Side Development Projects
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of(a) the present membership of the Hulme and Moss Side community economic development trust and the means by which they were selected and (b) the mechanism by which elections will take place for the trust board including details of how voting will be conducted.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is a matter for the trust itself.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of projects assisted by the Hulme and Moss Side task force which involve a training element and which do not involve employment training.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the introduction of employment training the task force has assisted the following projects for unemployed adults involving a non-ET training element:Roots Oral History—20 trainees—Basic editorial skills in producing a book
  Community Computing—30 trainees—Equipment for a "drop-in" training centre for Information Technology (re) familiarisation.

  In both cases, the training offered is of an informal nature and aimed at unemployed people who are not yet ready to follow an ET training course.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what way the Hulme and Moss Side task force makes applicants for assistance aware of Department of Trade and Industry encouragement of the use of employment training.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Employment training is recommended to applicants as a source of funding whenever it seems appropriate.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the checks which Companies house staff perform upon receipt of annual company accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  The basic checks carried out by the Registrar of Companies vary according to the type of accounts filed. For full accounts, these include confirmation that the accounts comprise the company's profit and loss account and balance sheet, the directors' report, the auditors' report and, where appropriate, the company's group accounts. The basic checks are supplemented by such other checks as the registrar considers are appropriate. Companies house is not responsible for the contents of the accounts.
  305
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, prior to formulating section 15 of the Companies Act 1989, his Department estimated the average cost of printing a full set of accounts which are normally circulated to shareholders.

  Mr. Redwood
  No, but my Department's customary prior consultations showed that the proposal to give listed companies the option of providing summary financial statements instead of full reports and accounts was endorsed by a range of public companies and representative organisations.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if persons who lose money on the basis of advice from persons with interim authorisation from FIMBRA or SIB have their interests protected in any way by these organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Interim authorised persons are treated as though they had been granted authorisation and are effectively subject to the appropriate rules of FIM BRA or SIB. Interim authorised persons are not included in the investors' compensation scheme of SIB.

  Mr. Adrian Ward
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will undertake discussions with the Securities and Investments Board on the trading as a financial adviser of Mr. Adrian Ward.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The day-to-day operation of the regulatory system under the Financial Services Act is the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating bodies.

  Statistical Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: A major part of the Department's statistical work and associated staff were transferred to the Central Statistical Office on 31 July 1989. The remaining statistical work was distributed among a number of divisions within the Department. The following figures for 1989–90 relate to the statistics sections of these divisions. The manpower allocation for 1 April 1991 will be set later this month in the light of the Department's annual activity and resource management review.

  SIP 1 March 1990

  Allocation 1 April 1990

  Statistical posts

  G5

  1

  1

  G7

  11

  11

  Senior assistant statistician

  3

  6

  Assistant statistician

  1

  —

  306

  SIP 1 March 1990

  Allocation 1 April 1990

  Administrative posts

  HEO

  5

  5

  EO

  13

  15

  AO

  14

  17

  AA

  3

  3

  PS

  1

  1

  Support grade 2

  1

  1

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response he has had from the Bank of England to the submission to it of the House of Fraser report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: None. The Bank of England is not accountable to the Secretary of State.

  Garston Amhurst
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in view of the Garston Amhurst case, he will introduce legislation making the organisations appointing representatives liable for all the actions of these representatives, whether in the course of conducting authorised business or not; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: Under the Financial Services Act, a principal is responsible for its appointed representatives' actions in carrying on investment business for which the principal has accepted responsibility in writing. It is for the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating bodies to consider what requirements should be imposed on principals in relation to the activities of their appointed representatives. I have no plans to amend the Financial Services Act in this regard.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the quotas covered by the multi-fibre arrangement and indicate the proportion of each quota used.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 13 March 1990]: Details of current quotas for the United Kingdom under the European Community's bilateral multi-fibre arrangement agreements with third countries are set out in the notice to importers 2249 published in Lloyd's List International on 4 January 1990. This is available in the Library of the House.

  Quota utilisation records for 1989 will not be finalised for some time yet. The DTI is currently preparing a summary of quota utilisation in 1988, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House when it is ready.

  Enterprise Initiative Scheme
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what examination he makes in considering a company's eligibility for assistance under the enterprise initiative scheme of(a) previous name changes by the company, (b) its record of payment of liabilities to redundant workers and (c) its record of payment of rates.
  307
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The eligibility of companies applying for consultancy assistance under the enterprise initiative is the responsibility of my Department. Applicants are approved only after a visit by an enterprise counsellor who, after a broadly
  308
  based review of the firm's business activities, is required to identify whether the firm would benefit from consultancy assistance and whether it has the resources to pay its share of a consultancy project.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

The Royal Shakespeare Company: Funding
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the financial plight of the Royal Shakespeare Company, and whether they have any plans to assist this institution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, this issue was debated in another place on 20th February. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts explained that it was for the Arts Council to allocate funding to individual arts organisations, including the Royal Shakespeare Company.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that a substantial part of the RSC's revenue comes from its two West End hits, "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" and "Les Misérables" and that that revenue must be regarded as exceptional? When those productions close, as they must in due course, the company will be put in an even more difficult position than the one it now faces. In the light of that situation, can my noble friend enlarge on the Government's view as to how the Priestley Report of 1984 may be implemented? In particular I refer to the assurance that,
"provision will be made for future years".
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that provision will be made. I draw your Lordships' attention to the three recommendations in the Priestley Report. The Government accepted the first two, but there was a further element in the third recommendation concerning linkage to the RP1. The Government felt that they could not accept that element. The Arts Council funding for the Royal Shakespeare Company will rise to about £6 million this year—an increase of 11 per cent., which, of course, is above inflation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the City Corporation is also among those who help to finance the Royal Shakespeare Company. If the City Corporation increased its input, can the Minister say whether it would be possible that the Arts Council would match any such increase? Does the Minister agree that if those two provisions were to take place, they would go a long way towards solving the problem?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that if the Government began issuing directives to the Arts Council, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would be among the first of noble Lords on the Benches opposite to protest.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that, on the occasion of Shakespeare's birthday last year, at Stratford-on-Avon the entire theatre was given a political lecture by the chief actor? After that occurrence, about half of the audience walked out. If we are to have lectures given by actors of the Royal Shakespeare Company I hope that we shall not subsidise them.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I regret that last year I was unable to visit Stratford——
Noble Lords: Ah!
Lord Hesketh:—and thus I was not present on the occasion that my noble friend has mentioned.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister has rather brushed aside the Question and the present plight of the RSC. Is the Minister aware that the 11 per cent. increase which he spoke about rather glibly represents only 3·3 per cent. above the rate of inflation? The Priestley Report mentioned index linking but that has not been taken up. That report, together with the Cork Report and the recent Wilding Report, have all stressed the palpable underfunding of the national company. Is the Minister also aware that the chief executive of Royal Insurance—which has given more than £1 million since 1988 to the RSC—has complained that as its private sponsorship increases so the rate of Government subsidy decreases?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the fact of the matter is that since this Government came into office, expenditure on the arts has increased by a third in real terms after allowing for inflation.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the Minister speaks about the facts of the matter, but the important fact of the matter is that one of our most splendid dramatic companies is in very serious trouble. I should be very much more encouraged if the noble Lord took that into account and told us what he, or anybody else, believes can be done to help.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I take very seriously the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. It is important to remember that the Government take the matter seriously because, via the Arts Council, they are handing over £6 million this year.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the only relevant statistic is that over the past five years the subsidy to the RSC has increased by 11 per cent. while inflation has increased by over 30 per cent.? Does the noble Lord further agree that the RSC is only one of the national companies, and that all of them are in a

1543
state of financial crisis at the moment? Can the Minister say whether that situation is as a result of the Government's economic policy in that they cannot afford to keep these companies afloat or is it the direct policy of the Government to keep them underfunded in that way?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the fact of the matter is—and it is not glib to call it the fact of the matter because it is the facts that count—that expenditure has increased by a third in real terms. My right honourable friend the Minister of State has recently stated the simple fact that a 22 per cent. increase in expenditure over the next three years will be available to the Arts Council. It is also a fact that that is the decision of the Arts Council. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, would also be extremely unhappy if the Government intervened in decisions made by the Arts Council.

Collision off Cowes, June 1989
2.43 p.m.
Lord Harvington Lord Harvington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report of the collision between a Red Funnel Line hydrofoil and a sailing yacht which happened off Cowes during the 1989 Round the Island Race.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the report into the collision between the hydrofoil "Shearwater 6" and the yacht "Amanda Jane" on 17th June 1989 was completed by the Department of Transport in July 1989. A summary report of the accident will be published but this is being delayed because a prosecution of the commander of the hydrofoil is still outstanding.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am sure that the House will be pleased to know that there is to be a prosecution in this case. Many scores of people saw this terrible accident, which might easily have involved the loss of life. Can my noble friend assure the House that the trial is likely to take place before the next Round the Island Race, which will be on approximately the same date this year?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot assure my noble friend that a trial will take place before the date he mentions. There is a certain jam in the Crown Court at the moment. But I can assure him that the Marine Directorate surveyor recommended that a prosecution should be brought against the commander of the hydrofoil for offences under the merchant shipping legislation.
I can also tell my noble friend, which I think is helpful, that the Government consider that prosecution for breach of the collision regulations is the best way to remind those using crowded waters of the constant danger and the need for great vigilance and also, in partnership with the harbour authority, to encourage prior discussion between
1544
ferry operators and yachting event organisers so that essential ferry services to the Isle of Wight can be maintained while at the same time allowing these yachting events to be held in reasonable safety.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend has said but there are occasions, particularly on this day and on other days during Cowes Week, when one cannot see the water for yachts. Does it not therefore behove those who are running commercial craft to take extra special care at such times?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend. But I repeat that a prosecution is the best way to stop accidents happening in the future.

North Sea Conference: Government Policy
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What policy they adopted at the North Sea Conference this month in the Netherlands.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the United Kingdom has been privileged to make a very constructive contribution to The Hague Conference, and the measures already announced and agreed at the conference will ensure that the North Sea is a cleaner and more wholesome sea.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord address himself to two issues that were raised at the conference: first, the dumping of industrial effluents in the North Sea, which I understand the Government have promised to halt by the end of 1998, and secondly, the disposal of nuclear waste under the sea bed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the United Kingdom made a number of commitments at The Hague, and it made those commitments in an important context which noble Lords should understand. We are a major industrial nation. We have been accused on some fronts of not showing the desired amount of consideration. I should point out that the accusation has been made by countries which are not major industrial nations.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my questions? I have asked two specific questions on two specific issues that were raised at The Hague last week. What is the Government's policy on those two specific issues?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the United Kingdom's position is very straightforward and simple. We have to provide a sensible solution. We shall end all sewage sludge dumping by 1998. We are reducing such dumping where we can. Most important of all, we accept that we have to find a solution. The noble Lord may question the Government's position with regard to nuclear waste. I should remind him that Sweden is also engaged at this moment in having radioactive waste buried under the sea.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is considerable satisfaction over the arrangements made at the conference—made, I understand, at the initiative of the United Kingdom—to help the conservation of dolphins and porpoises? This is the first time that such arrangements have been made at any of these North Sea Conferences.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. The Government have felt for some time that not enough attention has been paid to wildlife. We are very satisfied with the result, particularly, as he pointed out, with regard to dolphins and porpoises.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if there has been any meaningful change at the conference it must surely call for major consultation by the Government with those who are the prime sources of pollution. Can the Minister say what steps the Government have taken to ensure that there is meaningful change in the practices of industrialists? What effect will the changes have on the practices of local authorities? Have the views been sought of the main conservation bodies, which have played a major part in encouraging the clean-up of the North Sea?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have had the privilege of attending meetings held by the Secretary of State with industrialists to discuss exactly the point raised by the noble Lord. I am sure that he is aware that environmentalists are to be seen within the portals of Marsham Street and that their advice has been sought in the past and will no doubt be sought again in the future.
The noble Lord asked about local authorities. I do not have a specific answer to his question but certain regulations will be the outcome of various decisions that are made in the process of cleaning the planet, if I may use such a phrase, which of course will affect local authorities. They will have to be kept abreast of matters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the conference will result in a reduction of the major source of pollution of the North Sea, which is the output of the Rhine?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is fair to say that sometimes—and quite wrongly—the United Kingdom is accused of being the dirty man of Europe. In fact, the evidence has to be turned to the estuaries of the Rhine, the Elbe, the Meuse and the Scheldt.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, it was reported at the conference that the United Kingdom had failed to carry out the terms of the signed agreement to stop dumping in the North Sea by the end of 1989. Can the noble Lord tell us when that failure was reported to Parliament? Were we told in advance that the Government were not going to carry out the terms of an international agreement which they had signed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have the exact date in this respect. However, I shall certainly provide the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, with a letter which will answer his question. The British Government have always taken the position of practicality. We are committed to the abolition of dumping by 1992 because that will be both practical and feasible.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in continuation of a question asked earlier from this side of the House, is there any truth in the press report that no less than 80 per cent. of pollution is from the Rhine and the Elbe and therefore that whatever we may do, even if we were to stop altogether, it will not make much difference? Surely all efforts in this connection must be directed towards that 80 per cent., quite apart from anything that we may do.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we must not in any way slow up our efforts in order to provide a solution to our problems. It is absolutely correct, as my noble friend said, that 80 per cent. of the pollution does not come from the United Kingdom.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks of the British Government acting on "practicality". Does that mean that they put practicality before their own signed word of 1987, when they agreed to finish all industrial dumping in the North Sea by the end of 1989? Is he aware that this is the first of such conferences which has not been unanimous and that there had to be a footnote added to the declaration for a British option to continue? Is he further aware that when he talks about the reputation of Britain it was the Danish Environment Minister who said:
"The United Kingdom position is unacceptable. They are playing with all our lives. I am very sorry about this, I am sorry about future generations. I think that most of my fellow ministers are angry too"?
Was the noble Lord's right honourable friend as isolated at this conference as the Prime Minister has been at a whole series of such conferences?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I pointed out earlier, this Government do not have a policy of introducing 90 per cent. unemployment on Teesside. We have a policy which states that we shall stop industrial waste dumping by 1993 which is achievable. In terms of initiative, it was this Government who insisted at the conference upon the destruction of PCBs at home rather than elsewhere.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords——
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the question. Did the British Government sign an agreement in 1987? It was an agreement not for the end of 1993 but for the end of 1989. I want to know whether the British Government signed that agreement. If they did, why have they broken it?
Noble Lords: Do not answer!
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, had been listening he would have heard me say in my previous answer that it is not the British Government's policy to introduce 90 per cent. unemployment on Teesside.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend as concerned as I am to notice on occasions such as this the eagerness with which noble Lords opposite seem to enjoy denigrating any contributions we make to the outcome of any of these conferences?
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, surely the noble Lord realises that if he refuses to answer a simple question there is bound to be procrastination in the Chamber. Will he kindly answer the question: did we sign the agreement or not?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have signed an agreement which commits us not to dump industrial waste from 1993.

Death of the Lord Great Chamberlain
2.53 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the House will be much saddened to hear of the death yesterday of the Lord Great Chamberlain the Marquess of Cholmondeley. Lord Cholmondeley had held the post of Lord Great Chamberlain since 1966 and had been a Member of your Lordships' House since 1968. On behalf of the whole House I have expressed our deepest sympathy to Lady Cholmondeley.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to 14 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Business of the House:Debates, 28th March—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Stedman and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead set down for 28th March shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order
1548
35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rich and Poor in Society
2.56 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to call attention to the gap between rich and poor in society and to the case for a social security system that meets the problems arising therefrom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion before the House is:
"To call attention to the gap between rich and poor in society and to the case for a social security system that meets the problems arising therefrom".
The first question is: how wide is the gap between the rich and the poor? Is it widening and, if so, is that relevant? Or is it perhaps the price that we have to pay for economic success, however that may be defined at present?
The problem is to define what we mean by poverty. Clearly poverty must be a relative concept measured by reference to the living standards of a particular society at a particular time. It was defined very well in the Supplementary Benefits Annual Report of 1978. The definition reads:
"Poverty, in urban, industrial countries like Britain, is a standard of living so low that it excludes and isolates people from the rest of the community. To keep out of poverty, they must have an income which enables them to participate in the life of the community".
To measure poverty is as hard as defining it. However, the task of measuring has not been made easier by successive changes to the relevant statistics in recent years, all of which have somehow ended up by apparently reducing the numbers in poverty. I wish that the same enthusiasm had been applied to reducing poverty as has been given to redefining it. One estimate says that over 15 million men, women and children are living on or near the poverty line. The income divide between the top 20 per cent. of men in work and the bottom 20 per cent. is now greater than it was 100 years ago. The relative pay of the lowest paid is now the lowest on record.
At the same time as the number of relatively poor has increased, the wealth of a substantial proportion of the population has certainly increased. That is a trend we certainly welcome. Tax cuts and benefits changes together since 1979 have been worth about £40 per family per week to the top 10 per cent. of earners. The bottom 50 per cent. of families have lost nearly £8·50 per week. The total burden of tax and national insurance has not decreased. In fact it has increased from 34 per cent. of GDP in 1978–79 to 37 per cent. in 1989–90.
The total burden of tax and national insurance has increased but the weight has been shifted on to the shoulders of those who are least able to bear it. I shall give just one example out of many, although one of the dangers in a debate on social security is that it will become a battle of statistics. The top 1 per cent. of taxpayers gained £22,680 per head in one year from the tax changes in 1988–89. Their

1549
gain in taxation alone was greater than the total income of 95 per cent. of the population. Perhaps I may use a memorable phrase of Mr. Frank Field. He said that over the past 10 years we have witnessed,
"the most significant redistribution of income to the rich since the dissolution of the monasteries".
Alongside that massive redistribution, and indeed a part of it, has been the creation of a new underclass: the long-term unemployed, lone parents, pensioners who have nothing but their state pension, and the young homeless. The underclass itself is subsumed into a larger group. There are 9 million people on income support. That represents 17 per cent. of the population and is a 50 per cent. increase since 1979. There are also the 7 million people reliant on means-tested benefits. I have referred to the redistribution in direct taxation for the top earners. I am sure that the Minister has been briefed to point out that reducing the top rates of tax produces more revenue. I see that the Minister nods. It is quite true that the share of tax revenues contributed by the top 1 per cent. has increased by 7 per cent. since 1979. That is hardly surprising as their share of income has increased by 43 per cent. in the same period.
Alongside this redistribution of the burden of direct taxation there has been an equally massive but not so obvious change in the social security system. There has been a change from collective responsibility for social provision which can be traced from before the time of Beveridge up to 1979, to a policy where there has been a real reduction in the relative amount spent on collective public provision. That has been accompanied by the erosion of rights to benefit and the expulsion from social insurance rights of quite large numbers of people. In passing I should say that I have always been puzzled by the fact that those who preach loudest about the virtues of collective security in the matter of defence do not adopt the same argument for social policy.
Social security is a vital part of our total social policy. Some three-quarters of all households will derive some of their income from benefits at some time in their lives. From the end of the war and the time of Beveridge until 1979 there was broad consensus about social security. There was the move from flat rate to earnings related benefits and contributions and the idea of family endowment through child benefit. There was the introduction of non-contributory and non-means-tested allowances for disability. There was the earnings related state pension scheme, SERPS, and the statutory uprating of benefits linked to increases in earnings. Those and other changes which were agreed by all parties in principle were designed to prevent poverty as well as to relieve it. However, the change in policy since 1979 has been dramatic. There has been a massive switch to means-tested or, as they are termed, targeted benefits. There have been reductions in the real value of benefits and the erosion of the rights to benefit. Some benefits have been made the responsibility of employers and there has been a reduced entitlement to earnings related pensions and the restructuring of income related benefits.
There has also been the introduction of the Social Fund, which is discretionary and cash limited, to
1550
replace benefits which were claimed as of right. Grants of £41 million have replaced benefits of £400 million. There has been the abolition of earnings related supplements to certain benefits and now there is the poll tax. The switch to means-tested or to targeted benefits brings more and more people into the poverty trap where their effective marginal rate of loss of benefit can be as high as 60 to 70 per cent., or in some cases higher, compared with a top rate of tax of 40 per cent.
The Government have always been concerned to ensure that those who receive their income through social security benefit should not receive more than those who are in work. Sir Geoffrey Howe stated in his second Budget in March 1980 that,
"One of the biggest problems is the lack of balance between social security benefits and incomes in work … Indeed there are people whose incomes out of work exceed what they could reasonably expect to get when in work".
A similar quotation on the same subject states that,
"the first and most essential of all conditions is that the situation of the individual relieved shall not be made really or apparently so eligible as the situation of the independent labourer of the lowest class".
The second quotation came from the report of the Royal Commission on Poor Law in 1834.
We know how all this has come about and I have just explained the changes, but we need to know why it has come about. What is the rationale for this change of policy from collective provision to rugged individualism? The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, will be speaking later in the debate. We know that he was one of the architects of the new thinking in the 1970s. I wish to put a simple question to him which I hope he will be good enough to deal with when he comes to speak. If he and others had known in 1979 what the effects of the changes in policy would be—that is, the increase in poverty, the increase in homelessness, the reduction in the real value of benefits, the widening gap between the rich and the poor and the creation of an underclass—would they still have gone ahead with the changes? In other words has it all been worth while?
The rhetoric of the new thinking of that time was very attractive. It urged a policy of setting people free, rolling back the barriers of the state, leaving people to spend their own money as they wished or, as the Prime Minister put it in 1984, a change from a "give it to me" to a "do-it-yourself" society. However, I wonder sometimes whether the new thinkers of that time succumbed to the occupational hazard of all politicians and became bewitched by the resonance of their own rhetoric.
I am sure that the Minister has also been briefed to point out how much more the Government are now spending on social security compared with what was spent in 1979. There has been an increase of 39 per cent. However, half of that is due to the increased number of claimants comprising pensioners, the disabled and single parents. A quarter of that increase is due to increased unemployment and only a quarter to an increase in benefits. The value of the 11 major state benefits was 26 per cent. of average male earnings in 1979 but only 19 per cent. in 1989. That is a reduction in the real value of the benefits.
We have heard a great deal about the dependency culture and the welfare net. There are those whose

1551
children's private education has been paid for by grandparents through tax covenants, whose tax bill has been reduced by the full exploitation of mortgage interest relief, self-employed retirement annuities, personal pension plans, personal equity plans, business expansion schemes and the judicious use of offshore funds, and whose elderly parents now have their private health care subsidised through tax relief. Those are all perfectly legitimate ways of reducing the tax bill, but I wish that those who have benefited in that way would be a little more careful in the use of phrases such as the dependency culture and the welfare net.
I cannot hope to deal with all areas of social security and I know that other speakers in the debate will wish to do so. However, I wish to spend a few moments discussing disability benefits. The Government, to their credit, set up the OPCS surveys of disability. We were told that the long awaited comprehensive review of disability benefits would have to await the publication of the OPCS surveys. We were then told that the review would not be an independent review but an internal review inside the Department of Social Security. We now have the White Paper entitled The Way Ahead. That is a deeply disappointing response by the Government. All the disability organisations without exception are deeply disappointed with it. There was no consultation with them at all during the preparation of the White Paper. Consultation took place on the OPCS surveys but there was none on the preparation of the White Paper. We welcome the increases in disability allowances which resulted from the White Paper, but which affect only 800,000 people out of the 6·2 million disabled. However, there is nothing for the 70 per cent. of disabled people over 60.
There is one particular aspect of the White Paper which concerns the future of the Independent Living Fund on which I should like to question the Minister. When this fund was set up the Government said that the problem involved only a few hundred very severely disabled people. They gave the fund an annual budget of £5 million. At that time we warned the Government that they had the figures wrong and they were not providing enough money. The fund is now helping 4,500 people and has an annual budget of £24 million. The White Paper referred to the fund's responsibility being transferred to local authorities. That is deeply worrying as local authorities have neither the skills nor the resources to deal with this problem. We certainly do not wish to have the funding for the very severely disabled pitched into the argument that now exists with the poll tax as regards funding from central and local government. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us what are the Government's plans for the Independent Living Fund.
I have defined the widening gap between the rich and the poor and described the changes in the social security system which we have experienced in the past 10 years and their effect. Your Lordships are entitled to ask what should be done. First, we must change the Government. Noble Lords opposite will not be surprised to know that we have that firmly in mind. The next Labour Government will reform
1552
the tax system and the social security system. We shall introduce a national minimum wage. That is the key to lifting the lowest paid out of income support. The top 10 per cent. of earners have seen an increase in real earnings of 48 per cent. in the past 10 years. However, the bottom 10 per cent. have seen an increase of only 3 per cent. The taxation system will be made fairer, with a lower bottom rate of less than 20 per cent. and a top rate of 50 per cent.
National insurance contributions now raise more than 73 per cent. of the amount that is raised in income tax. National insurance will be replaced by a new social insurance scheme, with a less regressive contributory system which will also be levied on unearned income. We shall increase child benefit and remove the tax on workplace nurseries. We shall limit the total value of tax breaks enjoyed by individual higher-rate taxpayers. We shall restore the principle of collective provision for social security and reduce the reliance on means-tested benefits.
We shall restore entitlement to earnings related pensions and the earnings related supplements to unemployment benefit. Retirement pensions will be increased and we shall restore the links between pensions and increases in earnings. A new scheme for personal pensions will offer pensions which will be based on each individual's best 20 years' earnings. There will be a new bonus on the basic pension for all pensioners over 75.
We shall introduce a new range of disability benefits providing help with the extra cost of disability and a guaranteed income for those who cannot work because of disability. We shall replace the invalid care allowance with a carer's benefit which will be paid at the full basic pension rate.
We shall reform income support substantially to remove its worst and most regressive effects, particularly to help those receiving transitional relief under the 1988 Act—lone parents, youngsters aged 16 and 17 and the disabled. All payments from the Social Fund will be converted into grants and we shall widen access to the severe disability premium.
I have deliberately listed just some of the reforms of the taxation and social security systems to which the next Labour Government are committed. They will not all happen at once and they will not all happen in one Parliament, but they will happen. I am not sure why that is found to be amusing. It is a clear statement of policy, but those reforms will not all happen at once—we are a realistic party. We are accused of having no alternative, but an immense amount of work has gone into our determination to reform the system root and branch. I have listed just a few of the measures that we intend to introduce.
We are determined to restore to our system of taxation and social security the principles of social justice linked to collective provision for those needs which cannot be efficiently and more fairly met by the market. To use an old-fashioned phrase, I should describe that as ethical socialism. Others would say that it is the politics of common decency. It is the policy which we shall introduce to restore the equity and social justice which have been lost in the past 10 years. I beg to move for Papers.
3.12 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, it is tantalising to have only eight minutes in which to reply to that packed speech. I should like to quarrel with very nearly all its components. To answer the noble Lord's main question, yes as someone who takes responsibility to some extent for the strategy which the incoming Conservative Government of 1979 adopted, I should have gone ahead with that strategy. I do not regret it. Of course I accept that individual components of that policy need constant refinement in order to get them right. However, in general, as I shall seek to explain in the limited time available to me, I do not regret the general drift of the Government's intentions and efforts.
I have to be quick. I shall deal first with the gini co-efficient, the measurement of difference. There is no gini co-efficient that I can find which measures international comparisons. At home it is perhaps true, although the figures do not yet give the answer, that lowering the top rate of tax may have widened differences. However, the tax revenue from the top brackets of earners has increased, not fallen. Secondly, the number of jobs has increased. Thirdly, entrepreneurship is growing, though not fast enough.
If noble Lords will in due course look at Table 5.19 of this year's Social Trends, they will find that since 1971 the marketable wealth of the most wealthy 1 per cent., the most wealthy 5 per cent., 10 per cent., 25 per cent., and 50 per cent. has fallen through 1981 and 1986 to 1987. The noble Lord is wrong on that score.
It has constantly to be said that the party opposite underestimates the importance of wealth creation. Wealth creation depends upon giving incentives to people to take risks. Noble Lords opposite constantly emphasise the rate of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is merely one measure of the risk that entrepreneurs take. We have too few entrepreneurs, although many more than we used to have. Upon the entrepreneurs depend the jobs, the prosperity, the resources for public services on which all our policies—on both sides of the House—depend.
I believe that any government coming into office in 1979 would have had to meet huge burdens on social security in the 1980s. There was a rising number of pensioners, including a rising number of the very elderly. There was a rising number of unemployed; and let the party opposite not think that they would have escaped the rising number of unemployed which was necessary if we were to recover any profitable international competitiveness, because, in their own five years in government, unemployment rose from half a million to 1 million. There was a rising number of lone parents and a weakening of family ties and responsibility. On both sides of the House, and I believe in the Churches, we deplore the weaker family ties. I have to accept, and hope that noble Lords will accept, that there has been a failure of schools and training to prepare many of our population for life and work. The welfare spend would have had to increase hugely, whichever government was in power, in the last 10 years.'
1554
Meanwhile, to help meet that increased spending, productivity, which has to pay for everything, has risen sharply in the past 10 years. However, it has not risen nearly enough and not nearly to the level of competitor countries. Savings have risen among individuals, although not as much as we need. Occupational pensions have risen, and owner occupation has risen.
Any government would have had to face great challenges in order to pay for the extra social security that those trends—which would have occurred whatever the government—imposed upon the government of the time. Yet the resources have not grown quickly enough. We had a choice.
I believe that the poverty lobby and to some extent the noble Lord who has just spoken discredit what could be a good case if only they did not overstate it so wildly. The claim that a third of our population has poverty or near poverty standards of living is just not credible. It is not believed. That is why attention is distracted from the real pockets of poverty, or at least serious pressures on resources, that undoubtedly exist.
In social security, whichever government is in power, there has to be a mix of universal and means-tested benefits, plus the encouragement of personal savings, family help, owner-occupation and charity. They all have to co-exist. No one imagines that collective help is not needed. What is needed is a mix of those different resources.
Is it wise to rely excessively on universal benefits as the noble Lord seems to suggest might be the policy of the party opposite? I accept at once that many elderly people are still very hard pressed. However, occupational pensions have been rising, owner-occupation has been rising, and the savings of a large number of the elderly are significant. To rely too much on universal benefits to avoid any being hard-pressed would involve a huge contribution increase, a huge contribution cost on the workers and an even bigger wedge than now between gross and net earnings. To provide universal benefits for those who do not need them because of their own thrift or because of occupational pensions would cause the resentment of neighbours who have been thrifty, the discouragement of savings and a disincentive to workers.
We are all aware, particularly this week, of the crisis in Swedish affairs. We are certainly not Sweden. We do not, alas, have a record of prosperity akin to Sweden's, but I recommend the party opposite to read carefully a lecture entitled The Limits of the Welfare State given by Professor Assar Lindbeck on 12th October 1988 at Birkbeck College. It is worth reading. Professor Lindbeck refers to the soaring marginal tax rates in Sweden—70 per cent. for the average Swede—permanent damage to the economy and permanent distortion of incentives. He says:
"Dentists drill wells on their summer estates rather than drilling the teeth of patients".
He adds:
"Professionals and craftsmen barter services rather than exchange them for money".

1555
He refers to the nationalisation of the functions of the family and to the encouragement of dishonesty. Those would be some of the results of going too far in trying to develop the welfare state on universal lines.
On the other hand, I see that means-testing—targeting, as the Government call it—also has disadvantages. It causes poverty traps, the "why work?" syndrome and disincentives and it requires a huge administrative effort. However, getting the right mix between universal and means-tested benefits, the trickle-down effect from more entrepreneurs and the rising productivity that we need under any government to be internationally competitive are all necessary.
In a more nearly perfect world, all would be good managers of their own resources, but we know that they are not. Among ourselves, we are not. Those on social security are not. All would have good relations with family and neighbours in a more nearly perfect world. All social security offices would be decent and provide privacy. All social security staff would be ultra-sensitive as well as firm. In a more nearly perfect world all claimants would be reasonable, but it is not a perfect world and we can only hope to provide our component of those factors. We acknowledge that we are far from that position now.
As for Labour's criticisms, I suggest that there is some self-deception and humbug. I am not surprised that, in explaining the policies of the Opposition, the noble Lord followed the precepts of his leader and was being "vague". In the short time available to me, I must say that the end of his speech merely gave headlines and objective without explaining some of the problems. For instance, pensions may have risen when Labour was in office from 1974 to 1979 but, because of inflation, the real buying power of pensioners rose only 3 per cent. over five years. Since 1979 the real buying power of pensioners as a group has risen 31 per cent., though many elderly people are still hard pressed.
Finally, I recommend those who study such problems to read three recent books: Losing Ground by Charles Murray; Family and Nation by Daniel Moynihan; and perhaps above all Workers and Pensioners, edited by Paul Johnson. I wish that I had had more time to reply to a packed speech.
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I hope that all noble Lords will have 50 per cent. extra time as has been given to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. I do not intend to dwell on the incomes of particular groups of people because, although income is the main factor in determining vulnerability to poverty, it is not the only one. Poverty is the combination of low income, poor and often damp housing, fuel poverty, poor education and employment opportunities and bad health. They all contribute to what is generally called poverty and, in many cases, it becomes multiple deprivation. Among those groups of people are those whom we call the vulnerable groups. They are more often than not the elderly, the unemployed, the low-paid, the single-parent families and the disabled.
1556
We now see in this country, as a result of recent structural changes in the economy, that there is a dual labour market comprising, on the one hand, a labour market of secure, well-paid, highly-skilled jobs offering good conditions and good employment and, on the other hand, a secondary labour market offering low-paid, temporary, part-time, low-skilled employment. As a result of the growth of dual labour, poverty creeps in with regard to low-paid employment. We see the Government having to subsidise low wages through income support instead of the employer paying what one could call a decent wage. As a result of the abolition of the wages councils by the Government, there is now no protection for low-paid workers. Noble Lords will see that industries included in the recent growth in low-paid work are hotels, catering, retail and clothing. That low-paid employment will continue to grow and will obviously cause poverty. Where do we see low pay? We see it primarily among women, black people, people with disabilities and young workers.
We also see not only cuts affecting individuals through social security payments, but also cuts to public services which have a direct bearing on poverty. I hope that when the Minister replies he will not disagree that government cuts to local authorities have increased poverty in these localities. We have seen a cut in housing. I shall dwell this afternoon not upon homelessness and the money wasted on bed and breakfast accommodation, but upon the creation of poverty because local authorities have not been given the money to build houses to provide people with decent housing conditions. A form of poverty and deprivation develops if one does not have a decent home.
On the education side, there is a lack of provision for those pupils in many of our schools who do not attain high academic qualifications. We cannot all be blessed with the same intelligence and intellect. The needs of the other groups of pupils are therefore sadly neglected. We must ensure that we offer the non-academic pupils a greater emphasis on vocational education. We see truancy on the street and on the television screen. We see the police going round supermarkets picking up boys and girls who are not at school. They are bored with school because they are classified as the non-academic pupils. We deprive those students of a reasonable education and force them into poverty as they grow older.
We could also do a great deal to alleviate poverty in the education field if local authorities were enabled to extend provision in nursery schools and pre-school education. I am thinking primarily not about opportunities for women at work, but about the family itself so that it can organise itself when it is in dire need and poverty. The nursery schools offer to those families some support and often very good advice.
This morning I heard on the radio that by selling what are called cherished number plates the sum of nearly £2.5 million has been raised. A sum of £2.5 million has been obtained for about half a dozen cherished number plates. In this Chamber this afternoon we are discussing poverty.

1557
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to bend the ear of the Treasury to ensure that the £2.5 million raised yesterday as well as the £3.5 million raised six weeks ago from selling number plates will go to help those in greater need and who need greater help. I am sure that this debate will reveal that there is a real need for an anti-poverty strategy. Local authorities and charities see many of these problems in the localities but they are not in a position to take full responsibility for that burden. They both take as much action as they can to alleviate the problems.
However, most important is that there must be a much more positive strategy from the Government. I feel sure that this debate will outline that need in much greater detail.
3.31 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, although this debate almost inevitably must break open upon party lines, its almost transparently Biblical theme of the poor must commend some kind of response from these Benches. I believe that an expectation has grown up in recent years that the voice from the Churches must be confrontational, prophetic and denunciatory. Few of us would deny that that voice has its place. Prophetic protest against injustice or oppression is too deeply entrenched in the Judaic-Christian tradition to be outlawed. It is accredited both in the Old Testament prophets and in the words of Christ himself.
If the Churches have any commonly accepted function within the community it must include speaking for the voiceless and seeking to protect and champion the oppressed. However, I am only too aware of how easy it is for well provided clerics to raise voices in that mode. I do not believe that it is the only voice that is relevant to the matter before us. Alongside what I might call the voice from without is surely the voice and word from within—what perhaps many of us in our personal lives would identify simply as the voice of conscience. It has a corporate as well as an individual aspect and the Churches need to be its mouthpiece.
Indeed, perhaps Churches which are as much enmeshed in the history and life of society as are the mainline British Churches might hope to be as effective or even more effective, speaking perhaps more quietly as the conscience of the community than speaking necessarily always as prophets. Churches speaking in that mode may gain integrity by the fact that they share the dilemmas and problems which they address. I believe that it is important to acknowledge that Churches are property owners. They have employees and for the most part identify in their membership, uncomfortably so, more with the haves than with the have-nots of our society. If the Churches sometimes appear to be unhealthily preoccupied with questions about wealth in society, it is not because necessarily they survey those questions from the distant mountain top; it is because they also live day by day uncomfortably close to them.
I believe that we are closer to poverty than many. If begging and homelessness are on the increase and if more and more families are seriously troubled because their frail and elderly relatives are unable
1558
to make ends meet, the vicarage doorbell will ring more often. There is certainly evidence coming from the parishes and the dioceses to give cause for worry on all those counts.
It would be impertinent of me to offer an opinion on whether in absolute terms the less well off in our society are poorer now than they were, say, 10 years ago. The economists and social scientists must try to decide on that. However, it seems indisputable that the poor are becoming relatively poorer. I offer just one statistic which has come from the recent report from the advisory group on urban priority areas of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. Over the past 10 years the gross earnings of the lowest paid workers have risen in real terms by 6 per cent. The earnings of the highest paid have risen by 36 per cent.
If there is cause for concern here, I hope that it is not in the interest of a crude egalitarianism. Indeed, our underlying response should be gladness that people are generally better off as well as that unemployment has decreased. Of course we should give credit and praise to the wealth creators and the government policies which have encouraged that advance in wealth. Incidentally, I believe that it is a caricature to suggest that Christian concern is only with the distribution and not the creation of wealth. How can that be when we believe in God as creator and when Christianity affirms, as no other religion does, the value of this world, its goods and its prosperity? But surely the point is that any such general growth in national prosperity should strengthen rather than weaken our capacity as a society to deal compassionately and effectively with those who are progressively being left further behind in the race. By that I mean those who apply unsuccessfully to the Social Fund for grants or loans; the homeless young; one-parent families; and the growing number of frail, elderly people with insufficient means for their needs.
Why cannot we offer a proper answer to their needs as we grow in prosperity as a community? The issue which faces us is whether the trickle-down theory of wealth spreading through society and the reliance on private charitable giving can be trusted to deal mainly with the increasing relative poverty of some of our people, or whether the necessary compassionate action to help them must also be firmly and prominently part of public social policy in government. Many of us must believe that both will be needed for the foreseeable future.
In the end does not much of this discussion turn on how we define wealth? We pray daily in this House for the public wealth and we draw upon the primary meaning of the word which has to do with being well, wellbeing and primarily corporate wellbeing—the commonwealth. Wealth is not just money although money is part of it. Wealth, says the dictionary, is the happiness and the prosperity of the people. Wealth creation is the increase of true wellbeing in the community—fulfilment, health and a good environment. A strong and healthy manufacturing base is part of it but it is not the whole. If we double the output of pornography, how have we increased the nation's wealth?

1559
Therefore our gratitude to those who have initiated this debate will surely be the greater if it helps us all to sustain a rather larger and more spiritual understanding of what the wealth of our nation truly means as distinct from a narrow and materialistic concept.
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has tried hard to be neutral in political terms. However, he left most of us in no doubt that he favoured the Motion. He said without equivocation—and I take this as my own text, and it has been taken by those able speakers, my noble friends Lord Carter and Lady Fisher—that the poor are getting poorer. We start from that premise.
Of course we were glad to hear from the philospher of Thatcherism. I regard the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, as one of the most sensitive men and I hope that he will be sensitive to the objections that will be raised today to his point of view which is rather an eccentric one, if I may say so. Speaking as an eccentric myself, I regard him as well qualified to speak in that capacity.
I moved a Motion calling for a greater measure of equality nine years ago. No one can deny that that Motion has been the opposite of successful because in the past nine years, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, inequality has become a good deal worse. I am in danger of repeating what has been said so ably, but, mercifully, I shall exclude all figures. These have already been laid before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
In preparing for this debate some of us have studied the work of Frank Field, MP, who, I venture to say, has done more with regard to poverty and helping the poor than any individual whom I can think of. Those who have not read his recent book, Losing out, might well read it now. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I do not think anyone can deny certain propositions laid down by Mr. Frank Field in that book. For example, he says that between 1949 and 1979 there was a steady move towards greater income equality. That happened in the 30 years before the present rulers came to power. Since then there has been a move the other way. I do not think that anyone can deny that. I presume that it must be regarded as deliberate. I do not think that it is accidental. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, would say that it is regrettable; he would probably feel that it is essential. There is no doubt that it happened.
There is no doubt that for 34 years, or whatever the period was, after the war the Conservative Party was in power half the time. Therefore this steady move towards greater equality was promoted for half the period by the leading Conservatives of the time. I shall not list them all because so many are sitting opposite. I mention such great figures, no longer with us, as the Earl of Stockton, as he became, and Lord Butler. They promoted this greater move towards equality. Then along came the philospher of Thatcherism, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who devised a totally different approach. We have experienced that for good or ill for the past 10 years with Mrs. Thatcher at the helm.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, does the noble Earl recognise that at the end of those 30 years we were the poor man of North-West Europe?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not recognise that. When one considers life in this country, to speak of extreme poverty is an exaggeration. If one talks about work among the poor one could not say that they were stricken. The poor are the poor now. But no one will pretend that suddenly some tremendous change has overtaken the poor in the past 10 years except that their position in relation to the rich has become very much worse. That is generally accepted.
The position has been brought about in three ways by Thatcherite rulers inspired intellectually by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph—from the highest principles, of course. The first has been to allow the free market a good run. I do not know whether anyone reads the Sunday Times. I read it faithfully. A week or so ago we were told on the front page that a representative section of the business leaders of the country were giving themselves a 28 per cent. increase in reward at a time when the Government were calling for restraint and workers were receiving 8.7 per cent. In other words, the business leaders under the free market were giving themselves three times as much as the workers. I suppose that that is applauded by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. That is in accord with Thatcherism at its most elevated. I have heard no expression of regret about it.
Secondly, there have been the Budgets. I do not think that anyone now will disown Mr. Lawson's Budgets. I suppose that there is a slight tendency in circles opposite to regard him as a scapegoat and to take the attitude that if anything has gone wrong—we are paying fabulous interest rates and so on—it can be put down to Mr. Lawson. That would be rather churlish. By and large we have to regard the Lawson Budgets as Thatcherite. They have redistributed to their best ability the wealth of the country between the rich and the poor to a considerable extent.
Thirdly, there have been the many social security and related measures, regaled by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs when she opened a debate on citizens advice bureaux in this House recently. My noble friend described various measures which have had an effect. Presumably everyone agrees that they have had some effect. I am afraid that we have to agree that the effect has been very bad.
Those who have been in the House some years and who have heard me often know that I have been involved in a centre called the New Horizon Youth Centre for homeless young people which I founded about 20 years ago. I am still a patron. It now looks after many young people. If one goes to that centre today and asks young people, "What do you do with your life", they say, "We are beggars." That is something new. Begging has become normal as a direct result of government policy.
There is much more to say but my time is up. The more that is claimed by the noble Lords opposite about the success of this Government, the more disgraceful it is that the poor should be treated in this way.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to speak on four topics. I have spoken on them in your Lordships' House before. I hope to do so again, but I speak on the principle, "Try, try and try again, even if you do not succeed to start with".
Is the Minister able to say anything about the child benefit? The question has been asked before; we shall probably ask it again. The Equal Opportunities Commission has circulated its pre-Budget policies for the next year. It says:
"Child benefit, payable to all mothers in recognition of the costs of caring for children, has been frozen by Government for three consecutive years … almost 100 per cent. of mothers claim it because it attracts no poverty stigma … A decision to increase Child Benefit in the Budget would be the single most effective fiscal contribution possible to support family life".
I appreciate and understand the comments of my noble friend Lord Joseph that universal benefits are not always possible to afford even if one wanted them. When the noble Baroness puts forward a wonderful programme of measures for the Labour Party—if it is in power as the next Government—will she tell us how it will pay for them? That is vitally important because if the rate of inflation rises not everyone will benefit. I realise that child benefit is a universal benefit, and I applaud it, but if we cannot afford to pay it I am sure we can work out an arrangement whereby it goes only to the people who most need it.
My second point relates to the tax on child care. It is Her Majesty's Government's policy to persuade women to go out to work. Therefore, I speak feelingly on the care of children. Unless children are well cared for, to persuade women to go out to work will not be cost-effective. If the children suffer, it will be expensive later on in their lives. Removing tax on workplace nurseries and employer child-care payments could allow up to half a million mothers to return to work and many more to continue working after their babies are born. Many employers who are planning to introduce child care initiatives in order to recruit and retain staff are concerned that treating child care as a taxable perk undermines their efforts.
I put forward this view because if women are working there must be good child care facilities. My personal view is that I would prefer all women to stay at home and look after their children until the age of three, but that is not always possible under our present system.
My next point relates to the decision on the Social Fund taken by the Law Lords in this House. What is to be the future for that fund? Other speakers in this debate have also raised this point. To give a family a room, a flat or a house but nothing to put in it is again not cost-effective, not kind and not the best way to rehabilitate families.
My final point is perhaps a point on which I shall spend most of my time in this debate. I refer to the young, as have other noble Lords. All the voluntary organisations in the field of child care—the National Children's Bureau, Dr. Barnado's, the Children's Society, the National Children's Home and the NSPCC, which is holding its annual general meeting today—are deeply concerned about income levels
1562
for young people of 16 or 17 years of age. I applaud the policy of Her Majesty's Government in persuading 16 and 17 year-olds to remain at home if they can do so and if they can find a job in their own area where they can remain under the auspices of their own families, friends and the community. However, having said that, there are a few youngsters—regrettably, a growing number—who have been in care, who have no home background or home on which to depend, nowhere to go at Christmas, and so on. I contend that it is those youngsters who are sleeping in the doorways of our cities. I understand from Scotland Yard that it is the homeless youngsters who are victims of the drug trade, either as runners or takers of drugs. I implore the Government to think yet again in regard to the 16 and 17 year-olds, if not for compassionate reasons, for the reason that it would be cost-effective on a long-term basis to look after such youngsters. An examination of the histories of people in prison will show that many of them are these youngsters, and that is expensive for the country.
I have with me figures showing what the 16 and 17 year-olds are living on but I shall not give them now in view of the shortage of time. However, people ask how any scheme to help them would be administered. I believe that it would be perfectly possible to handle this through the social security system and the social services. People ask why these 16 and 17 year-olds leave home. I spoke to three girls last week whose mothers' boyfriends had been interfering with them. They had every right to leave home and it was right that they did so. However, it is equally right that we as a community should care for those youngsters.
I know that on 13th March 1989 the Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott, made some concessions for these youngsters but it is apparent from any examination of their incomes that they cannot live on what they receive. I ask my noble friend the Minister to look again at this matter in view of what it means to our society and, perhaps more important, what it means to those youngsters.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the House will understand if I restrict myself to the people covered by the word "poor" in the Motion on the Order Paper. I refer explicitly in my few minutes to perhaps the poorest sector in the community—those people without even a roof over their heads. Much has been said in this House over the past few years on this subject and I know that all quarters of the House have generally pressed the Government to do something about this as a matter of urgency.
There is a forceful argument that strikes me for taking action. In the past we have periodically—week after week, month after month, during Question Time and in debates—referred to the highlighting of the deteriorating situation which was brought to national notice first by the Duke of Edinburgh's Commission, then by the Audit Commission Report and then by the Archbishop of Canterbury's Faith in the City. Now, only yesterday, we have an independent report from the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust produced by Professor

1563
John Greve. He reached the same conclusions—that the homeless situation in this country can only be dealt with by a massive building programme of houses for rent in the public sector.
I was saddened when I heard the Minister, in answer to recent Questions from myself and others in this House, say that that is no longer the role of local authorities; that they will not be building many more council houses and that the Government will not let them because that is the role of the housing associations. I have some figures showing that in 1975 the housing associations built 14,000 houses. In 1979—the last year of premiership of my colleague and noble friend Lord Callaghan—the housing associations built 16,000 houses. Since then, under the existing Government, every year the figures have plummeted downwards. The boast that the Minister keeps making—and the new Minister, Mr. Michael Spicer, made on the radio yesterday; I heard him—is of a tremendous increase in financing for the housing association movement in order to assist in solving the problem of homelessness. In fact, it will only bring them back to the figure achieved in 1979. That is supposed to be progress.
The facts are of course that even with the increases now coming through from the Government towards housing in the rented sector they will still only reach in real terms one-third of the total made available by the last Labour Government just before they lost power. There is no other agency in the country to do this. It is not the job of private builders to provide low-cost housing for people who cannot afford a home. It can only be done in the public sector.
Quite unexpectedly I heard the Minister being interviewed on the "Today" programme yesterday morning. He was giving all the answers which I have heard given by various noble Lords opposite in your Lordships' House when asked what was the cause of homelessness and what were the answers to the problem. What shocked and saddened me was the monumental indifference or lack of knowledge of the subject shown by the Minister in his answers. His failure to grasp what was happening in this country was towering.
He said that one of the main causes—and this has been referred to today by the right reverend Prelate—of homelessness in this country was the desire of young people to opt for independence earlier in their adult life. He said that it is not a phenomenon exclusive to this country but that it is happening all over Europe: young people want to leave the family home at an earlier age. When he gave that answer he reminded me of Canute sitting there hoping that things would happen. He said that those young people should go back home to mum and dad, get a job and not come to London and the other big cities. If anybody could switch us back to that kind of system, it would be ideal. I have two daughters of my own; one is married and one is not. They did not want to stay at home with mum and dad. They were lucky and were able to fend for themselves. However, many children are the victims of circumstances and let us make no mistake that many are not from good homes but are from bad homes where they have been poorly housed in areas of serious deprivation.
1564
Let us see what Professor Greve discovered. The findings of his report include that homelessness has doubled since the present Prime Minister came to power and the figures are still rising. One thousand families asked local councils for help with homelessness-related problems every working day. Homelessness is growing fast among young people, particularly those aged between 16 and 18 who are no longer entitled to any social security benefits. That is not the fault of anybody other than the people who are managing the affairs of the country—it cannot be. They are responsible for that situation which I believe was deliberately created. One million households, 3 million people, have been registered as homeless over the past decade and homelessness is now affecting a wider spectrum of people.
I am sorry to burden your Lordships' House, but let us look at the findings of another recent report. A new report reveals that 16 per cent. of people who rent their homes are in arrears with their payments and 5 per cent. of households face difficulties with payment. A survey on credit in Britain carried out by the Policy Studies Institute indicated an astronomical rise in debt on a general basis.
Once again I appeal to the Government. All I can say is that if the Minister's answers to the problems of homelessness in this country are those which he gave yesterday, he has no grasp of the magnitude of the problem. I urge the Government to make available money to local authorities to start building programmes once again so that we can eat into those appalling figures and once again make sure, with pride, that people are provided with reasonable homes at lower rents.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I propose to devote my few minutes to two specific issues. The first relates to the way in which the poll tax in certain respects interlocks with the social security system. Those who are poor and also disabled or very old and living on income support will be eligible to claim an 80 per cent. rebate. Although they will have to pay the remaining 20 per cent., the personal allowance under income support has been increased to take some account of that liability. However, that increase relates to the national average and in the current year has been fixed at £67·60 per year. For some reason, the increase is slightly less than that for married couples and those under 25, although they do not have to pay any less tax.
That means that someone on income support living in Wandsworth—where the 20 per cent. will be under £30—will be handed a nice bit of extra spending money. How that squares with the Government's doctrine of everyone contributing to local government expenditure, I find slightly obscure. However, if the individual is living in an area where the poll tax is well above average, there will be a shortfall.
For example, a couple with two mentally handicapped children over the age of 18 living at home who do not qualify for complete exemption could be very hard hit indeed. An extra £100 or £200 may not seem all that much these days but if

1565
you are living on the edge of poverty and have no capital resources, that can be a most formidable sum. The prospect of mounting debts and enforcement procedures among the very poor and disabled is singularly unattractive.
Nor, to my mind, does that fit in with the policy of community care. There could well be a reluctance to give a home to a relative if that carries with it a financial penalty which can be avoided if the individual is instead in residential care. I believe that the Govenment may well live to regret the fact that they secured the rejection of the amendment passed in this House to deal with problems of that kind.
There is one other rather different problem. I know of a couple not on income support with a handicapped son. They made structural alterations to their house to make it possible for him to continue to live at home and were granted rate relief. Their rates came down to £140. Their poll tax, even with transitional relief let alone what is to come, comes out at more than double that. That is not an isolated example and it illustrates the problem which seems not to be catered for by the social security system in arrangements which substitute a personal tax for a property tax.
My other point relates to mobility allowance. I know that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will not be surprised that I am raising it today. I was pleased that the Government performed one of their more graceful U-turns and extended the allowance to those who are both deaf and blind, something which they refused to do when we discussed an amendment to last year's Social Security Bill. However, that amendment, which was passed here on Report and then rejected in another place, also attempted to secure eligibility as regards the allowance for an individual suffering from severe mental handicap such that he is unable to walk without physical control by another person. What we had in mind was an individual who is, literally, capable of walking but no one can tell where he will walk unless physically controlled. He may go sideways, backwards or straight under a bus or he may lie down screaming in the highway and be quite impossible to manage on public transport.
MENCAP calculated very carefully that the total number in this group might be about 4,400, but on Report the Government said that the figure was 100,000. In another place they went one better and said that the figure was 125,000. We were puzzled, since the OPCS survey did not identify the group covered by the amendment. We were left to conclude that the Government had cobbled together a whole variety of people—the mentally ill, sufferers from Parkinson's Disease and others—and not just the mentally handicapped, which was the sole category to which the amendment related, and have also applied a less stringent test to supervision.
In reply to a Question on 12th October last (at col. 565 of Hansard) the noble Lord, Lord Henley, produced yet another figure; this time it was 140,000. He said on that occasion that the figure probably represented the total of severely mentally handicapped people in this country. Indeed, it might.
1566
He conceded that not all those people would be claimants, but he would not accept the figure of 4,400. In subsequent correspondence, as he will recall, he plumped for a figure of 50,000. He was good enough to say that that figure should be regarded as an order of magnitude rather than as a precise estimate.
MENCAP thinks that it is blindingly obvious that the total involved must be far below the Government's latest figure of 50,000. That figure represents no fewer than one in three of the total of severely mentally handicapped people in this country. It is ludicrous to suggest that anything like that proportion could possibly be thought to qualify under the conditions that we suggested. MENCAP still believes that the numbers involved must be well below 10,000. Some of those people may qualify for the £10 a week mobility component of the new disability allowance promised for 1992. However, I should not like the Government to think that that allowance of 10 is an adequate substitute for the full mobility allowance which these few thousand people need and deserve just as much as do the half million present recipients of the allowance but from which they are excluded because their condition has no known physical cause.
I must leave the matter there. It seems to me that here are two instances where some of the poorest and most unfortunate members of the community have reason for thinking that the social security system, whatever its merits, falls some way short of perfection.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, others more experienced and expert than myself have dealt and will deal with detailed matters of social security benefits and kindred issues. I should like to speak for a few minutes about the gap between the rich and the poor because we often take for granted manifestations of the class differences in this country which are apparent to visitors.
The east end of our major cities is where the traditional working-class homes were built. That was no coincidence. The prevailing winds from the Atlantic, the West and South-West blew the pollution towards the east side of the cities and that was where the working-classes had to live, while the more salubrious western areas were the higher class residential parts.
Our whole approach to this subject is bedevilled by departmentalised thinking, which in turn stems from the whole nature of our education system. There is far too great an emphasis on higher education. I should very much like to support what my noble friend Lady Fisher said in this regard. If we debate higher education or the matter is touched on in your Lordships' House, the Benches are absolutely packed and every nuance of the matter is explored.
We recently had an example of that with the passage of the legislation on the Government's student loans proposals. We had a great deal of special pleading. As an example of what I am trying to convey to your Lordships I should like to give one

1567
example of some of the lobbying to which we were subjected. I am sure that, like myself, other noble Lords received a communication from the British Dental Association asking for support for an amendment which stated:
"Students on courses of more than three years duration shall have their loans cancelled for any years subsequent to the initial three years of their course".
The letter went on in explanation,
"The Association is anxious that the Bill should not discriminate against dental students who undergo a rigorous course of five years duration together with a long academic year of forty-five weeks. Long hours and long terms provide little opportunity for dental students to supplement their grants with part-time work".
It really needs a latter-day Charles Dickens to do full justice to that situation, which is supposed to wring our hearts. What is the reality? The British Dental Association figures tell us that the cost to the public for each dental student per clinical year is £23,000 to £24,000. What are the rewards for surviving that appalling assault course? The figures given by the General Dental Practitioners' Association show that the net income for dentists in 1989 was £24,920 per year. The review body for doctors' and dentists' remuneration in its 20th recommended report, Cmnd. 937, said that the target net income for dentists should be £29,740. We need to put such figures into perspective; otherwise we simply go into little pockets of special pleading for various groups and do not see society as a whole.
During the debates on the student legislation I wondered whether we were getting matters entirely out of proportion. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about comparable figures for student support in other countries. I shall not weary your Lordships with the answer, which runs to an entire side of foolscap, but the upshot was that the comparable figure for full-time and part-time students in England and Wales at 1984 prices amounted to £770 per year. For the same year the figure in the United States was £270; in Japan it was £30; in West Germany, £70; in France, £180; and in Italy, £40. We never seem to get down to the basis of how we are running this country in comparison to other countries. We struggle along with a lot of stereotypes and shibboleths. Occasionally we should take time to try to puncture some of these.
My noble friend Lord Dean returned to the theme of homlessness, which he pursues with great assiduity. I also have my theme; that we are actually paying students more public money to study away from home when it is not necessary and are exacerbating the homelessness problem. We ought to remember that only 7 per cent. of working-class children reach university, yet a very large proportion of the taxes paid in this country which go to supporting the privileged in higher education are paid by working-class people.
Hospital provision is another example. In my city of Bristol the first proposal for a hospital on its south side was in 1935. Nothing came of that because there was a monstrous redevelopment in the centre of Bristol, on a grossly unsuitable site solely because of
1568
pressure from the university, which wanted its own precinct, and the consultants, who wanted to be near their posh consulting rooms in Clifton. The general population who made up the patients received no consideration at all.
I believe that there is also trouble brewing for the Government over the proposed closure of Westminster Hospital, where an ill-thought-out scheme is likely to come unstuck. Although the stereotype of Westminster is one thing, there are actually thousands of working-class people who live in the area who should have more consideration.
We should remember that higher education is a privilege. Those of us who benefited from it and are in positions where decisions are made should stand back from time to time, look at society's inequalities objectively and realise that many of them have been created over the years by the products of higher education. Educated people know how to lobby and how to exert pressure to achieve their aims, which are gifts usually denied to the people who are suffering far more from the system than anybody else.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will allow me to say so, I found his speech particularly invigorating in that he drew for the first time from that side of the House meaningful comparisons. He finished by suggesting a manner in which we might make matters a little better. He said that perhaps we should stand back and look a little objectively at some of these problems. In my view that is the major fault, if there is one, with the funds which the Administration which I support on this side of the House make available.
The Government are spending about £1 billion a week on social security and next year they will spend something like £10 billion on a whole range of benefits for the family. Yet for all that we find, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said in last week's debate on the citizens advice bureaux that those at the bottom of the scale go down even further. However, he admitted:
"It has been especially important to have an organisation such as the CABs in our country in recent years because of the growth in the numbers of the relatively poorest in our society. Poverty was once much more widespread in Britain than it is today".
He went on to say:
"The fact that the poorest are a minority in society means that the pressures on them are that much greater". [Official Report, 7/3/90, cols. 1186 and 1187.]
And there was nobody who dissented from that. Nor I think is there anybody this afternoon who would dissent.
But the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his opening speech which my noble friend Lord Joseph described as a packed speech, put forward a whole range of statistics and numbers which were quite meaningless. Again the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—and I am sorry that he is not in his place—brought forward another range of figures, but nobody can agree about all these things. I expected the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to suggest to those of us on this side of the House exactly what his party

1569
would do to narrow the gap, but, sadly, he did not do so. Surely that is something that we might have heard.
I want to touch on the Social Fund about which my noble friend Lady Faithfull spoke in respect of the Law Lords' decision. It seems to me, although an enormous amount of money has been put into the Social Fund, that because it is a discretionary system there are inequalities, and I find it difficult to reconcile in my mind £75 million worth of grants to the end of October 1989 and some £200 million awarded in loans.
Again, going back to our debate last week, it seems to me rather counter-productive to load upon those who are in the disadvantaged band of our society further loans to help them out of their difficulties. I really think that my noble friend the Minister should have another look at the disposition of the moneys that are made available. I think that that was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, had to say in taking another objective look.
In defining the poor the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that poverty is represented by an income so low that recipients cannot engage in the life of the community. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that poverty is low income, poor health and poor housing opportunities, unemployment and so on. The right reverend Prelate suggested a rather different definition. There cannot be one single definition.
But what we should remember—and I learned this from my association with the citizens advice bureaux—is that, however little money there is available, it is those with the least who are the least able to manage their financial matters. When you get on the wrong side and into debt, all the other problems such as homelessness, of which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, reminded us, compound the great difficulties and push those disadvantaged people even further down in the system.
I believe it is right and proper that the department of my noble friend the Minister should pay greater attention to education and publicity in that area, as well as in the area of benefits and entitlements. Is it not surprising that so many entitlements are not taken up? For example, the family credit advertising campaign has already increased the total case load from 280,000 to 320,000. It was not the need that drove people to ask; it was the fact that under the system it is an entitlement that has been brought to their attention and they have taken advantage of it. I believe that there are a number of other entitlements, quite unbeknown to potential recipients, which should equally be made known to them.
In a free market society, in which I believe, there will always be a differential, whether it is between the disadvantaged and those not disadvantaged or whether between the so-called rich and poor. But without the kind of free market economy that this country has enjoyed in the past 10 years, the general wealth of the nation, the general upsurge in the economy, could not have been achieved; and those advantages have been passed on—though not necessarily in proportions acceptable to all noble Lords—right across the entire range of our society.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Carter for initiating this debate, and at the same time I should like to sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in his frustration at not having enough time to develop the points that we should all like to develop in a debate such as this.
That the gap between the rich and the poor has increased during the period of office of the present Administration is an unfortunate fact of life; and the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, defended that fact of life. Ever since the 1980 Social Security Act, their first Act—I was a Member of the Committee which considered the Bill in the other place—there has been a series of cost-cutting exercises to reduce public expenditure, mainly at the expense of social security budgets. Even though the most recent uprating of benefits orders for the 1990–91 period contained one of two helpful provisions, they were designed to effect overall saving of some £320 million. That has been the pattern right from the beginning of this Administration's social security legislation.
I want to use my few minutes to talk about the problems of the elderly among whom are some of our poorest people—pockets of poverty, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I think, called them. I should like to ask the noble Lord who will reply to the debates whether he has had a chance to read the current issue of Pensioners' Voice, the official non-party publication of the National Federation of Retired Pensioners. Under the banner headline, "We stand aghast", the paper prints a reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on behalf of the Prime Minister, to whom the national federation had written and sent a petition of 110,466 signatures calling for the restoration of the link between pensions and average earnings.
I have not time to enlarge on the Government's record on petitions. But it is not very good if we remember the 5 million signatures on the ambulancemen's petition. I shall not read the whole of the reply but the first paragraph, following the customary apologies for delay in replying says that,
"we do not see uprating pensions in line with earnings as the key factor in improving pensioners' incomes. It is not simply the level of basic pension, but pensioners' total incomes which is the true measure of their well-being".
That indicates government thinking. I do not accept it. But that is what they think on the issue of pensions. I wish I had time to quote the rest of the reply to a very good case put up by the pensioners. However, it is indisputable that the breaking of the link has had a devastating effect on pensioners' incomes. The level of the basic pension would now be significantly higher had that link been maintained. The single pension would be £11 per week more than it is now, and the pension for a couple would be somewhere in the region of £17.55 more. The 7.6 per cent. increase in the state pension announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security on 25th October, based on last September's cost-of-living increase, does not compensate for the high monthly prices of between 7.3 per cent. and 8.3 per cent. experienced from April 1989, when the

1571
pension rose by just 5.9 per cent. Yes, the basic pension, so far as I am concerned, is a major element in the income of pensioners seeking to maintain some independence and some dignity.
It is also a fact that 60 per cent. of older people derive at least three-quarters of their income from the state pension and are therefore extremely vulnerable to these constant changes in social security benefits. Changes in housing benefit and heating allowances, in supplementary benefits and in other respects have all pushed pensioners further down the list so far as incomes are concerned. I do not have time in this debate to develop the whole social security scene, much as I should like to, and so I will bide my time until another occasion.
However, I should like to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said. I should like to mention the latest and most savage attack on the incomes of thousands of pensioners: the community charge. In the debate about the gap between rich and poor, this must be a prime example. Even some rich people have expressed embarrassment at their latest windfall and are making their views known in public. Age Concern has received over 50,000 requests for copies of its fact sheet on the community charge. Voluntary organisations and pensioners' groups all over the country are inundated with queries from pensioners who are worried sick about the charge, coming as it does, on top of extra charges for gas, electricity, water, telephones, television licences, rents and heating and increased standing charges, promised by this Administration. Even those pensioners living alone, who were previously paying high rates, know that all these increases will more than wipe out any gain they may have been led to believe would result from the community charge. They are also worried, and they are the gainers.
The community charge benefit system is still so complex and confused that even the staff of local authorities do not understand it. They are supposed to be implementing it, but they do not understand it. I have spent hours studying it and I think I now have a basic understanding. For example, the Government have maintained that the charge will be related to a person's ability to pay through the community charge benefit system. Yet although the charge, so it is said, is intended to promote individual accountability and each person will receive an individual demand, for a couple the rebate depends on the savings and incomes of both partners, irrespective of the couple's personal financial arrangements, and any rebate is shared between the two of them: this, in the year of the introduction of independent taxation, is almost beyond belief.
The limit of £8,000 of joint savings means that a couple, most of whom have scrimped and saved to put away a few pounds to ensure a little decent security in retirement and a decent burial when the time comes, are now being severely punished for their thrift by this Government. This is not a problem which will affect the rich. So the gap gets wider with every new government initiative. How can that be defended? We are told that compensation is being made in the income support rates for the 20
1572
per cent. poll tax that claimants will have to pay. This compensation was added into the income support rates for 1989–90 on a one-off basis, and the £1.15 per week compensation per adult will be significantly less than the amount which many claimants living in areas with above-average areas of poll tax will have to pay.
Likewise, the transitional relief proposals are intended to provide relief for those whose community charge bills are more than £3 per week over the 1989–90 rates bills, but only so long as the local authority remains within the spending limit of the Government. As many local authorities of all political persuasions have announced community charges in excess of the Government's figures, pensioners will still face increased charges in excess of the £3 relief it is alleged they will get, if perchance they find out about it and happen to claim it. It could be as much as an extra £5 they will lose on top of that.
I have not sufficient time to examine the issue in greater depth; I should have loved another half-hour to go into the alternative social security system. We know that it must be expressly sensitive to individual needs and that it must be comprehensible to the general public as well as being capable of removing the tax benefit poverty trap. The present system does none of those things. The system mentioned briefly by my noble friend Lord Carter in his opening speech will. We are pledged to it; that is what we will bring in.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, in our society, as a consequence of its very nature, sadly there will always be a gap between rich and poor. What is needed, as much as anything else and more now than ever, is the element of caring: that people should care about the welfare of each other and that governments should care equally for every level of society, and especially for the poorest level of all.
With this in mind, I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention three matters which need our urgent consideration. First, as regards the poll tax or community charge, it is now very obvious that the abolition of domestic rates and the substitution of poll tax means that the well-to-do will benefit greatly while the poorer members of society will have to pay more. True, those receiving supplementary benefit and those on a very low income will benefit, but, in setting a figure for these rebates, do the Government really understand how much it costs to run a home today? Many people cannot even fill out the forms, let alone understand what the tax is about.
I understand that to qualify for any rebate a married couple are allowed £8,000 capital between them. I also understand that two unmarried people living together are allowed to have £8,000 each. This is not only unfair but an encouragement to an increase in immorality, with all its consequences. Could the possibility of a negative income tax be explored as a means of levelling up the income of the poorest members of society to an acceptable level?
Secondly, in regard to education, the gap between rich and poor in our education system is becoming

1573
wide and wider. In the private schools, small classes with fulfilled and enthusiastic teachers, and often superb facilities, combine to give the children of those who can afford to pay the best possible start in life. In the state schools, large classes, truant children, unhappy and pressurised teachers, inadequate supplies of books and poor equipment mean that increasingly the children whose parents cannot afford to pay have to start life at a crippling disadvantage. Education is the most precious gift we can give our children. In the state schools the gift is fast becoming a liability.
Furthermore, the proposed student loans system will be a heavy burden on those students whose parents cannot afford to pay for their education altogether. Would not the abolition of the loan system and the social fund and a return to a system of non-repayable grants for those who prove to be in need be the answer?
Thirdly, I turn to public and private medicine, nursing homes and residential care for the sick and handicapped. My greatest concern of all is for the sick and handicapped. Let us face the fact that there is a great difference between public and private medicine. No longer can those in the public sector expect to receive the treatment they need regardless of cost. The new provision causes serious concern that a sick person who is not in the private sector will get not what he wants but what his local health authority or medical practice can afford.
There are many people in our society today suffering from long-term diseases and disabilities who simply cannot cope in their own homes. They need dedicated 24-hour care from qualified nurses, and in an atmosphere that should be as homely and non-institutional as possible. If such people have sufficient money and can afford to pay the full cost of their care, there is a wide choice. However, if they have no money and can rely only on the DSS grant of £235, rising only to £245 in April 1990, then the choice is very limited indeed.
In very many of the Sue Ryder homes the cost per patient is over £500 per week, which has to be raised year in, year out by supporters who are becoming more and more disillusioned and bewildered by the Government's attitude. Speaking for the foundation which bears my name, we are inundated day and night by a host of demented people of all ages who are literally desperate for help. I shall gladly take any noble Lord to see the dreadful conditions in which they exist.
I should like noble Lords to imagine the dilemma and distress caused unnecessarily to thousands and thousands of silent sufferers. We may not think that they are vote catchers but, believe you me, the supporters who have to raise the money are. We should be ashamed that in this very materialistic society we have these shocking and deplorable gaps. Is no one in the Government going to show understanding and imagination and offer real help and not just make purring noises, referring to us as the private sector and often with remarks such as "good luck to you"? This gap is not only totally wrong but shocking.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I agree with the attack made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the degree and depth of poverty experienced by certain sections of the population in this country today. Before he nods his head in too much approval of what I have just said, however, I do not accept either his analysis or his prescription. Before the Labour Party makes so much of what has happened to the change in income tax level, it should remember that the level was changed from the quite absurd—and the party admits by its present schemes that is was quite absurd—top level of tax of 83 per cent. for income and 98 per cent. for investment income.
Nobody who knew his way to a good accountant ever paid that tax but that is the unreality of the situation which Labour left behind. The level of tax was calling aloud for a very substantial change. But that does not justify a great deal of what is going on at the present time. I do not agree with the noble Lord when he advocates a minimum wage. My party has long believed in a minimum income supported by a modest but real and secure citizen's income or basic income, not at subsistence level—because that cannot be afforded—but at a level that would be certain as a fallback so that everybody would feel secure.
I know very few economists of any repute who support a minimum wage. I remind the Labour Party that it was the undue increase in the minimum wage in France which had a great deal to do with President Mitterand having to go into reverse with many of his socialist policies. However, I agree that we are ashamed at the level of poverty that is seen in our cities day in and night in particular.
I believe that there are many noble Lords on the Government Benches who think the same and I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is among them. The Government will say, "We should like to do more but it will cost too much". I do not wish to encroach on the discussions which will follow after next Tuesday, but I say, as a throwaway remark, that there are certain measures which the Government can take which would release resources in order to alleviate some of the worst and most blatant examples of poverty which exist at the present time.
For example, the Government could get rid of MIRAS for higher income tax payers. It is absurd that the wealthy should be allowed to receive 40 per cent. MIRAS because they are paying tax at that rate. That is an absurd allocation of resources. Similarly, the Government could change the strange principle whereby the national insurance contributions paid by employees stop increasing at a level of about £17,000. There is no reason at all why the contribution should not be raised at least up to the level at which the higher rate of income tax is paid.
I shall be puritanical for a moment and it does no one any harm to be so from time to time. I recommend that this year the Chancellor should not be afraid of increasing taxation on tobacco and drink. In both cases there is a strong health argument for increasing the taxes, both of which have been under-increased for a very considerable length of

1575
time. Those are three measures which the Government could undertake. I anticipate their reply: they will say, "We should like to do all these things, but we cannot find the money".
There are a great number of other provisions which many of us would like to see put into effect. As other speakers have done this evening, I wish to concentrate on two particular groups where poverty is most acute. I refer to the pensioner who does not have any substantial additional income apart from the basic pension. I am the first to agree—and I am sure that there are many in your Lordships' House who also agree—that if he or she has a sizeable occupational pension or some other form of income in addition to the basic pension, then such a person may be quite comfortably off as a pensioner. These people have got rid of the mortgage and got rid of the children and they may well have more spending power than ever before.
However, the vast majority of pensioners are not in that position. The time may come when they will be, but that is not the situation at present. The pensioner who is dependent on the basic pension is extremely poor at the present time and at an age when it is very difficult to do anything about the situation for himself.
I concentrate on that group. There are a number of measures that could be taken. We should restore the link between the basic pension and earnings rather than with the RPI. The wealth of the country has increased—I pay tribute to the Government for some of the things they have done in this respect—but that is all the more reason why pensioners should have the opportunity of sharing in the increase in national wealth. To limit the increase in pensions to the RPI rather than to earnings is a situation that we should not tolerate.
The Government should consider not taxing the basic pension. It should be removed from tax altogether. If you like, that is an instalment on the idea of a basic income, though I have not time to elaborate on that point. There would be one very advantageous effect. Not only are people on the basic pension extremely hard up, but there is also a very great deal of hardship felt by those who are just a little above that level of income. In one way or another they have accumulated some additional resources—enough to push them into paying tax. That is absurd. If the Government were to remove tax on the basic pension then such people would be in a very much better position. The additional income which they have accumulated with so much difficulty would be theirs because they would not then reach the minimum level at which tax is levied.
I wish to make one further point. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, speak about debt, although I did not hear any other noble Lord refer to it. Debt is both a consequence and a cause of poverty. It is time we tried to do something far more constructive about it. The Government should give much more positive encouragement to saving. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been thinking about this.
My party has proposed a registered savings account into which people could take out of their
1576
income up to a certain level a given amount of money on which they would not pay tax until they took it out of the account. This would encourage people. At the moment, saving is channelled by our tax system into either property or pensions. It would be far better if there were a level playing field, to use an overworked phrase, in regard to savings so that all kinds of savings had the same encouragement. A registered savings account into which people could put their money would enable them to have a nest egg, would encourage people not to spend, which is highly desirable at present from a macro-economic point of view, and would also encourage them not to get into debt. I should like to put forward many other proposals but, sadly, my eight minutes are up.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carter for introducing the debate this afternoon on this important topic. Most noble Lords who have spoken have agreed that during the past 10 years we have seen a widening gulf between those who are doing well out of the market-led philosophy of the 1980s and those who are doing less well, and in many instances very badly.
According to the Low Pay Unit, about 6 million workers in full-time employment—about 37 per cent. of the total full-time workforce—now earn less than the EC threshold figure as defined by the Council of Europe, which is 68 per cent. of average full-time earnings. Low pay subsidises the United Kingdom economy to the tune of £15 billion a year, which would be the cost of bringing the low paid in the United Kingdom up to the EC threshold. In fact the figures concerning the low paid could well be worse than I have indicated. The official statistics are based on questionnaires returned by employers to the Department of the Environment. It is fairly obvious, since this is a voluntary exercise, that the employers who co-operate are among those paying the best rates. If that is so, the figures could well be worse than the ones I have mentioned.
Moreover, the so-called reform of social security which we have seen in recent years could well have contributed to the worsening position of the low paid. The rules in relation to entitlement to unemployment benefit have repeatedly been tightened so that the unemployed are now not able to pick and choose but must take whatever is available, however low paid and however exploitative. In fact, much of the Government's social policy has been directed towards the coercion of the unemployed into low waged work in the labour market.
The Government inherited a comprehensive system of social insurance based on the contributory principle. No one claims that it was perfect. On this side of the House we agreed that it was in need of revision. But since 1979 we have seen successive social security Bills—almost one a year—and the aim has always apparently been the same. It has been to make it more difficult to claim and to remove benefits hitherto payable as of right and replace them with means-tested benefits. The Government refer to this as targeting. When it comes to the low paid, the Government have developed a series of

1577
incentives which have resulted in large public subsidies to employers who do not pay a living wage. Family credit is this kind of system. It is a means-tested benefit.
Recently, the Department of Employment has acknowledged the wage substitution effect when suggesting that family credit will take up any fall in wages that results from the disappearance of wages councils. These councils, some of which still remain, although with eroded powers and a feeling of being under threat, provide the nearest we have in the United Kingdom to a provision for a minimum wage. In almost all other countries in the European Community there is some form of minimum wage legislation. In this respect I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I trust that the time is not too distant before we have similar provisions in the United Kingdom.
Those who oppose the minimum wage on grounds of cost should consider the size of public subsidy paid to low-paying employers via the social security system. On the other hand, tightening up on conditions for unemployment pay has led to indirect support for employers who do not pay reasonable wages, because people have been forced into low paid employment. I have no doubt that this was the Government's intention all along.
Of course it will be claimed that unemployment has been reduced and that many new jobs have been created. Everyone welcomes that. But what is not often said is that a number of the new jobs are part time. I am not against part-time employment. It has to be said that, owing to the lack of support facilities—crèches, nursery schools and so on—many women prefer part-time employment. There is a lot to be said for more flexible working patterns. If, however, hours are shortened to reduce wages below minimum earnings levels, the gain to employers in saved national insurance contributions is of the order of £213 a year per employee. Given that the number of jobs of this type has increased by 1 million during the 1980s, the total subsidy to employers would be in excess of £200 million per year.
That has to be seen as part of the incentive to employers by government to maintain wages at a lower level even though it would no doubt be stated that there were some benefits for the low-paid employee as well. However, the effect for many married women is that they cease to be covered by the national insurance system if their wages do not reach the minimum level at which contributions begin. And if they work for fewer than 16 hours a week they have no employment protection either.
In making these remarks it should not be thought that I am opposed to social security support for families with children. Of course I am not. I am simply pointing out that there is a wage subsidy effect and that this is ignored by those who oppose minimum wage legislation.
As for support for the family, it remains the view on these Benches that the Government should have honoured their election pledges about maintaining
1578
child benefit. I do not believe that they have done so. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has already dealt with the issue of child benefit. She pointed out that there is a high take-up of the benefit because it is perceived as a right, as something to which everyone is entitled. Any genuine family policy must include its restoration. Freezing child benefit will save the Government £250 million in net terms in 1990–91. I understand that only 28 per cent. of this saving, £70 million, will be ploughed back into family credit for low income families with children.
When we come to the position of the elderly, the outlook seems bleak. It is true that there has been an increase in the number of people retiring on occupational pensions derived from their employment. That development is very much to be welcomed. Nevertheless, as has already been stated in the debate, the majority of elderly people, still look to the state pension as their main income. I understand that the figure is of the order of 60 per cent. Until 1980, pensions were uprated in line with the increase in the RPI or the wages index, whichever was the greater. I join noble Lords who have pleaded for a return to a linking with the wages index. Older people should benefit from increasing prosperity. After all, during their working lives they have played their part in creating it.
There is much concern about the financing of homes for the elderly. The Independent Hospitals Association has stated that adequate care for poorer elderly people is at risk because income support levels are not sufficient to meet residential and nursing home fees. There is a danger of a two-tier system of residential care developing, with a lower level available for those dependent on income support. I welcome the decision taken by a vote in another place last night. I hope very much that the Government will take that on board and amend their policies accordingly.
During the debate several of my noble friends have drawn attention to the problems of the young, the homeless and the underprivileged generally. I believe that the decade has seen a widening of the gulf between rich and poor. I do not want to go over the ground again but the existence of homelessness is an extreme example of the kind of conditions that have arisen since 1979. Before then, it was unusual to see young and elderly people sleeping out; however, it has now become commonplace, not only in London, but also in other cities.
Time does not permit me to enlarge upon the kind of social policies which we on this side of the House would like to see implemented to deal with all these problems. But, in introducing the debate, my noble friend Lord Carter outlined at length what our alternative policies would be, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. In those circumstances, all I can say is that we have reached a situation where, in advance of achieving a change of government, we must look at some of the problems which have been mentioned today from all sides of the House with a view to providing at least some amelioration of the conditions which are now apparent to us all.
5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, this has been an interesting and enlightening debate and I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving the house an opportunity to discuss the subject. In his speech he fantasised somewhat about the policies that his party would pursue should it ever be returned to office. I think I should say that that is a very unlikely eventuality. It is all too easy to make promises when in opposition and it is all too easy to gloss over the cost of that profligacy. The difference is that, unlike the noble Lord's party, we have a record of action and achievement. It is a record, as I intend to point out in the few short minutes that I have, of creating wealth and spreading it more widely than ever before.
The Motion before your Lordships calls attention,
"to the gap between rich and poor in society and to the case for a social security system which meets the problems arising therefrom".
But I believe it is essential to understand the context in which we are debating this issue today. If by that the noble Lord feels that it is for the social security system to be essentially redistributive, I cannot go along with him. If he means by that that it is for the better off through taxation and the social security system to help those less well off and in need, then that I would concur and say that that is exactly what we are trying to do and what we very largely succeed in doing.
It would be quite wrong to ignore, when we come to debate these issues, that not only do we live in a society which is richer than ever before; we also live in one where wealth is spread more widely. Moreover, all sections of society are benefiting from the increased prosperity of the nation as a whole. As a society we are twice as rich as we were in 1971. Even in the 10 years since 1979 our wealth has increased one-and-a-half times. Today, thanks to the policies we have pursued over the past 10 years, which received some praise from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, real personal disposable incomes stand at an all-time high. Thanks to our policies of tax reform, we have created a climate in which businesses can thrive and in which individual initiative and risk-taking are rewarded. The consequence has been a transformation in our fortunes, an almost unprecedented expansion in our economy, a steady increase in employment opportunities and real improvements in living standards for all groups of the population.
These figures have been quoted before in your Lordship's House but they bear repeating. Real take-home pay for a married man with two children on male average earnings has risen by nearly one-third under this Government. Over the past year alone the real take-home pay of a married man on average male earnings, including the effect of the £3 a week reduction in national insurance contributions introduced last October, has risen by over £20 a week. In the numerous families where both partners are working, the overall increase will have been even greater.
1580
The growth in prosperity to which I and other noble Lords have referred has been reflected in the spread of personal ownership and major changes in the lifestyles of people in all groups. One has only to look at the increased availability and ownership in consumer durables to see this. It is perfectly valid to have regard to trends in ownership of all kinds of goods throughout the range of incomes—indeed, this is a factor which cannot be ignored when considering living standards. It is not merely that colour televisions, central heating, telephones and washing machines now form part of the ordinary experience of millions of citizens in this country; the fact that such items are owned to an increased extent among all groups and not just by the so-called "rich" is itself a fair indicator of the widespread wealth to which I referred. These are not just long-term trends. The recently published Family Expenditure Survey for 1989 contained some interesting analyses, showing, for example, that amoung households headed by a retired person mainly dependent on state benefits there were dramatic increases between 1979 and 1988 in ownership of central heating, telephones and washing machines.
Over the past 10 years there has been a steady decline in the number of pensioners on low incomes. Indeed, if we look at the proportion of pensioners in the bottom fifth of the national income distribution we find that it has declined from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 24 per cent. in 1987. As a group pensioners have done well under this Government. Their average total net incomes over the period between 1979 and 1987 grew by 31·3 per cent. in real terms, which amounts to over 3·5 per cent. a year on average compared with 0·6 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979.
Pensioners' average income from savings increased by 130 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1987, an increase of more than 10 per cent. a year compared with a decrease of 3·4 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979. Pensioners' incomes increased in real terms twice as fast as those for the population as a whole between 1979 and 1987. Moreover, 52 per cent. of all pensioners and 73 per cent. of recently retired pensioners now have an occupational pension and approximately half of all pensioners own their own homes. I want to place these figures on the record because I believe it is important for the House to be aware of the very real improvements that have been made in recent years for a group which is commonly believed to have fared less well than is borne out by the facts.
Perhaps at this stage I should mention the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Carter, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Seear, on the link with earnings. We believe that the link between the basic pension and earnings is not the key factor in improving pensioners' incomes. As I said, more important to pensioners is the value of their total income from all sources. Between 1974 and 1979 when pensions were increased in line with the higher of movements in prices or earnings, pensioners' average total net incomes increased by only 3 per cent. During our first eight years in office the real terms increase, as I have already said, has been 31 per cent.

1581
I am only too well aware that a myth is sometimes put around that the undoubted improvements in economic prosperity and personal incomes have only benefited those at the top of the income distribution. Indeed, we have heard it said during this debate that, although the better off may have become wealthier, the poor have become poorer. I do not deny for one moment that those at the higher end of the income distribution have done well. That was the proper and inevitable result of our measures to end some of the outrageous rates of tax referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which simply drove some of our most talented and creative people from the country.
Our programme of tax reform has sought to create a climate in which businesses can thrive and individual initiative, risk-taking and hard work are encouraged and rewarded. I believe that it was right to take steps to leave people with more of their own money so that they could choose for themselves what to do with it. All the evidence points to the fact that people not only at the higher end but also those further down have responded to these improvements in incentives by seizing the new opportunities available to them, improving their own living standards and those of their families. It is for this reason that the Government make no apology for the fact that the rich have got richer. But in any society in which you do not have a complete equality there will always be differences in purchasing power. What is quite untrue—indeed, it is a dangerously misleading myth—is to suggest that as a consequence of the greater prosperity of this country the poor have got poorer. The reality is quite the reverse.
I do not deny for one moment that some people have fared less well in recent years than others. We recognise that some people, for reasons of disability or other factors quite beyond their control, have to live on limited incomes and depend on what the state provides. It is precisely for this reason that the Government have sought to protect the position of those most in need. Retirement pensioners, the sick and disabled, families with children, all have had their position safeguarded and protected. Indeed, in many cases we have been able to go further and achieve real improvements in the position of those dependent on benefits. It is precisely because we recognise the importance of providing for people in need that we have devoted an unprecedented level of resources to social security.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, as well as other noble Lords, who implied that we had cut resources devoted to social security. In the coming financial year we are planning to spend a record £55 billion on social security. That is an enormous amount by any standards and represents an increase of one-third in real terms since we came to office. It amounts to over £20 per week for every man, woman and child in the country.
We have increased spending on the elderly by some 24 per cent. in real terms and on the long-term sick and disabled by some 90 per cent. in real terms since we came to office. The reforms which we introduced in April 1988 were designed to achieve precisely the objective that underlies the Motion before your Lordships' House today in the name of
1582
the noble Lord, Lord Carter—namely, to create a properly co-ordinated framework of benefits which is flexible enough to enable resources to be targeted more effectively on those who need them most.
Through the new system of income support, with its structure of personal allowances and premiums, we have been able to direct specific help to groups such as pensioners, families with children, lone parents and disabled people. Spending on family credit in 1988–89 at around £400 million was more than double the amount spent on its predecessor, family income supplement. Family credit now provides a significant tax-free cash income payable to over 300,000 low income working families with children. The average weekly payment is now around £27 and in nearly every case it is paid to the mother.
Going back to pensioners, we are aware of the problem of those with no occupational pensions to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred. That is why last October we used the new structure of income-related benefits to provide extra help for those less well off elderly and disabled pensioners. As a result of those changes, which cost some £200 million in a full year, some 2·6 million gained by up to £3·50 a week. The new structure has also enabled us to direct more help to low income families with children. The extra money being provided from this coming April for this group will bring the total amount of extra help provided to approximately 1·5 million families getting income-related benefits to over £350 million a year in real terms since April 1988.
In the short time that I have available I should like to answer various specific points raised by noble Lords. Obviously I cannot guarantee to answer every point that was put to me this afternoon as time is limited. However, I shall do my best. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the future of the Independent Living Fund. I appreciate the fact that he gave me advance notice of the question. As was made clear in the White Paper The Way Ahead that the noble Lord referred to, the wider arrangements for care in the community to take effect in 1991 envisage care packages devised by local authorities on an individual basis. We would therefore expect that people seeking help after that date should generally be able to look to local authorities. We shall be consulting local authorities on these proposed arrangements and in particular on the timetable for any transfer of existing cases and associated resources. The Government are consulting the fund's trustees, the Disablement Income Group and the Disablement Income Group, Scotland on the experience gained from running the fund and are examining whether there may be a very small group of people for whom supplementary arrangements may be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also mentioned the OPCS review of disability. Again the measures which my right honourable friend announced in The Way Ahead published on 10th January will introduce major improvements in the balance and structure of social security help for disabled people. They will provide an extra £300 million in 1993–94 on top of the £8.3 billion we are already spending on the long-term sick and disabled. These measures will

1583
help some 850,000 disabled people and carers. This is a generous response to the findings. I find it hard to see how that response can be classified as disappointing. As each of the reports of the OPCS disability survey findings were published, comments were invited and many disabled people and their organisations made comments. The proposals in The Way Ahead, which, as I said, was published on 10th January, took account not only of the survey findings but also of the comments we received. We have not only invited comments on the proposals but have sent a copy of them to a wide range of disability organisations inviting their comments. We shall, as we always do, take account of their comments in working out detailed arrangements for these proposals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], touched on child benefits, as did various other noble Lords. The Government's decision not to uprate child benefit this year has already been discussed. I do not propose to repeat in detail the arguments which I put forward when we discussed those regulations—that an increase in child benefit at a net cost of some £250 million would have given relatively small amounts to large numbers of families who cannot be said to need it. It is difficult to see how such a move could have been justified in the terms of the Motion before your Lordships today, which seeks to draw attention to the fact that it is the less well-off rather than the rich who need the help which the state can provide. More to the point, it would have done nothing at all to help the 3 million children (almost a quarter of all children) in families receiving income support and family credit because these benefits are adjusted to take account of changes in child benefit. As I reminded your Lordships earlier, the average weekly payment of family credit is around £27. It is difficult to see how a universal child benefit could ever provide this level of help for low income families and still remain affordable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, implied that we were in breach of our manifesto commitment. Let me say that the future level of child benefit will continue to be determined at the annual review of benefit rates and its level will be decided in the light of circumstances at the time. That is in accordance with the existing law and it fully honours our manifesto pledge that child benefit will continue to be paid as now and directly to the mother. That is what we shall continue to do.
We are often accused—the suggestion has again been made during the course of this debate—of putting too much emphasis on the success of the economy. This success was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Joseph and I wish he could have spoken to us for longer than the time that, sadly, he was limited to. The strength of the economy was also stressed, as I was pleased to note, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. However, I submit to your Lordships that the emphasis we have placed on generating wealth has clearly paid off, not only in terms of restoring a sound economic framework but also in terms of protecting and improving the living standards even of those who are less well off.
1584
This policy has paid off because it has encouraged people to help themselves where they can, rewarding industry, initiative and hard work. But at the same time we have done what any caring society must do. We have protected those who cannot provide for themselves, giving help without sapping the will to stand up by one's own efforts. We have sought to put an end to the attitude which says "You won't do any better whatever you do".
The conclusion that I draw is that the most important contribution that the state can make in promoting welfare is not to be found in ambitious projects of social engineering. It is to be found in an economic framework in which people can generate wealth and resources which enable not only their own families to prosper but also enable those who are less well off to share in this prosperity. I hope that your Lordships' House will endorse that conclusion tonight.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate. The debate has been in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. It has dealt with a central problem of social policy; sincerely held differences of view have been expressed cogently; and there has been constructive criticism.
As there are a few moments left before we reach the end of the allotted time, I should like to take up a few points. I emphasise to the Minister and noble Lords on the other side of the House that when we spoke of poverty we were speaking of relative poverty rather than actual poverty. What is crucial is how the poor feel in relation to the rest of society.
The Minister referred, correctly, to substantial increases in expenditure on social security. However, he omitted to say that the vast proportion of that increase is due to an increase in the number of claimants and the number of unemployed; the real value of benefits has declined in many cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said that he could not believe many of the figures that I quoted. I suggest that he discusses his problem with the Government's own statistical service because I was very careful to quote entirely from official statistics. Those statistics show that it is not true that wealth has been more fairly shared in the past 10 years.
I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and with the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that I had not said what we would do on this side of the House. The Minister said that I was fantasising. Those remarks baffle me. I listed some 20 or more specific changes of policy that will be introduced by the next Labour Government. I did not mention all of the proposed changes, but they are all contained in our policy document.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I only used the word "fantasy" because I thought it was so unlikely that the noble Lord and his friends would ever have the chance to put those policies into operation.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we shall have to wait and see. The policies are clearly stated in the Labour Party policy and review document which is available to all.
I repeat my thanks to all those who have spoken and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Legal Aid
5.22 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon rose to call attention to the 39th annual reports of the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation in advance to all those who have put their names down to speak. So many of them carry the weight of deep authority on the matter of legal aid on which I wish to address the House.
The reports to which I refer in the Motion include a preface written by the chairman of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. In that preface she says that the year under review is one of the most active years that the committee can remember. That is quite right, I imagine, because during that year—1989—legal aid was handed over to the Legal Aid Board in the April, there was the White Paper on legal services, there was the Courts and Legal Services Bill which is still before this House, and there was the Children Act.
That is very fine and very true. However, the sad fact is that it has not by any manner of means been the most positive year for remedying the critical inadequacies of legal aid funding and availability. As many of your Lordships have said from time to time in debates upon matters which affect the citizen and law, it is extremely easy to pass such enactments but one has to remember the principle, upon which I believe everyone in the House is united, that if there is to be justice that justice must be available to all, regardless of means.
Against that background I look first at the question of eligibility for legal aid. When the Legal Aid Bill, which became the Legal Aid Act 1988, was debated in this House I remember the beloved voice of the late Lord Elwyn-Jones pleading with the Government to consider at that time what was being done regarding eligibility for legal aid. It is not a matter which is any way cured by the annual review which takes place when the basic amount is uprated by some 5·2 per cent. That merely keeps the lower limit in line with inflation and with the increase in social security benefits.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that it would be an extremely good idea, which I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider and agree to in tonight's debate, if, because of its vital import, this was a matter which was properly debated once a year instead of being dealt with by way of a negative resolution.
I turn now to the size of the problem of eligibility. One remembers that the noble and learned Lord, who is always forthcoming on matters on which he feels that the public and the House should be informed, had been somewhat timid over a considerable period when pressed to say what the drop in eligibility had been under this Government. On 13th November of last year he announced that there was to be a review regarding eligibility. I believe that I am right in saying that when that statement was made at a press conference he was pressed to say what had happened regarding eligbility so far. The answer that he gave on that occasion was that, as against the oft-quoted 1987 White Paper figure of 70 per cent. of the population being covered by legal aid, in November 1989 that figure was down to around 56 per cent. That meant a drop of 14 per cent. in just over two years. Translated into human statistics, that meant that 9 million people who were covered by the legal aid scheme in 1987 were no longer covered by the scheme in November 1989.
In addition, at about the same time the senior lecturer in the Department of Statistical and Mathematical Sciences at London University published an analysis of government statistics. His report showed that during the period 1979 to 1989 14 million people, or 5.5 million households, were no longer eligible for the scheme. Those are pretty dreadful figures.
One might have thought that I should not be making this speech at this time in view of my statement that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had said last November that an eligibility exercise—a review of the financial criteria for eligibility—was taking place. It started in January of this year against the rather morbid background of an announcement by the noble and learned Lord that the result of the review might not be with us for three years. In the midst of that period we have had to discuss the Courts and Legal Services Bill. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will disabuse everyone of the wicked thought that that review is possibly being postponed in order to enable the Bill to become an enactment without having to deal with the subject about which I am talking; namely, the huge reduction in eligibility for the legal aid scheme.
Quite apart from the lecturer at London University, the Law Society, which I hope noble Lords will agree is reliable, has made its own calculations on the issue of eligibility. It has done so on a different basis but perhaps one which is more appealing to noble Lords as showing the extent of the problem. It has prepared calculations based on accurate data. It concluded that a male head of a household with earnings of two-thirds of the national average must now pay a considerable portion of his gross earnings in contributions to qualify for legal aid, compared with no contribution at all on his part in 1979, while those with one-and-a-half times national average earnings have gone out of the scheme altogether. It is not only those figures which have hit people in this country; everyone knows that the costs of litigation itself have gone up during that period.
I reiterate that this is a serious problem and it is no wonder that the advisory committee commented on it. I should like to refer to its comments. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me when I say that there is no point in setting up an advisory committee and asking people to give up their valuable time in order to serve on it, prepare a report and make a recommendation if the recommendation has no effect. Paragraph 8 on page 88 of the advisory committee's report states:
"The issue of eligibility for legal aid has long been a concern of the Committee. We welcome your Lordship's announcement of 13th November, 1989 of changes to some eligibility limits and a review of the financial conditions for legal aid. We are pleased that this review will address the problem of financial eligibility in general because, as we stated in our 38th Report, eligibility levels should not be allowed to drift downwards. Nevertheless, the planned period of up to three years for the review is lengthy; this is a source of some anxiety to us in that such a downward drift might gather momentum over this time. We hope that every endeavour will therefore be made to expedite the review."
It would be ungracious of me if I did not refer to the fact that, at the same time as the noble and learned Lord announced that the review would take place, he announced that there would be some changes; namely, an increase in civil legal aid eligibility for children, pensioners and people involved in personal injury cases, the total cost of which would be about £5 million. That is welcome. I do not want to be churlish and say that it was long overdue, but there were pressures for that change over a considerable period of time. However, the committee goes only a small way to reversing what I can only call those savage cuts in legal aid which have been made by the Government in the past few years. It makes no changes in the entitlement to legal advice and assistance which is restricted to the very poor and even excludes some social security benefit claimants.
What do I from these Benches ask of the noble and learned Lord with, I hope, the agreement of noble Lords in all parts of the House? First, I ask for a broad approach to restore the cuts in allowances and an increase in capital limits to take account of inflation over the past 10 years. That is the very least that we must ask for. Secondly, I ask for an expedition of that review so that it may make its recommendations before the end of the year. I should have thought that that was a perfectly reasonable period. Finally, I ask that consultation takes place with interested organisations such as the Law Society and the Bar Council or, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, might prefer me to say, the Bar Council and the Law Society. I do not think that the time in which I hoped the review would be completed becomes unreasonable merely because I have asked for consultations.
I am conscious of the time and must deal quickly with a few other subjects. I wish to mention first the critical situation with regard to criminal legal aid. I ask the noble and learned Lord to appreciate the crisis. At the time of the uprating in April 1989—this is what I am told by the Law Society and I therefore hope that noble Lords will believe that it is reliable information—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had available to him jointly agreed evidence in the form of a profitability survey. That
1588
showed—I say this slowly because I want it to have a proper effect on noble Lords—that only 40 per cent. of solicitors' firms undertaking criminal legal aid work in London and 33 per cent. of such firms in the provinces were able to avoid making a loss on the work at the rates that were then paid. The Law Society contended that that was clear evidence arguing for a major rise in rates. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor decided to increase the rates by only some 6 per cent., which was an effective cut in the real value of the rates, thus pushing more firms into loss.
There have been discussions leading to the uprating to be made on 1st April this year. Those discussions have only just concluded. During those discussions there were two major pieces of hard evidence available on which the Lord Chancellor could base his decision. First, there was a jointly prepared and agreed index of solicitors' overheads. That showed that for the last two years for which figures were available (April 1987 to April 1989) the overheads faced by solicitors who undertook criminal legal work rose by some 27 per cent. There was also evidence from statistics provided by the Legal Aid Board to show that the number of firms doing criminal legal aid work was now reducing. That is a reversal of a previous trend.
Based on that evidence the Law Society advocated an increase in the rates of 21 per cent. because if firms literally are going out of business in doing criminal legal work, goodness only knows where our whole system of criminal justice will end up. I invite the noble and learned Lord to comment on these matters, especially when I inform the House that in the face of that request the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has apparently decided to increase the rates by only 7.5 per cent.
I could address the House on other matters raised in the reports which are of vital interest. There is the question of legal aid for tribunals; there are the advisory regional committees, which are not being funded centrally at all and should be; there are multi-party actions; and there are other such matters which are of great interest. However, other noble Lords are to participate in this debate. There are questions of conciliation raised in the report. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, nods her head. That is a matter of great importance to your Lordships and nobody could address the House with more authority on such a subject than the noble Baroness.
I simply draw the attention of all noble Lords to the fact that there is a crisis with regard to legal aid. The name of legal aid must continue as a matter of pride in our system of justice. It does not deserve that pride at the moment and that pride has to be restored. I beg to move for Papers.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, this debate which is based on two reports poses a very real dilemma for your Lordships and in particular the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Figures published by the Attorney General showed that in 1979 the cost of legal aid in this country was £100 million. By 1989 the cost has risen to more than £550 million.

1589
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to whom we are indebted for this debate, will wish me to say how money that is not now being spent should be spent and then to suggest ways in which money could be saved so that the legal aid system has a balanced budget, if I may so put it.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with regard to solicitors' pay. My family happens to be in the solicitor world. It is not a matter only of payments and salaries; there are rents, the cost of secretaries' salaries and the rising costs of running an office. Those costs affect everybody at the moment and not only solicitors; but in the case of solicitors it means that although some of them do not wish to stop doing legal aid work many of them have to do so because otherwise inevitably their offices would have to close. I speak with feeling because I know by how much the rents will increase.
With regard to how money should be spent and where it is not being spent at the moment, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned tribunals, and they are discussed on page 112 of the report. The effectiveness of legal representations in some tribunals is essential, although it is not essential in all cases. However, it would save the country a great deal of money if some tribunal cases were so dealt with. That is mentioned in the Genn report which does not recommend a blanket extension of legal aid throughout.
As has been said many times during the course of our debates on the Courts and Legal Services Bill, money could be saved in the county courts if they were more efficiently run. It could also be saved in the magistrates' courts. In an address to the Magistrates' Association in 1982 the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, estimated that waiting time on the day of hearing was costing the legal aid fund approximately £9·5 million. I suggest that money could be saved if the magistrates' courts were more efficiently run.
I know that the noble and learned Lord has sympathetic feelings toward family courts. If family courts were to be set up in this country I believe that they would save money on legal aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned conciliation services. Newcastle University brought out a report which I think took two or three years to produce. It is in many ways a very good report and contains a great deal of valuable information. Unfortunately it was inconclusive as to whether conciliation would or would not save money on legal aid. I believe that it would. However, it is difficult to be certain when one cannot point to definite figures.
Although I have put the point to him before, I again say to the noble and learned Lord that if the Treasury were to advance a certain sum so that the conciliation service could be financed out of a Treasury grant (say for two years), one could then find out whether or not it saved the country money in terms of legal aid. That is the only way in which one can prove it, although I believe that it could do so. That mechanism has been used before in other areas, notably in the field of juvenile delinquency in setting up intermediate treatment.
1590
I also ask the noble and learned Lord how the Children Act 1989 is to be administered with regard to legal aid. Whatever happens I suggest that in all cases legal aid must be readily available. It is for the wellbeing of the children in the cases concerned and partly for the saving of money in respect of legal aid. I feel slightly embarrassed in that I have sitting next to me the chairman of the advisory committee. Nevertheless I ask the noble and learned Lord to tell us the future of the advisory committee. On reading the report it seems to me that the advisory committee has done much to bring before your Lordships' House and the country both the good points and the difficulties. It seems to me that it would be a great pity—considering that all the people who serve on that committee are volunteers and people of very high quality—if that committee were to be cut back. I for one would be very sorry to see that happen.
With the utmost diffidence I wish to make a suggestion which bypasses the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I do so with diffidence and I hope that I shall not be thought presumptuous. I have been a civil servant in two government departments and a chief officer in local government. I suggest that the noble and learned Lord's department is not adequately staffed. I believe that not enough money is going into it. We depend greatly on his department. It would be difficult for me to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could take on more staff and have more money. Therefore from these Benches I bypass him and make a plea to the Treasury that the Treasury should consider the noble and learned Lord's department. It may be necessary to have a management survey. I believe that more money is needed for the department. If more were available more work could be done. I feel sure that he will welcome the suggestion and I hope that he will not consider me presumptuous in making it.
5.50 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I spoke almost exclusively on this subject on the Second Reading of the Courts and Legal Services Bill. However, I feel very strongly that the effective denial of recourse to the High Court for a large number of citizens must be stressed again in this debate. That has already been done.
The cost of a High Court action is usually so great that without legal aid only the really rich can afford it. Surely that raises a major matter of principle. We cannot rightly talk about the rule of law while that situation continues.
Fairly recently the BBC was sued for a serious matter of defamation. It managed to spin out the proceedings until the plaintiff could no longer afford the costs of continuing the action. Fortunately someone agreed to underwrite the costs; and the BBC immediately settled out of court. That is a very sorry tale, but there are other even more unscrupulous cases where, for example, a man or a firm is ruined by a trumped up case which they cannot afford to defend.
When legal aid was set up 40 years ago—and I am speaking of civil legal aid—it was available to more than 80 per cent. of the population. Today the figure

1591
is about 50 per cent., with a cut-off point for those earning 6 per cent. above the average male earnings.
The Government's green form scheme is welcomed, but the effect will be small since only £5 million more is being made available. Giving the county courts greater jurisdiction will help but the gap, about which I have spoken, remains a glaring example of the failure of the fairness of our legal aid system.
The Government may not substantially raise the existing eligibility level for legal aid but that is not really the point that I am trying to make. I believe that legal aid should be available to everybody on a graded basis. There are of course other possibilities but the unfairness that I pointed out can be eliminated only if everyone is to some degree able to obtain legal aid.
We now have legal aid boards, which screen applications to ascertain litigants' means and the merits of the case. Surely therefore such a graded scheme as I am suggesting would not mean setting up a new organisation to manage it. Although I have mentioned only the graded scheme, there are variations and other possibilities. However, I certainly do not support merely raising the existing cut-off level by a small degree.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, habitually puts us in his debt by his cogency and skill, and perhaps most of all by his courtesy in debate which means much to us on the Back-Benches and the Cross-Benches. He has again put your Lordships in his debt by introducing this subject at this time. He has absolutely no need to apologise for the timing. Not only is the subject most important, but it throws a great deal of light on the Bill that we have been debating for so long and so late into the night and the early morning—the Courts and Legal Services Bill.
One of the interesting matters about this quite admirable report by the advisory committee—and it is a privilege to say that in the presence of the chairman of the committee—is that the report bears out in so many respects the misgivings that have been expressed about the effects of the Courts and Legal Services Bill.
Perhaps I may take up a point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I have long been convinced that conciliation would save a great deal of money, and already saves a substantial amount of money in an area which forms one of the biggest demands on the legal aid fund; namely, matrimonial jurisdiction. I concur with the noble Baroness. I should like to see a system of family courts which would integrate any conciliation system. I believe that it would cost money. All the schemes and returns that I have seen indicate that it would not be an inexpensive exercise, at any rate immediately. But I am sure that in the end it would save money. I am convinced that it would save marriages.
The most important factor in that sphere is to relieve the strain that is inherent in the conduct of matrimonial proceedings and in their consequences.
1592
I should like to see nobody seeking to obtain a matrimonial decree who had not sought help from a system of concilation on matters of controversy. I do not think that complete reconciliation has very real prospect at that stage. But we can ensure that those items that are susceptible to conciliation and agreement are taken out of the struggle so that nobody seeks adjudication who has not already shed the other matters of great controversy. Those generally carry greater pain for the parties than the main issue of whether a marriage should be terminated.
I have always been attracted by the structure of the French conseils d'état where one has an administrative court through which people must pass before going to the court of adjudication. That is what I should like to see in a family court: conciliation, welfare assistance and counselling, and so on, with only those matters taken to adjudication which cannot be made the subject of agreement.
The other point I wish to make as a background is this. It seems to me unreal at this moment to expect more money. The noble Baroness said—as people say so often—that the Treasury must cough up. I do not think she used so vulgar a term but that is, in effect, what she meant. However, the Treasury has no money of its own any more than my noble and learned friend's department has money of its own; all it can do is oversee the collection of taxpayers' money and ensure that it is paid out in accordance with the desire of Parliament.
However, this is a very bad time to expect more money, and one of the disturbing aspects of this admirable report is that it indicates that in many respects more money will be required merely to mitigate the effect on legal aid of the Courts and Legal Services Bill. It deals with three matters of which I shall only mention the first two. The first is the effect on the high street solicitors and the second is the effect on the junior Bar. The third relates to contingency fees which no doubt we shall be able to discuss tomorrow.
With regard to high street solicitors, the report echoes exactly the anxieties voiced in this Chamber when we were discussing the multi-disciplinary partnerships. My noble and learned friend Lord Templeman made a powerful speech when he examined the subject thoroughly and spoke with great authority. After that it was hardly controvertible that the loss of conveyancing fees would be a serious blow to the high street solicitors and would force many of them out of business.
My noble and learned friend replied that he did not share that apprehension, that he thought that the high street solicitors would be able to advertise and thereby survive. That reflects something that was put more delicately in the report when it refers to energetic marketing. However, Milton Friedman's observation that there is no such thing as a free lunch has passed as a truism into the language. Certainly there is no such thing as a free advertisement. An advertisement adds to the overheads which are passed on to the client or the customer. In that respect, therefore, there will be an increase in the cost of litigation which has already been cogently adverted to in the speech preceding mine.

1593
The second point concerns the junior Bar. The report again echoes the anxieties expressed by your Lordships. In fact, the advisory committee is less sombre and pessimistic than I am. The committee believes that the Bar will survive as an institution, though it expects an attenuation. I should be very surprised if there are any more than surviving pockets of what is the present Bar.
The reason for that is that so far as I am aware no one has answered the question asked by the late Lord Gardiner. Lord Gardiner drew attention to the risks that throughout face a barrister. He also drew attention to the, no longer penury no doubt, but the difficulties at the start of a career, particularly compared to the start in other professions. He asked, "Why should anyone become a barrister when he could avoid those risks and sidestep those difficulties by becoming a solicitor?" Therefore, it seems to me that the advisory committee is absolutely right in facing the clear possibility that large firms of solicitors will recruit young barristers into in-house advocacy departments. That again, as the advisory committee points out, will restrict the sources on which legal aid can draw. Moreover, it points in relation to both of those matters that it will cost money even to mitigate those difficulties; money which, as I suggested, is certainly not available at the moment and in the future is likely to have to compete with various other social causes.
We, as lawyers—the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, knows more about the law than any of us—obviously put justice very high, if not the highest, in the list of social causes, but there are others. One can hardly attend the House at Question Time without hearing a cry for funding, generally massive funding. It is those matters, too, that will inhibit the availability of funds even to mitigate the dangers inherent in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, there are many aspects to be dealt with, but I prefer to leave those matters to others and to concentrate only on the two points I have raised—the effect of the Bill on the high street solicitors and the effect on the junior Bar with its repercussions on the availability of legal aid.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I confine my speech to three subjects: the eligibility limits, the extension of legal aid to tribunals (industrial, immigration and social security) and the impact that the Courts and Legal Services Bill may have on access to legal aid for those who need it; essentially the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
The issue of the eligibility limits is now to be seen against a background of declining usage of legal aid. When addressing the Law Society conference at Cardiff in October 1988 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor felt able to claim that over the previous five years the number of legal aid certificates issued had increased by nearly one-third. In fact, when the figures in the 38th and 39th annual reports are taken into account the increase is only 6.75 per cent. The figures appear on page 25 of the 39th report. The reason is a fall—virtually for the
1594
first time—in the number of certificates issued during 1988–1989.
In paragraph 121 of its 38th report—the report for the year prior to the year covered by the 39th report now under debate—the advisory committee drew attention to the research of Mr. Cyril Glasser and,
"to the probability that under 60 per cent. of households and only just over half of the population are now eligible for legal aid".
The committee continued:
"We find the position extremely worrying. We arc concerned that eligibility levels should not be allowed to drift downwards".
The committee concluded that:
"in view of the real hardship that is now faced by those of moderate means who do not qualify for legal aid we would like to see an independent review of eligibility levels and how they are determined".
I emphasise "independent review".
Therefore, in December 1988 the advisory committee was calling for an independent review. The Government took a whole year to react. In the meantime there was further research published again by Mr. Glasser and also the research referred to by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, that conducted by Mr. Michael Murphy, the senior statistician at the LSE, showing that the position was almost certainly even worse than had been assumed. I repeat Mr. Murphy's conclusion given by my noble friend Lord Mishcon that 14 million people in 5·5 million households no longer qualify for civil legal aid and legal advice and assistance compared with 1979 when the Government came into power. That is so startling a statistic from such an authority that it merits repetition.
What are the Government doing? With respect, I would say that what they are doing comes too late, will take too long and is too little. I say that it is too late because the Government have had compelling evidence before them since as long ago as 1987 of the decline in eligibility. However, it was not until November 1989 that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack announced a review of the financial conditions for the granting of legal aid. The review would begin its work in January of this year and would require as long as two or three years to complete its work. That is a lethargic timescale which calls for explanation. Therefore, I add my voice to what has already come from my noble friend Lord Mishcon.
That sluggish timescale gives the impression of a decision to kick the issue into touch for the balance of this Parliament. May the House be told what there is about the nature and difficulty of this review which prevents completion in six months from commencement? Typically, my noble friend Lord Mishcon was more generous than I and suggested the year end. Two to three years to most people brings an entirely new dimension to the concept of the law's delays.
I say that it is too little because the Government have not responded to the calls for an independent review. The review is to be conducted by officials from the noble and learned Lord's department and the Legal Aid Board. It should not be inhouse but

1595
should be independent. However, because it is inhouse, the delay is all the more inexplicable. I invite the noble and learned Lord, when replying to the debate, to say whether it is possible for him to meet the plea from his own advisory committee that the report be expedited.
The advisory committee calls attention to recent research commissioned by the noble and learned Lord's own department showing that representation before tribunals enhances the quality of justice. I refer in particular to the industrial, immigration and social security tribunals. As so often with research, it confirms what experienced practitioners know from their daily experience. There is no greater injustice which I personally have witnessed than the inequality between the unrepresented applicant worker and the represented employer in the industrial tribunals. Those tribunals daily make awards of many thousands of pounds for unfair dismissal, redundancy and discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. Their proceedings regularly involve much greater sums of money than in the county court where legal aid is available.
Contrary to what is often said to resist the extension of legal aid to these tribunals, the law that they apply is as complex, the formality of their proceedings is as great, the need for skilled professional cross-examination and legal argument is as extensive as the ordinary courts of law. There is no doubt that in many cases representation affects the results. If it affects the results, it affects the quality of justice. I should be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord say in his reply whether he has any plans for ensuring that legal aid is made available for those classes of tribunal case—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that it should not be for every case—where equal justice will be secured only by representation.
That part of the advisory committee report has particular point because it was only about a fortnight ago that the Government announced that claims for damages for breach of employment contracts are to be transferred to industrial tribunals. At present, those claims can be brought only in the High Court and county court where legal aid is available. I have no objection in principle to the transfer of this class of case to the industrial tribunal. Indeed, it is natural that they should be there since unfair dismissal cases are already there and the issues in both class of proceedings overlap.
However, the transfer is thoroughly objectionable in view of the absence of legal aid in industrial tribunals. Is it the Government's intention by that transfer to deprive dismissed employees of legal aid for wrongful dismissal in breach of contract? I should have thought that that is an area where there is very little to fear on the costs front provided legal aid applications are properly and carefully examined to see if the claims have merit and the legal aid charge on money recovered is retained. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will find time when replying to this debate to reveal to us his current thinking on the extension or not of legal aid to those tribunals.
1596
Finally, I turn to Part III of the report which I venture to suggest is important. I am conscious that I am covering ground traversed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, I do that in the very particular context of what the committee actually said and the relevance of what it said to legal aid.
The committee welcomed much of the Courts and Legal Services Bill but it struck a cautionary note. It acknowledges:
"The Legal Aid Act 1988 creates important opportunities for the future development of legal aid and legal services".
Paragraph 77 then states:
"It is vital that any re-organisation of the legal profession should complement, not detract from, those opportunities".
In particular, the committee drew attention to the risk that if the financial institutions succeed in taking over a substantial share of the conveyancing market then, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, the viability of many solicitors' firms may well be impaired with the attendant risk that some might disappear and others might shed their legal aid work, formerly subsidised by conveyancing income, in favour of more remunerative areas of practice.
The most obvious remedy which the committee identified was to improve remuneration for legally-aided work to make it attractive and reasonably profitable. The other danger which the committee identified was a reduction in the size of the Bar due to the extension of advocacy rights to solicitors. It did not prophesy doom but it prophesied that there would be a smaller pool of independent barristers from which solicitors can choose for legal aid work. Paragraph 68 states:
"If, as we expect, the major impact of the Government's proposals is initially on the younger members of the junior Bar, the legally aided client is likely to be most affected by any diminution in the quality of service, because it has traditionally been younger banisters who have done much of the legal aid work, particularly in criminal and matrimonial matters".
That statement from an experienced committee such as this must be taken seriously.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord when he replies will feel able to assuage these anxieties on the basis that he has a clear structural view—and can tell us what it is—of how the size and structure of the professions of the providers of legal services are likely to be affected by the implementation of his current Bill.
I should also welcome the noble and learned Lord commenting, if he feels able, on whether he accepts the principle urged by the advisory committee at paragraph 69 of,
"ensuring that legal aid rates of remuneration do not compare unfavourably with privately paid work".
That surely is the only guarantee that those whose only access to justice is through legal aid will in practice have access to legal services of sufficient quality to be consistent with their securing justice.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, dealt with the effect of the legal services part of the recent Bill upon legal aid because it enables me to shorten my speech to

1597
some extent. I should like to endorse what he has said in that part of his speech.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the fair-minded and temperate way in which he laid the foundations of this debate. There is very great anxiety with regard to legal aid as it is at present. He particularly took up the points about the review of eligibility taking perhaps as long as three years. That is not an acceptable length of time because in three years many changes can take place and they are not likely in present circumstances to be changes for the better. We are likely to see a deterioration. It is therefore most important that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor responds to the request made on both sides of the House that the review should be shortened.
I sympathise with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor because we know that in the matter of legal aid he, like his predecessors, has to depend to some extent upon the financial position of the country. We shall know a little more after next week's Budget what luck he is likely to have, but I do not think that we should raise his hopes very high. It is largely a question of doing the best with what we have. The very thoughtful report of the advisory committee, presided over by my noble friend Lady Park, contains various ways in which we can hope for a better expenditure of the limited funds available.
Perhaps I may deal with the remuneration of the two branches of the legal profession. My noble friend Lady Faithfull, with regard to solicitors dealing with criminal legal aid work, said that they were really suffering and that some might go under. I must point out, on first-hand evidence from two members of my family who do some legal aid work mainly in that part of their practice which is in the Family Division, that the fees are very tough indeed.
It is many years since I was a junior barrister, but in the days when one appeared, whether in matrimonial cases or in civil actions in the High Court or on Assize, there was a rule which was faithfully followed: that for legal aid work we received five-sixths of what was regarded as the scale fee or a reasonable fee in the circumstances. That rule has long since gone. I do not know whether there is any hope of it coming back in the foreseeable future, but when the fee was five-sixths we were only too happy to accept legal aid work. With the high rates of taxation, there was not much difference between legal aid and the run-of-the-mill civil work. I mention that to point out that it is not only solicitors who are feeling the pinch where legal aid work is concerned; junior barristers are also doing so.
I return to the report. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said. I endorse what was said about the effect of the legal services Bill with regard to the quality and so on of those who will carry on with legal aid in the new circumstances. However, for the sake of the record we should have the report and the opinion of the advisory committee on the conditional fee arrangements quoted very specifically. I make no apology therefore for reading out what the committee actually said so that it gets into the record of this important debate.
1598
With regard to conditional fees, paragraph 74 at page 101 states that the committee is pleased to note that the Government rejected any type of fee involving a proportion of whatever damages are obtained. However, the committee also says:
"We remain somewhat apprehensive, however, regarding the proposal to allow conditional fees with a percentage addition to the normal costs. Although the possibility of serious conflicts of interest arising in such cases is probably remote, it should be ensured that any uplift of this type is unlikely to impair impartiality in the conduct of a case".
It is very important that we should take note of that.
Paragaph 76 is not very long and I shall read the whole of it:
"We are also concerned to ensure that the availability of conditional fees is not perceived as a reason for not maintaining legal aid eligibility levels, and for not extending legal aid to those areas where it is presently unavailable but much needed. For the reasons outlined above, we do not regard the arrangements for conditional fees as a realistic alternative to legal aid".
That paragraph expresses views that have been aired in all parts of your Lordships' House. However, I think in both branches of the profession there is still, in spite of the denial issued by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in reply to comments I made at Committee stage, this feeling—that conditional fees, when they are introduced in order to save legal aid, will not be used for extending legal aid to the desired extent. We must be very careful about that.
I do not envy my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the problems which confront him on legal aid. They are not of his creation and they are not of the creation, let me hasten to add, of his predecessors either. I hope I am not using the expression frivolously—my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham may think I am—but the truth is that the terms of trade have altered. We must take note of that and do all that we can to mitigate the results of it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it was quite some time ago that I appeared before the Court of Appeal presided over by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning. I had more than the usual thin veneer of self-confidence, because I had a case not only dead in point but one decided by his Lordship the Master of the Rolls. Having trotted it out with that air of confidence, he said, "Oh, but that was 17 years ago".
I do not know whether the same applies in this debate, because it was only six-and-a-half years ago that the Government produced a White Paper which was the Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, and it dealt with a wide variety of recommendations by the Benson Commission, as it has been known, a large proportion of which have been repudiated within the last year by the Government's Green Paper.
I do not go back on them. I go straight to the recommendation with regard to legal aid and that is to be found on page 10, right at the bottom. It reads:
"The Government believes that legal aid should be available to assist those of small or moderate"—
and I emphasise that—
"means by giving them the same chance to pursue or defend their legal rights as those in a position to instruct lawyers privately,

1599
provided that it has been shown that there are reasonable grounds for pursuing or defending the rights in question".
Those sentiments are certainly not being carried out in practice now. Those of moderate means cannot afford without legal aid to litigate and they are not any longer eligible. It is not appreciated as fully as it should be that legal services are by their very nature expensive. So are accountancy services; so are any services that are labour intensive.
I had the pleasure of addressing the undergraduates at Exeter University last month, giving the annual Bracton Law Lecture, and I made the point to them, which will be well known to your Lordships, of how much costs have changed in those matters which are work intensive. I gave them, first, the example of the plumber who before the war one could pay, quite happily, five shillings, or 25p, to repair a leak in a pipe or put a washer on a tap. It now costs 100 times that, £25 in London at least, to get a plumber to cross the threshold. I also instanced the hairdresser. In my undergraduate days I went to Austin Reed's. It cost one shilling, or 5p, with threepence in those days for the tip, making 64p. The cost is now more than 100 times that figure.
Going to the other end of the scale, the most expensive firm for handmade shoes in London, in Bond Street, before the war charged 7 guineas, which is £7.35p. I phoned its counterpart that still exists and a handmade pair of brogues now, without VAT, costs over £800. Therefore the indication that a professional man now charges £200 an hour is only an indication that his figure before the war of £2 per hour has gone up in that sort of proportion.
It has not gone up to that extent at the Bar, so I understand, because, if one takes the figure appropriate for a half-hour conference before the war, it was one guinea. It is now not for the junior barrister, unless he has had to read a whole series of papers, 100 guineas. I am told that it is in the region of £50 to £70. But in legal aid. I am told, the figure which is laid down for a barrister's conference of one hour—that is, twice the one guinea, because the one guinea was for half an hour—is £28. So the cost has gone up not 100 times, like so many labour-intensive activities, but 14 times. That is all. That is an indication—and I am sure that the same sort of approach applies equally to solicitors—of the sacrifice that is being made by the profession to enable legal aid to be provided, but still eligibility is kept right down.
May I go now to the Government's philosophy as we have learned to understand it, if understand we can? It is encapsulated in that often quoted incantation: free competition will ensure through market discipline the most efficient and effective network of legal services at the most economic price.
I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor recalls a 21st anniversary dinner at Birmingham which he attended a little less than a year ago. I have a picture. I do not know whether it was taken before or after the dinner, but he was looking remarkably healthy. At that dinner Sir Gordon Borrie made the after-dinner speech and he said this, which relates so much to the philosophy which I have just quoted:
1600
"The free play of market forces is of no use to the significant and rising proportion of the population who cannot afford to enter the market and are not eligible for legal aid".
He went on to say:
"It is essential for the Government to give an unequivocal commitment that public support will be available to pay for essential legal services that cannot otherwise be afforded. Gradual rises in individual prosperity are not enough to make up for serious deficiences in the funding of legal advice".
The unequivocal commitment which Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading, thought the Government should give has not been given at all. All that has been provided is a promise that, in something like three years' time, a survey will have been completed. One is bound to compare the speed which has been thought appropriate to apply to the process of the Courts and Legal Services Bill, with the Green Paper starting under a year ago and the Third Reading about to be finished tomorrow, with this proposed three years or thereabouts for an inquiry into eligibility. The period spent on this vital legislation was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who said that it was as though an emergency powers Bill was being passed with the enemy on our doorsteps. If that degree of alacrity can be adhered to, why on earth does it take three years to carry out vital research into a matter which cannot require anything like the energy that this Bill has required?
I go next to the question of tribunals and I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has said with regard to the industrial tribunals and their complexity. We finished yesterday a two-day hearing of an appeal from an industrial tribunal concerned with race discrimination. It had gone up from the industrial tribunal to the employment appeal tribunal and to the Court of Appeal, where the Court of Appeal dismissed the application with a dissenting judgment and said that the employment appeal tribunal had overlooked that the industrial tribunal had not properly performed its function, in deciding as to whether a particular point had been satisfied by the ministry, and ordered that the application be sent back.
We completed our hearing. The result is quite apparent from the fact that we did not call upon the appellant to reply. That is some indication of complexity. There is a shortsightedness by the Government with regard to saving money by denying representation. Every judge is prepared firmly to make this observation: a case which is well presented takes far, far less time and enables one to be much more likely to reach the right result, thereby economising on the need for appeals. This is so often the case where you have complex matters such as are involved in the industrial tribunals.
The last point I would make is an enquiry. When I heard there was a suggestion about an order being made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor under Section 131 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 to order the cases that have hitherto been tried in the High Court or elsewhere to be tried in the industrial tribunal, I looked up the section and I find that he can make an order under the section if the claim satisfies either of the following conditions: first, if it arises or is outstanding on the termination of the employee's

1601
employment or, secondly, if it arises in circumstances which give rise to proceedings already or simultaneously brought before an industrial tribunal otherwise than by virtue of this section. Alternatively, if the order so provides, it may satisfy both those conditions.
If an order is contemplated which only involves satisfying the obligation that the claim arises or is outstanding on the termination of the employee's employment, that will involve sending to the industrial tribunal a wide variety of claims where legal aid is now available which have nothing to do with the employment protection litigation, which all relates to the ordinary contractual relationship between employer and employee. I merely inquire as to whether the order has yet been sufficiently worked out to discover what will be its nature. If it is of the more restrictive kind, then in my respectful submission it is obviously quite wrong to withhold legal aid from such a tribunal and now to extend its jurisdiction.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I feel I ought to declare an interest as a recipient of legal aid fees as a practitioner, I am proud to say, on the "cab rank", although I shall never be able to stand there in the sort of shoes to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has referred.
My first thought on hearing of this debate was to wonder why the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, thought it necessary to bring the legal aid horse out of the stable again so soon after it had been thoroughly flogged round the course during the passage of the Legal Aid Act of 1988, and particularly since later this year we hope to see the first substantial report of the new jockeys at the Legal Aid Board.
The thought even crossed my mind that perhaps the House might have heard recently rather too much from the legal profession; but any such doubts were misplaced. This has been a stimulating debate, and the reports we have been considering cover new and continuing areas of concern. They also touch on some familiar areas, and what is now an all too familiar area of concern is dealt with in paragraphs 65 and 66 of the advisory committee's report. That relates to the impact of the entry of financial institutions into the conveyancing market, to which reference has already been made.
Under the rather depressing heading, "Breakdown in the Network", the committee say as follows?
"some firms may disappear altogether and others may shed their less profitable but time-consuming work so as to develop other areas of practice. In either case it is likely to become more difficult for the legally aided client to find a solicitor to act for him or her."
Again, in paragraph 66 the conclusion is reached that,
"Whatever solution is adopted, it is likely to cost money if the services available to the legally aided client, particularly in rural areas, are not going to decline."
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, dealt with the question of eligibility, particulary for civil legal aid. I read the letter from the Lord Chancellor to the Legal Aid Board dated 29th July 1988, which was published in the board's first report of May 1989.
1602
In that letter he indicated that the Government did not intend the broad proportion of the population eligible for legal aid to increase. But more of a problem, I suggest, is assessing the rate of decrease and looking after the interests of those on the margins of eligibility.
If we had the Utopia suggested by my noble friend Lord Hanworth, it would be marvellous; but if we do not and we have to make the best of the existing system I suggest to my noble friend that defamation cases would not be a priority for legal aid and one of the ways forward would be to consider wider use of legal services insurance. However, the difficulty is that when one looks at the proportions of the population eligible for legal aid and the question of financial eligibility, one is looking at several moving targets and frankly, it is not surprising that there is controversy over statistical analysis.
As we were also told, on the 13th November 1989 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor announced a review of eligibility to be undertaken by a working party over the next two or three years. That review was rightly welcomed by the advisory committee. However, as has already been said, the advisory committee had earlier called for an independent review of eligibility. It is a matter for regret that there is no independent element in the working party. I also share the advisory committee's hope that the working party could speed its work in order to prevent the downward drift in eligibility gathering momentum.
We must be concerned at the closing words of paragraph 15 of the advisory committee's report:
"the decline in eligibility and the increase in the costs of litigation show clearly that there has been a 'squeeze' on those seeking access to legal services."
The whole question of accessibility to legal services is something which I understand the Legal Aid Board is actively concerned with, and to that extent perhaps we should suspend judgment. However, this relates not only to where one should go for legal aid and advice but how quickly it can be provided. At the time board took over, the speed of processing legal aid applications could only be improved. There were agonising delays, particularly in matrimonial cases, affecting not only the applicant for legal aid, but the other party to the litigation or prospective litigation, and the children. I welcome the board's efforts to set and improve targets. That must remain a major priority.
Next there is the question of what can or cannot be done with legal aid once it has been granted. As has already been said, we still cannot have legal aid to be represented before tribunals. It is almost part of the ritual of these debates to call for legal aid to be extended to tribunals, and frankly it was encouraging to read the conclusions of the authoritative research summarised in paragraphs 130 and 131 of the advisory committee's report.
To be personal for a moment, I have just completed the ninth day of an industrial tribunal case brought by an applicant in person. We have at least two more days to go. I have no doubt whatever that if the case had been professionally prepared and presented, it would have taken half the time and involved about a quarter of the paper. It is no longer

1603
possible to say that industrial tribunals deal simply with simple questions. The law relating to dismissal, discrimination and the Wages Act is becoming more and more sophisticated. If, as has already been said, breach of employment contract damages claims will also have to be taken to the tribunals, there is a serious risk of injustice if proper representation is now allowed.
Legal representation can save money and time in the long run, not just in the way in which cases are presented but in settling them. Despite the adversarial image of lawyers and the Bar in particular, we spend a good deal of our time trying to spare our clients the expense, delay and upset of going to court.
That leads me to consider the question of conciliation. I agree with much of what has been said, and I welcome the suggestions of the advisory committee. I am familiar with the conciliation system as it operates at Somerset House and in some other county courts. I have seen the results of mediation in matrimonial, financial and property disputes. I want to emphasise one point: whether or not conciliation is to be court based, it has to be law based. The lawyers should not be allowed to disappear completely into the background.
For conciliation to work effectively, someone will still need to collate the information and to define, if not to present, the issues to the conciliator. My misgiving about conciliation in practice is that the weaker party—that is usually the wife in a matrimonial dispute—may be insufficiently protected from pressures to reach an agreement which may be contrary to her interests. In conventional court proceedings such a person usually has that protection. There may be further pressure towards reaching an agreement, whether or not it is in the person's interests, if the Law Commission's proposals relating to divorce are accepted and agreement on financial and property matters becomes the prerequisite for a final decree of divorce.
Therefore, I suggest that, welcome as it is, the move to conciliation still must involve a role for the lawyer. I welcome the suggestion in the advisory committee's report that the legal aid charge (that is the statutory charge securing the costs of the litigation) might not apply in respect of the costs of conciliation. That takes me to the question of the statutory charge. Reference has been made to the taxpayers' money. When one deals with the statutory charge one is dealing less with the taxpayers' money and more with the litigant's own money.
The rationalisation of the charge has removed one of the matrimonial lawyer's procedural nightmares. However, I suggest that there are further areas for rationalisation. First, the £2,500 exemption which has been around for a great number of years. It is still of some use in matrimonial cases but it will become an anachronism if it is not kept in line at least with the social security capital disregard.
The question of interest now operates on the amount charged against the matrimonial home. That is interest which now rolls up on the amount charged.
1604
It will need careful scrutiny, particularly if house values continue to fall and commerical interest rates continue to rise. There is still the anomaly that the charge cannot be deferred if it is secured on a home which is recovered and preserved for an unmarried mother with children, for example, in Law of Property Act proceedings, or for a child under the new proceedings introduced by the Family Law Reform Act 1987. I urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to look at these and other areas of potential hardship particularly now that the legal aid fund can charge interest and will recover its money in the long run.
In this week's New Law Journal there is a very interesting article entitled "In defence of the Green Form" by Dr. Sheila Hill. She concludes with a paragraph which is worthy of being read to your Lordships:
"In view of the precarious position of the legal aid system as a whole, it is incumbent upon critics to base their attacks on reason rather than conjecture and assertion. It is unhelpful to exaggerate the inadequacies of the legal aid system or the practitioners who operate it. It may make good headlines, but it will not help to preserve or to improve the system for those clients who have no choice but to use it."
That reminds us that legal aid is not a public service so much as a private one which is publicly funded, depending on the willingness and the ability of the lawyers who operate it. During the passage of the Legal Aid Act there were repeated references to a second-rate service. I hope that we shall never hear that phrase used again.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the 39th Annual Report of the Law Society is the last report which will be issued by that body. We should thank the Law Society for its stewardship of the legal aid system for 39, or is it 40, years? It seems that it was left to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee to draw attention to our misgivings and to the areas which are the justified cause of concern.
The principal issue which has emerged in the course of this debate is that too many people are now outside the scope of the legal aid system because the qualifying conditions are too low. It is surprising that that should be so because I believe there is a greater awareness by people of rights which are to be defended or of decisions which need to be challenged. There is an increase in the number of marriage breakdowns and in the number of people charged with criminal offences.
It is not surprising that more money is being spent on legal aid than ever before. A further point was powerfully made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; namely, that inflationery pressures are also at work. Nevertheless, the dreadful fact remains that only about 56 per cent. of two-parent families with two children were eligible for civil legal aid in the year 1988–89, which is well below the 70 per cent. which applied in 1986–87 when the White Paper was issued and which had been established in 1979 by the late Lord Elwyn-Jones whom we remember tonight with great affection.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon dwelt at length on the significance of the fact that so many people are

1605
now excluded from legal aid. People with modest capital and income who are now just outside the reach of legal aid feel very strongly that they are excluded from benefits of the legal aid system. I have a feeling that this issue will not go away.
It is also my belief that there is broad agreement that the policy should be to restore as quickly as possible the 1979 level of eligibility. Reference has been made by many noble Lords to the review announced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 13th November which is not expected to complete its work for about two or three years. A great deal of anxiety has been expressed that it should take two or three years to complete all aspects of the review. We therefore earnestly hope that the statement of 13th November does not mean that the Government propose to do no more for the time being in order to bring people within the scope of the legal aid system. My noble friend Lord Mishcon has urged that the noble and learned Lord should ask the review team to report on the need to uprate the financial condition before the end of the year so that people are not denied the means to defend their rights and challenge decisions. We await with great anticipation the noble and learned Lord's response to my noble friend's question.
I now want to turn to another issue which is beginning to emerge. The 39th Annual Report shows that for the first time since legal aid was established there was a fall in 1988–89 in the number of solicitors' offices receiving legal aid payments. This is the first time that this has happened in 39 years. That piece of evidence is to be found in appendix 4C of the report on page 68 and is again referred to on page 124 of the advisory committee's report. In 1988–89 legal aid payments went to 11,558 solicitors' offices, compared with 11,617 offices in 1987–88. One could say that that is a small fall, but I believe that the actual fall is almost certainly larger than the figures suggest. I say that because of the time lag involved. Payments will continue to come into a solicitors' office for about two or three years after the office has ceased to undertake new legal aid work.
It is agreed that too many people are unable to obtain legal aid because they are outside the financial criteria. If appendix 4C has picked up the beginning of a trend and that trend continues, there is now the possibility that even where a person obtains a legal aid certificate, it may in future be more difficult to find a solicitor who will accept instructions under the certificate. Appendix 4C is consistent with the evidence of the Law Society and the CAB that solicitors are withdrawing from legal aid work because the remuneration is below that for private work. That point has been made by a number of speakers in the course of the debate.
Before I leave appendix 4C I want to mention that it also shows that large firms are earning an increasing slice of the Legal Aid Fund. This may be a worrying trend. Thus in 1988–89, 36·7 per cent. of the legal aid budget was paid out to offices receiving more than 120,000 a year from the Legal Aid Fund. I have compared this figure with the figure for the years going back to 1985–86. In 1987–88, 31·06 per cent. of the payments went to large firms, compared
1606
with 23·7 per cent. in 1986–87 and only 18 per cent. in 1985–86. In that four-year period the slice of the fund paid to the large firms has increased from 18 per cent. to 36·7 per cent. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could tell the House what is the true significance of this trend, bearing in mind the widely felt concern voiced by many noble Lords during the course of the debate and during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill that the smaller high street firm, if it loses a substantial slice of conveyancing work as a result of the new legislation, will not be in a position to continue to cross-subsidise legal aid work.
I should now like to mention another important issue which has been highlighted not for the first time by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee and has been underlined by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I refer to the failure to ensure that legal aid is available for more representation before tribunals. Reference has been made to the authoritative report last year on the effectiveness of representation at tribunals. It is well worth reminding ourselves that the team discovered that 150,000 cases a year were dealt with by tribunals. The research team concluded that representation at tribunals is full value for money, a point made by many speakers during the debate.
That is not the only reason or indeed the main reason why legal aid should be available for a greater breadth of representation before tribunals. The decisions of tribunals such as the Social Security Appeal Tribunal, the Industrial Tribunal and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal are as likely to affect or impinge upon the lives of many families, often disadvantaged families, as the decisions of the ordinary courts of law. I should like to remind the House of three significant findings of the research team. First, it found that 46 per cent. of cases which came before the Social Security Appeal Tribunal proceeded without the appellant or a representative of the appellant being present. Secondly, it found that in cases before the Industrial Tribunal only one-third of appellants were represented by lawyers while 48 per cent. of respondents were so represented. Thirdly, the research team found that the presence or absence of representation had an important effect on the outcome of the case. The advisory committee added that it had an effect on the quality of justice administered by tribunals. Tribunals, like the ordinary courts of the country, deal with basic individual rights. Their decisions can affect the whole family. We believe that the law should therefore guarantee representation before tribunals either by lawyers or by specialist advice centres where the appellant is eligible for legal aid.
Another point should be made. If legal aid were made available for tribunal representations it could lead to another beneficial result. Experienced solicitors in private practice are not attracted to welfare law. It is possible that more solicitors might be attracted to practise welfare law—this field which has been so neglected—if representation were to be made available before tribunals.
The final matter to which I should like to refer briefly is the need to identify gaps in the provision

1607
of legal services in a particular community or sector and then to take steps to fill such gaps. This aspect was touched upon in one of the debates in Committee on the Courts and Legal Services Bill. The efficiency scrutiny team recommended that some body should be under a duty to identify unmet needs and to consider how they should be met. That recommendation was made three years ago. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us whether this work is being undertaken by any body?
I think that we all agree that the introduction of legal aid was one of the great reforms of this century. But there is clear evidence that it is being squeezed from two directions. Fewer people qualify for legal aid and it may be that fewer solicitors are prepared to undertake legal aid work. If nothing is done to address those two problems a significant proportion of our people will be denied access to the courts and to the tribunals to defend their rights and to challenge decisions which affect their lives.
The Lord Chancellor's Department is in the driving seat in this respect and, notwithstanding the pessimism expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we give it full support in its efforts to obtain the substantial and additional resources which are required.
7.12 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for initiating this debate. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. The subject of legal aid, and a great number of its aspects, is a matter of supreme importance to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to the Lord Chancellor himself. I certainly have endeavoured to take a close personal interest in such matters since I have had responsibility for them and I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone did likewise when he was in office.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for suggesting that the staff of the Lord Chancellor's Department should be increased. I hope that her plea will be effective. However, I must be realistic on such matters. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale pointed out, neither the Lord Chancellor's Department nor the Treasury has money of its own and any money which is to be used for improving legal aid in any respect comes from the taxpayer. Of course, in deciding the level at which such matters should be set, there are very general considerations to be taken into account into which it would not be appropriate for me to enter on this particular date. But once such a decision is taken the question of priorities arises within the competing claims. As was pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, there are competing priorities between social goods, and I believe that this aspect is one which has a considerable priority. I believe that when we look at the situation realistically we shall see that the expenditure on legal aid over the period of this Government's office has been extremely large and that it has increased considerably.
1608
Perhaps I may first, especially in the presence of my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, say a few words about the advisory committee. The situation is that we now have the Legal Aid Board in position. During the debate on the Legal Aid Bill I stated that I intended to review the role of the advisory committee some 12 months after the Legal Aid Board had taken over its responsibilities; that is to say, after April 1990. That is still my intention, although I shall not be in a position to make a final decision until about the middle of the year.
The White Paper on legal aid indicated—that is, the White Paper which preceded the Legal Aid Bill—that the role and function of the advisory committee would inevitably change once the Legal Aid Board was established. I am presently discussing with the committee its future position. I recently wrote to my noble friend stating that while I cannot say at this stage what will be the final decision, I am not currently minded to keep the committee in its present form as it no longer has a central role as a lay element to counterbalance the profession's administration of legal aid. I am also concerned to avoid duplicating the Legal Aid Board's work with regard to advising me on the provision of legal aid. In that respect I should like to see the board's annual report, which is expected in June, before finally deciding on what further arrangements may be necessary.
I informed my noble friend, who is the committee chairman, that I am particularly keen that the legal services conferences should continue. Those conferences are presently arranged by the committee as a key part of its activities. I believe that they are important as a means of ascertaining and bringing together the views on the arrangements for legal aid of all those who provide legal services. I have therefore asked the committee to advise me on how the legal services conferences might be maintained and developed and to outline the responsibilities which it might continue to have regarding them. As I said, discussions between the committee and myself on the issue are taking place at present. It would be appropriate, and not just because my noble friend is present in the Chamber, to say how much my predecessors in office and myself owe to the labours of the advisory committee over the years. I believe that it has a role to play in the future on the lines that I have indicated. But, of course, it is wise not to duplicate effort in this area because the resources for such efforts are scarce.
The next matter with which I should like to deal is the general question of eligibility and the funding associated therewith. The advisory committee in its report argues that the legal aid statistics indirectly show a fall in eligibility for legal aid. As your Lordships have mentioned, and as the report also notes, in November of last year I announced a package directed towards helping some of the more vulnerable groups. It was to take effect from April of this year.
From 9th April children's means will be assessed separately from those of parents. That means that most of them will be eligible without contribution. In my view that is an extremely important improvement in the arrangements. I believe that it

1609
would not be right to underestimate it. As I said, it means that most children will be eligible without any contribution whatever being made. In addition, pensioners dependent upon a small capital nest-egg will receive additional protection and all litigants in personal injury cases will have the benefit of an increased upper limit.
In November I also announced a review of the financial conditions for legal aid. Your Lordships and members of the advisory committee expressed some concern that the review is planned to take up to three years before it will be complete. In my judgment that is not an unreasonable period considering the need to fit in with developments to substantive law and procedure.
The review will be staged and will first of all consider legal aid in civil non-matrimonial proceedings in the light of the changes based on the Civil Justice Review. After that, criminal proceedings will be addressed and, finally, matrimonial proceedings. Matrimonial legal aid in particular must take account of the programme of work which covers the divorce process, conciliation and the court structure. A number of noble Lords made reference to these matters, including my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I personally am very interested in actively pursuing the possibility of improving the quality of the entire divorce process. The Law Commission's proposals on divorce, conciliation and the court structure—what is sometimes referred to as a family court—that is required to deal with these matters are under consideration. I believe there is considerable scope for improvement in that area.
As my noble friend Lady Faithfull pointed out, the Newcastle report does not give a sound basis for supposing that legal aid funds would be saved by opting for a conciliation service on a grand scale. The report also expressed doubt about the wisdom of opting for a court-based conciliation service. Therefore there are important issues to be addressed in that connection. I do not think it would be wise to try to deal with those issues in isolation.
I shall now return to the review. I made it clear in my announcement that any recommendations made in the course of the review, where practical and appropriate, would be implemented as soon as possible rather than waiting for the end of the review period. Therefore I hope that as we go along we may be able to make improvements. There will of course be consultation on the review while it is in progress.
One of the purposes of this review will be to explore whether there are ways of helping those of more substantial means when they are faced with the prospect of litigation costs which are beyond their reach. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, suggested that it might be possible to have a graded system which would cover everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, described that as an ideal world. I suspect that that may well be the case, but one of the objects of the review will be to see to what extent more flexibility can be introduced into the system. It is not just a question of reviewing the limits and seeing whether they can be raised, because we review the limits annually on the same basis as social
1610
security is reviewed. I should say that the limits represent the limits of disposable income. Disposable income is arrived at after allowing for deductions, including for example housing costs.
I hope that one of the aims of the review will be to see whether we can have a more flexible method of dealing with eligibility. Noble Lords have mentioned huge figures regarding the number of people who have passed out of the scope of legal aid in the past 10 years. Figures have been given ranging from 10 million to 14 million. However, they do not tell us very much about the precise situation of those people. Any statistician who has put such figures forward will realise that they are based on considerable assumptions. For this purpose I prefer to look at the scope of legal aid as it has been taken up. In 1979–80, 190,000 civil legal aid certificates were granted, including matrimonial certificates. By 1988–89 that figure had risen to an estimated 259,000. That is quite an important comparison. I agree that at the very end of that period there was a sign of a small fall, but I believe that comparisons over the 10-year period, which is the basis on which the other figures have been put forward, are a sensible way to consider the matter. If one considers the matter from the point of view of money, gross expenditure on all forms of legal aid has increased from £119 million in 1979–80 to £589 million in 1988–89. That is an increase in real terms of 250 per cent. Although it is always possible to point out that more could be done, it is absurd in the light of those figures to talk of cuts or of a decline in provision for legal aid.
I should say in passing that last year I invited the Legal Aid Advisory Committee to advise me on whether there was any area presently being serviced by legal aid which might be properly discarded in favour of some more important area which was being neglected. Not perhaps surprisingly, the committee could not suggest areas that we should abandon in favour of new fields, although it helpfully suggested possibilities of savings in some areas. Perhaps the most notable of those was the magistrates' courts. I entirely subscribe to the view that any saving and any reduction in waste of legal aid money should be actively pursued. If that money were saved, it would be available for some other desirable projects.
I have already referred to my next point which was mentioned once or twice. The length of time that the review will take is, I believe, reasonable having regard to what I intend the review to do. It is not just a matter of looking at the figures and reviewing various estimates of coverage but rather of trying to see whether we can devise a better system which is more attuned to what people need than the present system. I believe that the review is likely to be speedier than a completely independent review would be. During the course of that review there will of course be consultation.
Universal legal aid with graded contributions, which I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to, was considered by the Legal Aid Advisory Committee as long ago as 1984–85. I believe that the committee decided that that method was not a very practical way of making progress.

1611
Some questions have been raised with regard to remuneration. I think it may not be right to say too much about this at present as I have recently intimated to the Law Society and to the Bar the proposals I have for uprating this year. However, I should point out that my department and the profession, or at least the Law Society, agreed to have a survey carried out by Touche Ross two years ago. The survey was carried out for last year's uprating. The results—I do not wish to go into great detail about them—showed that it was perfectly possible to make quite high rates of profit from legal aid remuneration, even after allowing for a notional salary for the principals in the partnerships. It is true of course that that was very much dependent on volume. It is reasonably clear that the larger the volume of legal aid work a firm carries out the more chance it has of making a profit. Towards the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, pointed out that quite a high proportion of the money spent in legal aid goes to people who are working at levels of £120,000 or more. That of course does not represent a tremendous number of cases per week having regard to the average cost of cases. Therefore the problem I face is that studies demonstrated that at that time it was possible to make a profit of quite substantial proportions.
The legal aid remuneration system is not geared to particular firms. It is not a question of paying a particular firm for what it does during the year. Rather, it is a question of paying on the basis of agreed rates. If those agreed rates are shown to be capable of generating a profit, it is hard to take account of the fact that some firms are not able to do that.
I have, of course, considered the question of whether some different system could operate. However, your Lordships will understand that those who have a large business are not particularly keen to offer to work at a discount in order that they may see their less busy brethren rewarded more adequately. It is an extremely difficult problem. I hope that we shall be able to pursue the matter through obtaining further information in the years ahead, by agreement with the profession.
In that connection perhaps I should refer to the point of the noble Lords Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Mishcon, that there is some sign of a fall in the number of solicitors doing legal aid work. As your Lordships know, it has been declared for some time that there has been such a fall. That has been accompanied by a steady rise in the number of pay points at which money is paid to solicitors. The figures that are being used to show a drop in the number of solicitors deal with the number of payment points, they are not necessarily indicative of a drop in the number of firms. However, I agree that that is a matter which must be kept in mind, and I have certainly done so. However, I do not believe that the figures demonstrate any fall.
My time is running short but I do not believe that that matters in view of your Lordships' economy with time, and I should like to say something about tribunal representation because a good deal has been said in that connection. The situation has been
1612
referred to by a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, comes to us fresh from experience of one such tribunal, in which he is apparently opposed by a litigant in person. That can also occur in the courts, where litigants in person may, nonetheless, qualify for legal aid for a variety of reasons which it is not always easy to determine. I agree that at present legal aid is not available in the type of tribunal to which the noble Lord referred.
Noble Lords have referred to the research on representation at tribunals by Hazel and Yvette Genn, for whose efforts I am very grateful. They have produced a very interesting and illuminating report. I need hardly say that before there is any extension of the scope of legal aid the Government will have to look very hard at the expenditure implications.
As the committee acknowledges, there are also major policy considerations in relation to tribunals. In my view those need to be addressed before one comes to the question of finance. For example—and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, alluded to this—the researchers noted that lawyers were not necessarily more effective than non-lawyer specialists before the tribunals which they examined and that the provision of legal aid as such across the board was therefore not necessarily the right solution.
The questions about tribunals do not relate merely to their diversity. There are questions now as to how far the Franks criteria of informality and simplicity can be sustained by tribunals administering complex law. That is not to say that one should immediately abandon the approach which has traditionally informed tribunal procedure and go over fully to armed combat between lawyers, but it is a matter which certainly needs careful consideration.
It is also apparent that some appeal tribunals—for example, social security appeal tribunals—to a considerable extent provide an opportunity to correct initial decisions based on insufficient information. That suggests that the focus should not in all cases be directed simply at the tribunal in question but also at the preliminary information-gathering stage.
Those are merely illustrations of the large and complex issues affecting tribunals which I am seeking to study with my colleagues. The precise way forward is difficult to identify, for the reasons I have given.
Some reference has been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner to Section 131 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. That provision empowers me to enable industrial tribunals to hear certain damages claims arising out of contracts of employment. A difficulty sometimes—not very frequently—arises, in that claims under the contract fall partly within and partly outside the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal, which is inconvenient to the parties. An order under the Act would enable claims subsidiary to the main claim, generally for unfair dismissals, to be heard together.

1613
It is true that legal aid would not be available in the industrial tribunal, but nevertheless it is hard to see that the claimant would essentially as the result of an order be in any different position from the position he is in now. It would be open to him to choose between the convenience of disposing of all the claims together or of seeking legal aid, if he were eligible, for the subsidiary claim in the county court. There has been consultation on the matter by the Department of Employment and there appears to be general support for the change. I am now considering with my colleagues the details of an order that might be made.
Reference has been made to the anxieties that the committee expressed about the possibility of a breakdown in the network of solicitors' offices and of a reduction in the numbers at the junior Bar. Perhaps I could take the second problem first. My noble and learned friend, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, posed again the question that Lord Gardiner posed many years ago. I believe that the Bar is now returning a new and informed answer to that question. It is making arrangements under which new pupils coming to the Bar may have a measure of financial help and a reasonable chance of pupillage and tenancy, and, if not one of the tenancies, then a library arrangement, which was not in contemplation in Lord Gardiner's time. I believe that those changes, far from reducing the effectiveness and availability of lawyers of standing at the junior Bar, will have the opposite effect. I believe that that will be to the benefit of the legal services in this country as a whole.
So far as concerns the network of solicitors' offices, the problem is said to arise from the proposals in relation to conveyancing. Those arguments have been developed considerably during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill through your Lordships' House. I have no reason to suppose that solicitors will not be able to compete effectively with the institutions. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to go into the matter in detail here because we have discussed it in connection with the Courts and Legal Services Bill.
However, I believe that the overall effect of that Bill will be, at the very least, to provide an opportunity to reduce costs. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham I am sure would wish to attribute that to Part I of the Bill, which implements the Civil Justice Review. I believe that the opportunity for reductions of costs will not be confined to that part.
I believe that the figures I gave concerning the money that has been expended on the provision of legal aid services demonstrate the commitment of the Government to the provision of those services. I believe that what we have done in seeking to improve the administration and delivery of legal aid is of the first importance. I believe that the administration of legal aid by the new Legal Aid Board which has now taken over from the Law Society is showing signs of considerable improvement. There is plenty of scope for more improvement, but I believe—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston—that to get the administration into good shape must be the first
1614
priority. It is no good having a great scheme available if the delays are so long that one cannot take advantage of it. I believe that administration is very important.
I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said about the Law Society's stewardship of the scheme over 40 years. The scheme grew a great deal in its hands and it handed the scheme over with great grace to the Legal Aid Board, which addresses the problem of administration very effectively. It is important that, for example, in cases relating to children, applications for legal aid should be speedily disposed of. I certainly hope that we shall be able to make effective arrangements in connection with the implementation of the Children Act.
The debate has raised many interesting questions, many of which I shall have to keep in mind in the future. However, as matters stand at present, we have no reason to be ashamed of what we have done, as the figures demonstrate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to re-emphasise my debt of gratitude to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Whatever the doubts that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, might have had about the relevance of the debate at this time, he found them removed by the debate. I am most grateful not only to noble Lords, but to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the care which he has exercised in replying to the debate. I know that he will forgive me—he always does—if I point out that I find some matters a little hard to take.
On the eligibility issue, it is rather absurd and unreliable to talk about figures or percentages of those who are eligible and those who are no longer eligible. The noble and learned Lord's White Paper quoted a figure of 70 per cent. of people who were eligible, yet, in November, the noble and learned Lord quoted a reduced figure of 56 per cent. Either those percentages should not be quoted at all or if they are quoted—perhaps I may put this most deferentially—they should be frankly accepted, especially when the figures are contrary to the Government's wishes.
On the question of tribunals, it is not as though there are now fresh issues. The matter has been urged from all quarters of the House over a substantial period of time. If my memory serves me correctly, when the Legal Aid Bill was debated the principle of assisting representation at tribunals by way of legal aid was admitted as one that the Government should take on board. It was then argued that it was a question of priorities between the various tribunals, but the principle was admitted and it was merely a question of when the Government could afford it. Fresh reasons are now given which seem to postpone the matter ever further. I had hoped that we should at least have reached that stage of government policy when we discussed the Legal Aid Bill.
On the question of the three-year period, I admired very much, as I always do, the noble and learned Lord's advocacy. However, if ever I had to go before a judge and tell him that an action should not be

1615
heard for three years and use the same language as the noble and learned Lord used about the period of time that would be taken for the review, I know that I should get short shrift from the learned judge when I made that submission. I should be ordered to get moving, to be a little more efficient and to ensure that the case was ready within a reasonable period of time.
Having said all that, I repeat my appreciation. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The main provisions of the Bill cover parking control in Part II, special treatment premises in Part III, entertainment in Part IV and a number of different items under the miscellaneous provision in Part V, including burglar alarms, scaffolding on buildings and class of use. Part VI covers liability of directors as related to the other particulars in the Bill.
Although I am convinced that the provisions of the Bill cover only necessary powers and will be of great benefit to the people of London, I am aware that there are petitioners against some parts of the Bill. The Royal Automobile Club, the Freight Transport Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club are petitioning against Part II of the Bill. I am not entirely clear where the Royal Scottish Automobile Club stands in relation to central London, but perhaps it feels that a precedent might be set and it does not wish the same thing to happen in Edinburgh. Otherwise, I cannot see its relevance if it is true to its name. It is interesting to note that the AA is not petitioning. I understand that the AA now supports the view that local authorities should control parking in London.
There are many points in the petition that do not show an understanding of the present situation in London. For example, there is a great deal of talk about how we must have only one parking system for the whole of London. When I was on the Greater London Council, we did not hold the view that there should be one regulation for the whole of London. I represented part of outer London where we found that the main need was for parking control for one hour in the morning when communters would fill the area so that residents could not move their cars in or out of their own homes. By introducing that measure, people moved into the good large car park attached to the station which they had previously not bothered to use because it was easier to clutter up everyone else's streets. There has always been a clear need for different timings. The hours of restriction in Covent Garden are now quite different from anywhere else in London. In the Victoria area residents' parking is enforced until 10 o'clock at
1616
night. That is proving a great success. It is good for local authorities to have more control in that respect.
That approach frees the police and the wardens to deal with the major roads, which are so important in keeping the traffic moving, rather than the minor roads. The Department of Transport has estimated that the cost of illegal parking in London is now over £200 million in lost benefit. It is believed that there are about 350,000 illegal parking acts in central London every day lasting more than 20 minutes each. We are not talking about the person who pulls up for one second. We are talking about people who are illegally parked for more than 20 minutes. There is a great need for something to be done in that regard.
The RAC view is well intentioned and aimed at helping its members. The RAC state that there would be two separate groups of people looking after matters. The situation would be even more chaotic if the police continued to look after yellow lines and local authorities looked after residents' parking, as was once the Government's view. Surely some local authorities would start busily to remove the yellow lines and make more areas which they could satisfactorily control, or the illegal parkers would all move off the meters and residents' bays on to the yellow lines. I can envisage all kinds of possibilities.
There are no petitioners against Part III. I am pleased about that because that part of local authority control was brought forward under the Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill. There was strong petitioning against that measure at that time. Part III concerns complementary medicine and other forms of special treatment premises. Fortunately, the way the Bill has been drafted means that all those categories which felt that they had legitimate cause before—and I, too, thought that they had legitimate cause—are now covered because it includes any group which will have a proper code of practice and a list of members. The whole idea of this part originally was to prevent the use of premises for prostitution or other immoral or undesirable purposes. Under the exemptions in Clause 8 of the Bill there will be exempt:
"any member of a professionally constituted body of health practitioners, with a register of members, who are subject to codes of conduct and ethics and a disciplinary board and have professional indemnity insurance"—
it is very important to ensure that the public are protected against claims for negligence—
"and the body concerned has given proper notice to the borough".
So far as I understand, we have now resolved the question of treatment centres and there are no petitions against that section.
The cinema bodies are petitioning against Part IV—entertainment. I do not think that the petitions which oppose Clauses 23 and 25 are at all unreasonable. However, the cinemas resent the fact that they will have to pay the cost of having the premises inspected. At present the premises are inspected for fire and safety entirely at the expense of the local authority. The changed community charge means that that cost will be borne entirely by the community charge payers. It seems to me only right that cinemas should pay the correct charge. There is

1617
a degree of misunderstanding in that they seem to believe that they will be able to be charged anything, but that is not so. They will only be able to be charged the actual cost of the inspection. That seems very fair.
There is no petition against Clause 24 but I am pleased that it is included in the Bill. It covers private clubs and private places of entertainment, such as small rooms used in upstairs premises. Certainly Westminster knows that many such places exist in the centre of London and I am sure that they also exist in other places. At the moment they are subject to no safety controls at all because they are private and do not have to conform to any standards.
Part V has caused the strongest reactions on both sides. There are two petitions against it: one from the Building Employers' Confederation, which covers a number of different points, and another from Slough Estates. The building employers are opposed to the 20-minute cut out on intruder alarms. In this regard I recently looked at a cutting from the Hampstead and Highgate Express of November 1989 in which it was reported that the residents of West Hampstead eventually took the law into their own hands and smashed a burglar alarm which had been making their lives a misery by ringing persistently. Understandably, I suppose, the man who did it would not give his name. He said that the alarm had gone off in the middle of the night three times in the past month and he had decided that it was time for action. Most of us have had the experience of finding a burglar alarm going off when somebody is away for a long weekend. It can be extremely irritating if there is no way of obtaining access and cutting it off.
The building employers also found it onerous to be asked to take responsibility for scaffolding, and in particular for ensuring that it could not be used as a means of entry in order to burgle the adjoining houses. They think that that is an unreasonable condition to put upon them. I do not find it at all unreasonable. I had to rebuild my own house. The one concern of all my neighbours around was about burglary and entry by means of the scaffolding on my structure. It is common for burglaries to take place when building works are being carried out in the vicinity and scaffolding is convenient for people to shin up easily and thereby pop into any house nearby. It is very upsetting.
Someone has to take the responsibility. The building Employers' Confederation discusses whether it should be the scaffolder who may have left the site or the owner. That kind of point should and quite clearly will be discussed in the committee to which this Bill will be committed. It is important to sort out who will be responsible. Presumably the responsibility will pass from one to the other. There will be a responsibility on persons to produce the correct form of scaffolding in the first place but clearly it would be unreasonable to ask them to come back and maintain the lighting or whatever once they had finished that part of the work. The Building Employers' Confederation in its statement says that although the obligation is on the scaffolder now to ensure that the scaffolding is lit, the scaffolder is never there but someone else sees that it is done. So apparently these things are worked out quite
1618
reasonably between the various sections of the building trade.
Those two items were of minor importance and not of the most overwhelmingly major importance in the petitions from the Building Employers' Confederation and Slough Estates. In each case those bodies are very disturbed about the suggestion of a change of class of use. In fact Slough Estates is completely and frankly financially interested. It makes no bones about it—it is its one upset. It feels that it will cause a loss of value. The Building Employers' Confederation put forward a number of other reasons such as the need to retain land for building and so on.
It all boils down to the fact that in 1987 there was a change in the Use Classes Order which brought together office and light industrial premises and put them into the one category. It meant that no planning permission was required to change a small workshop into an office. It is much more profitable for people to let or own office space than it is to let small workshop space. I have had letters on this matter. The first that I should like to mention comes from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who said that she would have liked to have spoken in support of Clause 29 but she could not be here this evening. In particular she draws attention to the Savile Row tailoring industry. She writes that:
"recent rent reviews have shown a five-fold increase and landlords are declining to renew leases because it is more profitable to let to an office user".
She explains that, as we all know:
"Savile Row has been the centre for British tailoring of the highest quality and is important for future export growth of British menswear. It is essential that a bespoke tailor should have his workshop adjacent to the place of sale".
There is also the possibility under this legislation that Westminster City Council in particular, which is probably the most adversely affected area because that is where office premises are most sought after, would have the opportunity to create specialist industrialist zones. For example, in Covent Garden there are many small hand craft workers who could all lose their places because they would simply be priced out.
Just as I came into the House I was handed a letter from a tailor in Savile Row. There is the Royal Warrant in one corner of his letter paper and on the other—which I found rather interesting—is the warrant of the late Emperor Napoleon III. I have not come across that before on notepaper. His case is much the same as that put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. He writes that the purpose of this Use Classes Order was:
"to aid economic development by allowing landlords to change the use of their property without the need to obtain planning permission … The result of the changes … however has been to drive out these specialist workshops as landlords take the opportunity to refurbish or redevelop property for more lucrative office space."
He again confirms what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about landlords refusing to renew leases. He states:
"The loss of light industrial space will have a detrimental effect on the whole character of the West End and diminish the special role that it plays in the country's economy. Although the changes in the Use Classes Order were designed to encourage economic

1619
development, it seems that in London they are actually having the opposite effect".
He again mentions that,
"the West End is unique [as] the shopping capital of our country. The workshops of the Savile Row tailors and other industries contribute to the magic of the West End. They help to attract people from all over Britain and the world"—
I confirm that—
"who are drawn by the diversity and quality of its shops and businesses".
Everyone knows that the Department of the Environment has commissioned a review. They also know that the result will be too late to prevent the break-up of the industrial composition of the area. That is why it is so important that the Bill should proceed rather than wait for a review, which will be a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.
Quite a different letter came from the Association of Photographers. Its address is EC1, not very far from my surgery. It stated that very soon no one will be able to have a small studio because such premises will simply not be available. In that very different part of London people are finding exactly the same difficulties as in the West End.
It has always been the desire in planning terms to retain a mixed economy. When the GLC was moving so much so-called non-conforming light industry out of London, we saw a tremendous reduction in the small workshops and places where people could work close to where they lived. We have a shortage of employment for people who are not suited to office work but who wish to be occupied in other ways and who have skills and crafts which add a fascination to the capital. I therefore believe that it is most important that we should consider the Bill very carefully tonight.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
8.2 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Bill, the Second Reading of which has been so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, contains an interesting miscellany of provisions. I do not imagine that we shall wish to speak on all of them. My noble friend Lord Tordoff will be concentrating on Part II, on the parking provisions. I should like to concentrate on three clauses—audible intruder alarms, Clause 27; scaffolding licences; and class of use. I was struck with the importance of all three.
There is not the slightest doubt about the nuisance caused by burglar alarms that go off for long periods in built-up areas. Indeed I asked a Question on that on 16th October last. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, who will be answering the debate tonight, was kind enough also to answer on that occasion. I asked whether there was a need for the existing code of practice—which seemed to be very largely ignored in practical terms—to be made mandatory and in particular to make it obligatory to have cut-off devices.
I live in the City of Westminster. I have complained several times to the council about these nuisances. I find that I am not the only one. In
1620
1988—which I presume is the year for which it has the latest statistics—it received 300 complaints. The issue of burglar alarms that keep people awake is one about which it receives the largest single volume of complaints. I have not the slightest doubt that it is an important provision. I am delighted that the City of Westminster is putting it forward. I hope that the Government will support it.
When answering my Question, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, stated that he had every sympathy for the views expressed. That does not commit him to anything more than sympathy, but that is what he stated. I believe that the fitting of a cut-off device after 20 minutes is essential. The notification of installation to the police and local authority is also important. The selection of two keyholders is again a vital element. I believe that there should be provision to enter premises by force in certain circumstances, if these devices continue to go off in spite of all these provisions.
I have noticed what the Building Employers' Confederation said in its petition. However, I feel that the trouble caused to people living in these areas is so paramount that I hope a solution will be found and that the measures that are proposed will not be minimised.
On licences for scaffolding, I again fully support what is proposed. I am chairman of a local residents association in Westminster. There is growing concern about the security risk of having scaffolding around, not only to the building that is being renovated—damage can there be done only to the structure—but with regard to neighbouring premises to which greater access can be given. It is essential that the question of security should be safeguarded in the way proposed.
Finally, on the class of use, again I have every sympathy for what is proposed. We are losing too many of these small businesses from London. London is becoming filled with office space and so-called luxury flats. I should have thought that in order to maintain the diversity of activity in the capital there should be a safeguard for small businesses which over the years have developed great skill and renown. As the noble Baroness pointed out, they contribute considerably to our export trade and are a great attracton to tourists. I am fully in support of returning to the position before 1987 whereby this class of use was protected.
I do not agree with the view apparently taken by the Department of the Environment that we should wait for the result of the inquiry. That could take some time, and in the meantime businesses could be closed down. For those reasons I fully support those three provisions in the Bill.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for her explanation of the Bill for which she seeks a Second Reading tonight. But I fear that she is under a number of misconceptions with regard to Part II. I regret that I shall have to explain why I fear that. It would also be fair, although according to our conventions not strictly necessary, for me to remind

1621
your Lordships that I am a member of the Royal Automobile Club public policy committee.
When considering Part II of the Bill it is necessary to remind ourselves that the Secretary of State is responsible under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for regulation of traffic on trunk roads in London. It is the boroughs which are responsible for regulation of traffic on non-trunk roads. But the police and traffic wardens, who are responsible for the enforcement of those regulations on all trunk and non-trunk roads in London and across the country, come under a different authority, the police authority.
My noble friend stated that she could not understand why the Royal Scottish Automobile Club was concerned in this matter. Purely and simply, the Scottish interest is that for the purposes of legislation, the 1984 Act, to which I have already referred, applies in Scotland as in England. There is, therefore, a real interest because anything changed in England by virtue of this Bill could have an effect in Scotland; hence the interest.
We know, do we not, that there are about 8,125 miles of roads in London, including about 250 miles of trunk roads. There are 20 bridges and two tunnels. There are 35 local authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in his consultation document Traffic in London proposes a special route network upon which parking, loading and unloading and so on would be curtailed. The proposals apply to 224 miles of trunk and about 86 miles of non-trunk or borough roads. If the 35 local authorities were to acquire their own independent powers—Part II of the Bill allows for that—the various powers of enforcement would create an absurd, if not bizarre, situation. There could be 35 different regimes covering trunk and non-trunk roads with differing policies and priorities between the boroughs.
Chaos and confusion would reign. The proof of that lies in the experience that we have with the night-time and weekend lorry ban which operates in London. I believe there are 22 boroughs which participate and 35 which do not. Nobody knows where they are with mile upon mile of roads covered by different regimes. That is a nonsense.
In this Chamber we are continually talking about bureaucracy. Were Part II of this Bill to be allowed in its present form—in any form, I suggest—there would undoubtedly be a duplication of powers; not an extension or a substitution but a duplication. The Bill would confer on local authority civilian staff powers that are presently only available to the police and traffic wardens. In fact the power for local authority staffs to clamp or remove vehicles would exceed the powers currently available to the police and traffic warden authorities. I do not believe that that is a situation to be entertained. It would completely undermine what the Department of Transport is aiming for—an overall transportation policy in London covering Underground, bus, road, rail and so on.
Your Lordships should be greatly concerned that Part II would create a precedent. It would almost certainly encourage other local authorities across the
1622
country to seek similar powers of traffic enforcement, again quite independent from the police and the warden service. This would compound the confusion and possible inequities I have spoken about that arise from the fragmentation of an enforcement function. We already have great difficulties as we move across the country in terms of lighting and sign posting. This Bill would add to those difficulties. We could have every local authority throughout Scotland, England and Wales having its own set of rules and regulations—an impossible position when seeking to control and direct traffic.
Finally, I should perhaps draw attention to the diversion of revenues. As drafted, the Bill provides that revenue arising from the additional parking (penalty) charge would go to the boroughs. That could give rise to almost any situation in so far as charges are concerned. Local authorities are under tremendous pressures on their spending and their revenue-raising activities. This Bill would give them a golden opportunity to run riot on the revenue-raising possibilities from motor vehicle transportation.
It is not only I who object to this. The Government in their paper Traffic in London, paragraph 7.17, state:
"There are also objections in principle to allowing local authorities to use income generated by fines and penalties to enforce permitted parking controls. The proposals would require an entirely new legal mechanism to ensure the collection of unpaid charges. This could involve substantial costs and could take a long time to implement. During this period uncertainty about the future role of the police traffic warden service would remain. The proposals are therefore rejected".
I believe that I have outlined to your Lordships sound reasons which have given rise to the Petition of the Freight Transport Association, the Royal Automobile Club and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. I hope the Select Committee will reject Part II of the Bill.
I want to touch on two other areas covered by the Bill. They relate to charges. We had before your Lordships a few weeks ago a private Bill from the borough of Merton which included power to raise charges for the fixing of traffic directional signs on street furniture. This was rejected largely because it would give rise to almost uncontrolled charging by local authorities for a variety of services. In Part IV of this Bill, to which my noble friend Lady Gardner referred, we come to one of these areas. Again I have to say to my noble friend that she has missed the point. This part of the Bill refers to the cinema licence fee. She said that the petitioners resent paying the cost of inspection for fire and other safety-related purposes. That is absolute nonsense. They do not resent paying for that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: They are not paying it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: If they are not paying it, why was it necessary for my noble friend to say that they resent paying it? They have given no indication of resenting payment for inspection of fire and other services. What they resent, and what is in the Petition, is that the Bill in Clauses 23 and 24 alters

1623
the current cinema licence fee arrangements which are set by the Home Office.
The threat that the cinema operators fear is derived from the fact that, uniquely among other leisure activities which are licensed by the local authorities, the cinema is subject to censorship. The censorship is imposed by the cinematograph licence. A substantial number of district councils sought to involve themselves in local film censorship activities following the enactment of the Local Government Act 1972. They were then dissuaded from so doing by the high cost to themselves of setting up the necessary procedures.
Disguised in the Bill before your Lordships this evening are these new powers under Clause 24 which, if allowed, mean that the local authorities would then be able to take over the censorship role and charge in the licence fee the huge costs involved which they rejected in 1972. The net result would be that we should have, as it were, a totally unacceptable erosion of the credibility and acceptability of the British Board of Film Classification. That board has the support of the Home Office and, indeed, the film industry. It would disrupt the present national system of film distribution, promotion and exhibition that is based on the existing categories which are allocated to individual films by the British Board of Film Classification.
Lastly, the result would be the closure of a material number of cinemas and an intolerable and unnecessary burden on the remainder. This is at a time when the cinema industry is recovering and proving itself to be a vital social amenity, particularly in some of the deprived inner city and other areas which face social problems. That is the reality of what Clauses 23 and 25 would achieve. It is no good my noble friend suggesting that that is a resentment at paying quite proper charges to have safety and other inspections.
I merely wish to touch upon Clause 29, about which both the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes have spoken. To my surprise I have also received letters from the Association of Fashion Advertising and Editorial Photographers and from four firms engaged in the tailoring business. I should certainly like to underline what my noble friend Lady Gardner said about the maintenance of some light industry and manufacturing industry in the area. We have heard so frequently, have we not, of the necessity to maintain our manufacturing industry. Whether it is the manufacture of shirts or of suits, it does not matter. It is manufacturing—exporting—and it goes towards reducing the balance of payments deficit.
I have little doubt that the committee to which this Bill will be committed will look at all those points. However, I certainly suggest that Part II is confusing, totally unnecessary and quite contrary to government intentions. I am quite sure that the other areas can be taken care of when counsel for the petitioners put their case in more detail.
8.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, especially as regards parking in central London. If I understand correctly what the noble Baroness said, it was that each borough needed to make its own parking arrangements, and she quoted Covent Garden. However, there is nothing to prevent different parking arrangements being made for different areas of London. I should have thought that that was the obvious thing to do.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about scaffolding. I had not actually thought of that aspect. With regard to intruder alarms, I agree that they really are terrible. I know about them to my cost because I was a keyholder in London and I lived about 12 miles from the premises for which I held the key. I have been called out by the police, sometimes at two o'clock in the morning. I had to get into my car, drive up to London, check the building, switch the alarm off and reset it. I believe that on every occasion it was a false alarm. Therefore, the cut-off point of 20 minutes is a very good thing.
One aspect worries me. If you have been for a few drinks or been to a party with the other keyholder and have both had a few drinks, what will happen when the keyholder is called out? You would both have to say that you could not come because you had been drinking and did not wish to break the law. I do not know what would happen in that case, but such things happen.
There was a very bad rail crash at Eltham Well Hall a few years ago. I had been to a party some distance away from where I lived in Finchley. I heard the news. I had not driven to the party, and I then had to go to London. Therefore, I had to hire a chauffeur-driven car because I had been drinking. Subsequently, I was up all night and did not arrive home until the following morning. I know that that is not exactly the same situation as an intruder alarm but it is the same sort of problem. If you get stopped it is no good saying to the police, "I am sorry, I had to come because I am the keyholder and the other keyholder has gone on holiday", or something like that.
In our locality we have a neighbourhood watch scheme. The alarm of some neighbours across the road is sometimes triggered off by the dog and can ring for a very long time. Luckily, that bell is quite quiet and is not too disturbing.
As regards scaffolding, it is obvious that if there is scaffolding people will use it. I thought that if there were ladders you had to put boards up against them and I presume that you could put barbed wire around the scaffolding. I do not know about that.
I intended only to speak about Clause 29. Like the noble Baroness, I received a communication from the Association of Photographers and as I came into the Prince's Chamber this evening I also received a communication from Napoleon III's tailors. I also received a letter from Mr. Barry Reed. He is the chairman of Austin Reed and I have known him for many years. He shows the same concern as other bespoke tailors, although his business is a sufficiently

1625
large one and for him the problem is not so great. I should like to read out one paragraph of his letter:
"The new rules had potentially disastrous consequences for all the craft industries located in Central London, in particular the tailors of Savile Row. Now that their workshops can be converted to office space without planning permission, it has meant that all recent rent reviews have shown a five-fold increase. Worse still. landlords are declining to renew leases because it is more profitable to let to an office user".
You can obviously charge more for an office than for light industrial use. I agree with other noble Lords who have already spoken that it would be a great shame for those craft industries to die out in central London because many are world famous.
There is one other point which I should like to make. We know that the Department of the Environment is currently reviewing the Use Classes Order 1987. One letter which I have received stated that since 1987 in their rent review clauses leases refer to B1 users. There is a fear about what will happen if an existing lease refers to that under the old 1987 Act. Will these people be covered by the new Clause 29? If not, they will be in the same position as they currently are.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I rise with the feeling that I ought to change my tailor!
We are grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she introduced this Bill. It is a wonderful compendium of different matters. When I looked at the part which said "scaffolding licences", I thought perhaps she was bringing the gallows back to Tyburn, and I read that rather carefully. I then realised that it was about something quite different.
I am glad that she raised the point about security of scaffolding. I remember during the 1979 election, when operating from our party's headquarters in the National Liberal Club in Whitehall Place, there was a considerable amount of security for our party leader and others going in and out of the building. Passes were checked, and certain gentlemen appeared with odd bulges under their jackets. The front of the building was being cleaned. Suddenly, halfway through the campaign, scaffolding appeared at the window of the room in which we held our daily press conference. At that point I realised the security threat which could be posed by scaffolding. I am sure the noble Baroness is also quite right in relation to scaffolding on private premises.
As my noble friend Lord Ezra mentioned, I want to deal with Part II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, dealt with this part at considerable length. I find myself somewhere between the position that he takes and the position the noble Baroness takes. He is perhaps being a little harsh on the Bill. I have considerable sympathies with the views of local authorities in this matter.
The problem of enforcement of parking regulations in the Greater London area is serious. It is a problem we touched on a few weeks ago when discussing a Motion that I had the honour to introduce to your Lordships' House on the traffic situation in London. The question is whether this Bill, as it stands, achieves the purpose of improving
1626
enforcement. It goes some way towards it, but some of the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are valid. They have been set out by the RAC and others and no doubt will be set out in much greater detail and more eloquently by learned counsel—who will be better paid than I am—when it goes to the Select Committee. I do not need therefore to go into it in any great detail.
I shall touch on the question of money raised from fixed penalties going to the local authority. I sympathise with the local authority in that matter. If, by doing that, they can obtain better enforcement, then I would be in favour of it. It is the question of duplication and the confusion in the minds of vehicle users which is the problem.
The RAC, in their petition, say that vehicle users will not know from one area to another whether the local authority and its officers are empowered to levy the additional parking charge, issue fixed penalty notices or clamp or tow away their vehicles. It is that lack of clarity in the minds of the parking public which is the problem with the Bill as it is laid out.
Some local authorities are already taking the law into their own hands. My good friends in the excellent administration in the borough of Richmond on Thames, Hampton Wick and Twickenham, where specific traffic problems are experienced, operate a system of private traffic wardens using notice of intended prosecution with £12 fines. They believe that they are able to pursue that system through the local government general duties provisions. They support Westminster's bid to put it on a firmer legal footing.
Overall, I accept that the problem will be that we shall have a patchwork of applications of the regulations as we move from one street to another; not all of us are exactly sure where the boundaries of one borough or another are drawn in this great city.
That takes us back to the basic question that I raised in the previous debate regarding the need for an overall traffic authority for Greater London. I cannot help but return to that point. With 33 boroughs—or however many there are—we often find difficulty in administering the traffic and parking regulations in an area which is not 33 separate entities, but is a whole city; admittedly, as the noble Baroness said, there are a number of areas in the city. I thought the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, clearly made the point that it should be possible in Covent Garden to have different regulations even within an authority covering a much greater area.
I endorse what was said on the subject of small businesses in the city. It would be a great tragedy for the city if tailors were forced to move out, whether in Savile Row or anywhere else. There are others which are not quite so upmarket, but which ought to be preserved. There are also a number of other small businesses which should not be turned into offices if the city is to live as a genuine entity.
I am afraid that I am ambivalent about the parking restrictions. I see what they are trying to achieve, but I fear that some of the problems the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned may arise if the Bill goes through in this form. I hope that the Select

1627
Committee can iron out these difficulties before it comes back to your Lordships' House for Third Reading.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, knowing that I am interested in traffic conditions and transport matters, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey—who deals with local government and environmental issues—discussed this Bill with me. He made it quite clear that he will leave Part II, on traffic, entirely to me, and that he has no strong views on any other aspect of the Bill. Therefore the noble Baroness need not convince my noble friend Lord McIntosh. He is quite happy for the Bill to go to Select Committee, and for them to deal with the matter.
I hold much the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I can see what the Bill hopes to achieve and I greatly sympathise with it. Regarding Part II of the Bill, strangely enough, no one has been in touch with me. I have heard nothing from my friends in the RAC; nothing from the AA; nothing from the FTA. I thought that nobody objected to the Bill and I was surprised to hear tonight that the RAC raised strong objections to it.
Part II of the Bill tries to achieve what all of us want—that is, more effective parking enforcement. Although I do not want to live in Greater London, from the standpoint of the Bill perhaps I should like to be in Greater London. I live in the Epping Forest district council area, where there are a number of police stations—they seem to be more like report stations. We hardly see a traffic warden and we suffer from illegal parking. That badly needs regulation enforcement. If this Bill is passed and I lived in the area, I should like to see the council do something about the parking situation.
On my reading of the Bill participation is optional. A council will be a participating council if it decides to participate. It is not compelled to carry out the provisions. A parking charge, in addition to the initial charge and the excess charge, seems a fairer way of trying to achieve enforcement.
I recognise that one could have different regulations in neighbouring boroughs; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, stated, we have different regulations for trunk roads—which are administered by the Department of Transport—and local roads, which are administered by local authorities. We already have that differentiation. There are clear definitions of what is a specified person and a proper person; and Clauses 6 and 7, regarding the removal and immobilisation of vehicles, seem to be satisfactory. I notice also that the fully authorised officer is clearly defined in Clause 2.
There are two Acts affected by the Bill. We have the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. I have not the slightest doubt that aspects of these two Acts will be considered by the Select Committee. I am quite happy for the Bill to go forward and for those matters which have been raised, particularly those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the
1628
doubts which I have as well, to be left to the Select Committee to iron out.
I have not the slightest doubt that the Department of Transport has its views and will obviously either present a paper or appoint a witness to put its views before the Select Committee. I believe that the Bill is trying to do something in Part II. I should like to see it go forward to the Select Committee and for the points that have been raised to be ironed out there, because what we want is enforcement in a number of boroughs which do not have it.
I have criticised, as has the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the absence of a strategic traffic authority in London, but while we do not have that the Bill goes some way towards it. Therefore I should like to see it go to the Select Committee for it to deal with some of the points that have been raised.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Reny: My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I intervene briefly to give an indication of the Government's view on the Bill. In general, the Government have no objection to the principle of London authorities, as they are empowered to do by statute, promoting the Bill seeking additional general powers for the London area. There are, however, a number of provisions in the Bill which give rise to considerable concern in departments. Like my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the Department of Transport and the Home Office have serious misgivings about Part II of the Bill, which concerns new arrangements for parking controls.
The Bill proposes a new "parking charge" in place of the fixed penalty for overstaying the "excess period" at a parking meter or other designated parking place. The Bill would also allow local authority officers to issue fixed penalty notices and to secure their enforcement, whereas at present only the police and traffic warden force may do so. The Bill would further allow local authority officers to authorise vehicle removal and wheel-clamping for breach of parking and traffic regulations. In all these respects, the Bill seeks to divert receipts from fees and penalties to the authorities concerned.
The Government fully accept the need for effective enforcement of parking controls. To that end they have themselves brought forward proposals for change in London in the light of lengthy consideration of the issues with the local authority associations and the police. The proposals were set out in a consultation document Traffic in London, issued by the Department of Transport last December. The period for consultation concluded on 28th February. Replies are still being considered.
In the Government's view, it would be premature to proceed with the proposals in the Bill before the outcome of a consultation exercise on these very issues has been settled. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Transport, with the support of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, intends to oppose these provisions in a report to the committee on the Bill.
The Home Office has also a number of concerns about Part III (Special Treatment Premises) and Part

1629
IV (Entertainment) of the Bill. Part III introduces a licensing system for special treatment premises, which includes massage, manicure, acupuncture, tattooing, cosmetic piercing and chiropody. Neither the Home Office nor the Department of Health has any objection in principle to the proposed powers, although the Home Office takes the view that additional restraints on legitimate trade should only be imposed where there is a clear evidence of need. The Home Office is also concerned about the inclusion of a licensing condition relating to fire precautions which it considers are adequately covered by general legislation.
As to Part IV of the Bill, this seeks to amend the general Acts which deal with the licensing of theatres, cinemas and places of private entertainment. These proposals would have the effect of creating differences between the licensing regimes which apply in participating boroughs in London and those which apply in other parts of the country. The Home Office would want to be satisfied before agreeing to changes of this kind that a difference in treatment can be justified. If not, the better course would be to consider whether any changes of national application to these Acts are necessary. Departments have also raised with the promoters other points of concern in respect of provisions relating to audible intruder alarms (Clause 27), scaffolding licences (Clause 28) and planning: use class (Clause 29).
On Clause 27, both the Department of the Environment and the Home Office have reservations about the provision which imposes restrictions on the operation of audible intruder alarms, a subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, returned this evening. He very fairly reminded your Lordships of the sympathy which I had expressed on the last occasion on which he raised the matter. But even then I think I drew the attention of the House to some of the difficulties which surround any proposals that have been brought forward; although I must say that I had not anticipated the problem that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, brought to our attention of keyholders who had all been drinking.
The proposals in the Bill have implications for the security of property and for police powers and resources. The Department of the Environment and the Home Office have doubts as to whether the provisions as they stand are realistic or practicable.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I quite understand that these departments could have reservations. But I hope that at the Committee stage, if they express those reservations, they will put forward alternative proposals to safeguard people who want to preserve their sleep.
Lord Reay: My Lords, if the noble Lord had contained himself for a moment, I would have said that we accept that burglar alarms can be a serious source of noise nuisance. The Department of the Environment is carrying out a review of noise. Burglar alarms have been identified as a topic for special discussion. The review working party is expected to produce its report in the late summer, and it is hoped that this may contain what, in our view, may be some more practical solutions for
1630
dealing with the problem of noise from burglar alarms.
Clause 28 empowers a highway authority to include in scaffolding licences which it issues under Section 169 of the Highways Act 1980 two specific terms. The first is to prevent unauthorised persons from having access to scaffolding or climbing it. The second is to protect the security of the building.
While the Department of Transport can understand the reasons for this clause, they believe it to be superfluous. Subsection (1) of Section 169 of the 1980 Act already provides that,
"a licence may contain such terms as the authority issuing it thinks fit".
Therefore, and subject to the appeal system in subsection (3) of Section 169, there is no limit to the terms which may be included in a licence. Therefore, there is no point, in our view, in arbitrarily providing for two specific terms, as to do so could be regarded as devaluing other terms not included in the clause. The department, therefore, sees no need for Clause 28.
As to Clause 29, the Government are well aware of concerns about the Business Use Class (B1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 which have led the promoters to include this provision. In particular, the Department of the Environment has received representations suggesting that the Business Use Class is fuelling redevelopment pressures for offices, particularly in inner London, and driving up rents to levels which long-standing occupiers of light industrial and workshop space cannot afford. This is a problem which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, in particular, dilated on at some length.
The effect of Clause 29 would be to subdivide the Business Use Class (B1) for the purposes of development control in London. In so doing, however, the clause conflicts with present government policy, which is to allow flexible use of premises, and thus foster enterprise, where that can be achieved without significant adverse effects on the environment or local amenities. It would also pre-empt the findings of independent research into the effect of the order, sponsored by the Department of the Environment, of which mention has been made, and the results of which are expected in the summer. Furthermore, to abrogate the provisions of the order selectively by means of a private Act would be procedurally undesirable. For these reasons, the Secretary of State for the Environment opposes Clause 29.
I have to say that on this and other outstanding issues, if suitable amendments cannot be agreed with the promoters, we shall have no alternative but to submit departmental reports to the Select Committee opposing these provisions.
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to thank those who have participated in this very interesting debate. I feel I must respond to a few of the points that have been made. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has given general support to the proposal, and I shall say no more about that. However, I must respond to my noble

1631
friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, although I am pleased that he supported Clause 29.
My noble friend's comments on the cinema situation make me believe that he did not read the petition. He said that the people had no concern about the fees—yet they keep referring to that matter all the way through. They bring up, for example, the fact that at present the maximum fee is £173·15. Then they go on to say that, as petitioners, they attach importance to control by the department of these fees. They then describe the difficulties that might arise if excessive fees are proposed. They also refer to,
"the prospect of the sums in question and the fees".
And so it goes on. I could read out point after point along those lines; but nowhere in the whole document do they say anything about censorship. If there was a real fear of censorship, in order for the committee to consider it, as I understand it, that point should have been included in the Petition. I think this point must be a slight red herring.
On the question of censorship, I do not think that there is cause for alarm. I sat on the film viewing sub-committee, which was the censorship body of the GLC, and it was the most agonising duty I can recall. Always, if I was rung up and told that they could not get a quorum, I knew that not only was it going to be a pretty awful film in terms of pornography but so unattractive and badly filmed that none of the men wanted to go and so all the women ended up having to view it. If people were compulsorily obliged to sit through such a quantity of awful films as I have seen there would be no need to worry about censorship because it would turn them off immediately. I believe that censorship in terms of the cinema is a thing of the past. I do not see any suggestion of it in this Bill; nor is there any suggestion of it in the petition.
Parking is a different matter. It does not seem to be appreciated that at the moment local authorities already have the power to tow away vehicles. Outside London they can charge for it but they cannot charge for it inside London. So already there is a difference in the situation as between outside London and inside London.
I recall very clearly a debate in this House, followed by a free vote, when we were considering the introduction as a pilot scheme of wheel clamps. Very different views were held. I was always a great supporter of wheel clamps and I think they have been a success. However, I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whom I always think of as the man with the golden words, making an impassioned plea about the case of a priest who would not be able to visit someone on their deathbed or a rabbi who might be similarly prevented. It was a fascinating speech to listen to but of course it totally ignored the fact that anyone who was in danger of being wheel-clamped was in the wrong and was parking illegally. Your Lordships will remember that in the end the scheme went through.
I mention the point because the scheme was introduced in a very small area even of one borough in the first instance and when it proved a success
1632
there it was extended to another small area of the same borough. From that we have gradually seen it spread. During the debate a statement was made to the effect that other boroughs might see how good the scheme was and other parts of the country might see how well it worked and wish to introduce it; surely that is no bad thing. If it is seen to work so well that other parts of the country view it as a success, surely that means it is effective.
Perhaps also it may not be appreciated that Westminster already has its own traffic wardens, wearing their own uniform and operating in charge of resident parking areas together with other arranged areas. So again what we are suggesting is not new; it is just a variation or extension of what is there already. The very fact that these trunk roads are so important and will require a great deal of additional policing if they are to be turned into priority routes and kept clear means that the staff will not be available for the work they are now doing in areas off those important priority routes. I believe that this is a logical and common sense approach.
One very important point I must respond to is the view expressed that a local authority would run riot in terms of revenue raising. First, it will not have the powers to do that, and, secondly, there is well-established case law which sets out clearly that it will not have the right to charge whatever it likes.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made some interesting points about parking. He referred to a patchwork. It may be a patchwork, but I think there is a need for a patchwork arrangement rather than uniformity because conditions can vary.
What is important, and what perhaps can be sorted out at the Committee stage, is clear signing of what type of area the motorist is in. I have said in your Lordships' House on other occasions that I should like to see agreement on an international sign for wheel clamping. Outside my home in London I find myself regularly telling foreign visitors not to park there because they will be wheel clamped. If there could be a small international symbol on, say, a lamp-post, no one would need to warn them and of course they would not stay there and risk the danger of wheel clamping. The same applies to any other sort of parking area. Over the years I have seen many areas where cars have been allowed to park in one street just outside a certain type of zone which begins in the next street, and there has been a clear sign saying, "You are entering a restricted parking zone". Signing is terribly important.
As regards an overall traffic authority for London, many of us think that this is the only way we shall ever get agreement on a borough-to-borough basis, because it is very natural for us all to want to pass our problems on to the next borough, and only an overall strategic view will help that.
My noble friend Lord Reay said that the Government were concerned that the receipts would be going into local authority coffers, but of course such receipts would be used for traffic control and would enable a better standard of traffic flow for other people. I believe that that is why the AA have changed their attitude and are now supporting this. They want to see traffic in London moving, and a reduction in the costs.

1633
Intruder alarms were also mentioned, and the noble Lord said there were now powers to deal with them. The present powers which the local authorities have spring from the Control of Pollution Act 1974. One has to have persistent activation of the powers and the procedure is very cumbersome. Notices have to be served and offenders taken to court. It is not at all something about which one can achieve a very rapid result, so I do not feel that the present situation is satisfactory. The local authorities would not be bringing any of these matters forward if they were not unsatisfactory.
The noble Lord also said that the Government wish under the B1 category to foster enterprise and I think the letter that I read out earlier made it quite clear that, although everyone accepted that the intention was to simplify this industrial office use, exactly the reverse effect was taking place. In particular, the procedure is killing small enterprises. The Slough Estates petition said they have 1,300 businesses in London and a portfolio of 664,000 square feet. One must appreciate that people like Slough Estates have had what I would call windfall profits from this change of use, because there is an automatic and great increase in the value of rental from industrial premises. We really cannot allow that to go on for any length of time.
I hope that the House will agree to refer the Bill to the Select Commitee, on which five noble Lords will sit and all the opposed sections of the Bill will be carefully examined. There will of course be submissions from both sides and everybody will be heard. I am grateful to all your Lordships who have participated in the debate.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  ECOFIN MEETING, 12th MARCH
  ECOFIN MEETING, 12th MARCH
  BREATH TESTING LEGISLATION: REVIEW
  BREATH TESTING LEGISLATION: REVIEW