Sitting of 3 May 1990

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

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 10 May.

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 May at Seven o'clock.
    Mr. Speaker: As the remaining 11 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

    CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 May.

    ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [27 February],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 10 May.

    CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
      SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
        VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
          LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
            LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

              LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
              Orders for Second Reading read.
              To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 May.

    EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [29 March],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 10 May.

    GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To he read a Second time on Thursday 10 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Broadcasting Bill
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the Broadcasting Bill.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): The Broadcasting Bill made good progress in Committee, and returns to the Floor of the House for its remaining stages very soon.
    Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the way in which he handled this detailed and comprehensive Bill, and in particular on the way in which he responded to the many representations made about it. Can he respond to some further representations that have been made about clause 84(2), which lays down general provisions about licensed services?
    Mr. Mellor: If my hon. Friend is anxious about the editorialising provisions as they affect religious broadcasting, I can say that we are giving further consideration to where to draw the important line—I know that the House will agree that that line has to be drawn—between legitimate religious expression and offering religious bodies the opportunity to expand religious broadcasting, as other groups will be able to expand other forms of broadcasting in the much wider broadcasting choice that will be available, and opening the door to the American or cult broadcasters who would do the public a disservice. I am aware of the worry that the editorialising provisions might, for instance, prevent a local church that had a community radio station from broadcasting its own religious services. I hope that the rules will not bite that deeply, but, because I am concerned about that, we shall consider whether there should be a new formulation. I hope to be able to take that a stage further on Report.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the improvements that the Minister has announced, and his further elaboration, but will he explain why Christian television stations should not be licensed when secular ones can be licensed and the same requirements could be stipulated for each?
    Mr. Mellor: I am happy to say that Christian television stations on cable or on the non-direct broadcasting by satellite services can be licensed. That is one of the changes that people will welcome. The hon. Gentleman asked why should not this be done without let or hindrance. The answer would be apparent if one turned on a television in the United States and saw Mr. Orel Roberts, Mr. Jimmy Swaggart and the rest of them. Opening the way to such people is no part of the propagation of decent Christian broadcasting.

    Car Security
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on efforts made by motor manufacturers in the last year to improve the quality of car security.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Progress could certainly be faster. For example, it is very disappointing that the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, which has made an anti-car theft award to individual manufacturers, felt it necessary this year to withhold the award on the ground that no manufacturer had made great progress in improving car security.
    However, I understand from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that the motor industry is continuing to pursue a programme of security improvement. In large part, the society has worked with the Department of Transport towards the production of a European Commission directive based on part I of the British standard on vehicle security. It has also participated in industry meetings to produce an international standard on car alarms.
    Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents will be disappointed with the attitude of the motor industry towards motor car security. He will also be aware that the bulk of crime in London these days is stealing from or of motor cars and that a great deal of it could be halted if motor cars were made more secure. Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the motor industry the vital and urgent importance of improving the security of new motor cars and devising ways of improving the security of existing motor cars?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Thefts from motor cars represent about 26 per cent. of the annual crime figures. Most of the increase in crime in the 1980s—I choose my words carefully—has been due to an increase in car-related crime. I think that that is accurately describable as the British disease. Car manufacturers could and should do more to help, as, perhaps, should the insurance industry.
    Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only one model of motor car in the United Kingdom is manufactured with a foolproof and tamper-proof milometer? Is not it high time that motor manufacturers were encouraged to have tamper-proof odometers in all vehicles so that those who enter the second-hand car market can at least be offered some protection?
    Mr. Patten: I was not aware of the issue which my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House. It is a good idea that tamper-proof odometers should be available. It is a curious reflection that while motor cars in the United Kingdom have the same equipment fitted to them as do motor cars in West Germany, for example, our rate of car-related crime is much higher than that in West Germany. Fitting equipment is one thing; using the equipment properly is another. We are open to all suggestions. The Home Office will draw up a register of cars and rank them in terms of vulnerability to theft and break-in. I shall publish the information.
    Mr. Skinner: Who would buy a second-hand car from this Government?
    Mr. Patten: I once bought a very good second-hand car from my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). I had it for three or four years, and it gave me great service.

    Police Pay
    Dame Peggy Fenner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the real increase in a police constable's pay over the last 10 years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Since the Government came to office, the pay of police constables has increased by just over 41 per cent. in real terms.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Does police remuneration under the Edmund-Davies formula include the rent allowance as an integral part, as a number of my police officer constituents, who have corresponded with me, seem to believe? What has been the increase in rent allowance for the 29 forces whose force maxima were last reviewed in 1988?
    Mr. Lloyd: As my memory serves me, Lord Edmund-Davies did not make any recommendation on rent allowance. He said that he regarded it as reimbursement, not pay. I can answer precisely the second part of my hon. Friend's question. The change for those who last had an increase in rent allowance in 1988 and, therefore, did not have one last year, will be about 16 per cent. There is a small margin either way because some police forces had the uprating a few months earlier or later than others.
    Mr. Wilson: If the Minister were giving evidence in a court of law, would not he be guilty of withholding relevant information? In telling us of an increase in police pay, he failed conspicuously to mention the reduction in police pay that has been effected through the imposition of the poll tax in place of the previous rating system. Is not it hypocritical to prosecute when there has been something akin to the three-card trick, with the Government giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other?
    Mr. Lloyd: No. I gave accurate and clear statistics on police pay. Under the arrangements that we have made for the community charge, which every adult should pay, the police, who are extremely well paid, come into the same category as the rest of the community, and quite rightly so.
    Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government have done extremely well by the police, but that there have been some difficulties about the rent allowance? Will he ask the chief constables in the forces concerned to report back to him on whether the rent allowance difficulties will lead to recruitment difficulties in the future?
    Mr. Lloyd: The fact that police pay has risen so generously as I have said will ensure that we do not have recruitment difficulties, but we discuss such matters constantly with chief officers. My hon. Friend referred to the "problem" of rent allowances. Let me give one figure which will help to put that problem into perspective. We have spent 59 per cent. more on total police expenditure, including pay and equipment, since we took office, but rent allowances have risen by 124 per cent., showing that they have got quite out of line with what the rest of the community has to pay for housing and with police pay.
    Mr. Hattersley: Why did the Home Secretary veto the agreement on pay and allowances which was decided by arbitration three months ago? Will he concede that,

    1195
    because of the conjunction of the poll tax and the holding down of rent allowances, many thousands of police officers will be worse off next year than they otherwise would have been? What will that do for police morale? Does the Minister share my opinion that the Home Secretary should have answered this question on the crucial matter of police pay?
    Mr. Lloyd: The police are much fairer and more sensible than the right hon. Gentleman gives them credit for. The fact that their pay has moved in the way that it has shows how well they have been looked after. As Edmund-Davies said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a final duty to make a decision and he must make it on the wider basis of the totality of spending and in comparison with the rest of the community. In addition, he has a duty to report to the House, which he will do when the measures come before the House in due time.

    Prison Statistics
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): On Friday 27 April the total prison population in England and Wales was 45,948. That is 3,513 fewer than that on 28 April 1989, when the population stood at 49,461.
    The latest projections of the prison population, based on information available to the autumn of 1989, suggest a continuing growth in population over the next five years to a total of 57,100 in 1995, but the fall since then has been very encouraging. The projections will be revised to take account of these changes and the proposals in the White Paper "Crime. Justice, and Protecting the Public" in due course.
    Mr. Knox: I welcome the decline in the prison population in recent months, but does my right hon. and learned Friend expect it to continue to fall in future, and is he taking steps to try wherever possible to keep people out of prison?
    Mr. Waddington: The central theme of the White Paper is that we should ensure that we do not send to prison unnecessarily those guilty of less serious crimes, but at the same time provide adequate powers of punishment so that the courts can give serious and severe sentences to those guilty of violent crime. In publishing the White Paper we were not embarking on a new course; we were building on the success of proposals introduced by the Government during the, past eight years. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that part of the fall in the prison population during the past 12 months has been due to the fact that many fewer young offenders have been sent to prison. That is an encouraging trend which I hope will develop as a result of the White Paper.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary agree that the present prison overcrowding, and regimes that provide prisoners with no useful occupation, are more conducive to recidivism than to reform? Does he agree, given the natural distress of those involved in the Strangeways disturbance, which has led to cries for industrial action of
    1196
    a kind that seems most unwelcome, that the time has come seriously to examine with prison officers the inadequacies of the existing regimes?
    Mr. Waddington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to bend our efforts towards the improvement of prison regimes. One sad consequence of the recent outbreaks of rioting is that the damage done to cells is a real setback to our plans. One need only read the report of the chief inspector of prisons on the improvements made at Strangeways during the 12 months before the riot to recognise that a great tribute should be paid to him for making such great improvements. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to continue to tackle, the issues, but we are confronted with major problems now because of the loss of accommodation resulting from the riots.
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend will welcome the dramatic and increasing reduction in the prison population. I know that he is equally concerned about the conditions for people who must be sent to prison or placed on remand. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that some members of the Home Affairs Select Committee visited Strangeways on Monday. Is he aware of the very high regard that the staff have for the governor of that institution? Is he aware also of the high morale that prevails, and of the great courage that they have displayed over the past 25 days? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what Manchester and its staff need most of all is the remand prison brought back into use as soon as possible?
    Mr. Waddington: I am glad to be able to tell the House that during the past 12 months there has been a considerable fall in the remand population. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that we should continue to address that matter. I am grateful for his remarks about the governor of Strangeways and all the prison officers working there. I certainly pay tribute to them. An assessment of the structural damage to the wings at Manchester is being made. When it is completed, we shall review the various options for the prison's future. Obviously I can see the attractions, and the importance to the staff, of bringing at least part of the prison back into use as soon as possible.
    Mr. Randall: Notwithstanding the figures that the Home Secretary has just given the House, does not he accept that the Government's prison reform policy has moved at the speed of a tortoise? We are in 1990, yet too many prisoners are still locked up in cells for more than 20 hours a day in appalling conditions, and have inadequate opportunities for education and exercise. Has not the Government's continuing indifference and complacency over the past decade contributed to the kind of situation that arose at Strangeways?
    Mr. Waddington: That is an extraordinary comment. As the Labour party is so coy these days about revealing its policies and how much they will cost, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come back next time and tell the House how much an incoming Labour Government would spend on a new prison building programme. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we introduced the first substantial prison building programme this century. It involves constructing no fewer than 28 prisons, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that eight of them

    1197
    have already been completed. For a member of a party that did precisely nothing about prisons when it was in office, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are sheer cheek.
    Mr. David Nicholson: As my right hon. and learned Friend reflects on the unfortunate events at Strangeways, perhaps he will recall the famous remark made by Lloyd George to Churchill in the Norway debate of 1940, that Churchill should not turn himself into an air raid shelter to protect those who were really responsible. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, while we on the Conservative Benches know that he will take responsibility for his Department like the honourable man that he is, we believe that he should not protect people who have given bad advice or who have not fully passed on information?
    Mr. Waddington: I note what my hon. Friend says. I have already made the position perfectly clear. I have no intention whatever of placing the blame on officials. I can only tell the House the truth, which is that there is a chain of command. The deputy director-general reported to me about these matters and I did not veto any proposals that he or the governor put to me.

    Community Policing
    Mr. Matthew Taylor:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of police time is spent in community policing.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: It is not feasible to quantify the specific percentage of time spent on community policing as it is integral to almost all aspects of police activity. It is a primary responsibility of every police officer to serve his or her local community efficiently and effectively, and with its consent and support. The deployment of officers at force level to fulfil this duty is a matter for the individual chief officer concerned.
    Mr. Taylor: I hope that the Minister accepts that getting bobbies on the beat in our towns and villages is the best method of crime prevention and detection, and that that should be a priority. May I draw attention to Devon and Cornwall constabulary? On average, a constable serves 407 people in his or her area, but in our area an officer serves 523 people. That makes community policing in the far-flung towns and villages of our community difficult. Will the Minister press urgently for a substantial improvement in the ratio?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend takes the advice of Her Majesty's inspector of police on these matters. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly have been delighted at the announcement of 17 more police officer posts in the police force in his area this year, and we shall consider the recommendations that are made next year. I must take issue with him on one point. Policemen on the beat are not the only or necessarily the major part of community policing, which includes neighbourhood watch, crime prevention panels, work in schools, work with young people and consultative groups. A range of activities is part of good community policing, not just the one element that the hon. Gentleman mentions, although it is an important one.
    Mr. Norris: Although I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the growth in community policing, does he
    1198
    agree that a feature of it that deserves greater examination is the fact that the attention paid to it by different forces throughout the country tends to vary? Does he agree that advice from his Department to chief constables, emphasising the importance of community policing, may ensure that, throughout Britain, the same high priority is attached to this vital area of police work?
    Mr. Lloyd: We place great importance on the matter and talk to chief officers about it. My hon. Friend is right that there are different practices in different forces and that community policing is understood in a variety of ways. That is why we have Dr. Trevor Bennett conducting research systematically with each force to see what each force regards as community policing policy. In that way we hope not only to have a common understanding of what is meant by it, but to pick out best practice to recommend to forces throughout the country

    West Midlands Police
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the special branch document ref. No. 10368/74; and what action he has taken.
    Mr. Waddington: As I said on 30 March in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), a copy of this document was passed to me by the West Midlands police on 23 January 1990. I examined the document carefully and concluded that it did not constitute new evidence which might cast doubt on the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six.
    Mr. Livingstone: As the document is a special branch record of the confession of a confirmed member of the IRA, who was then convicted for his crimes, is not the Home Secretary disturbed that on page 3 the individual names a member of the IRA, Mr. Michael Hayes, whom he met in December 1974 and who told him that he had planted one of the two Birmingham pub bombs? As the confession has been in the hands of the police and of special branch for over a decade, how can it be that it did not lead to doubts in the Home Secretary's mind and to a full investigation? Surely this calls into doubt the soundness of the conviction. Surely now is the time for a full public inquiry.
    Mr. Waddington: One thing the police report certainly was not was a confession—it was a report on information provided by a person arrested for terrorist offences in the 1970s. The Home Office made inquiries about the document after a Granada television programme last November which referred to its existence, but the hon. Gentleman has got it entirely wrong. The men referred to in the document had been included in the original police investigation, but not sufficient evidence was found against them. Therefore the production of the document by Granada was a non-event and I was able to recognise it as such.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask special branch to investigate why it is that if those men are wrongly convicted they always face the wall whenever they appear in front of a prison governor because they claim that they are political prisoners and not prisoners of British justice?
    Mr. Waddington: I do not think that I am capable of commenting on that. I have made my position absolutely clear: if material is put before me which it is suggested is new evidence that may cast doubt on the safety of the convictions, I am prepared to look at those matters. Here is a clear case where a great deal of fuss has been made about a document which includes the names of certain people who it is quite clear were investigated by the police way back in 1974, before the trial, when no sufficient evidence was found against them.

    Crime Management
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how much money was invested in purchasing new technology for crime management and crime pattern analysis by each police force in Wales during 1989–90.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The purchase of computers and other equipment is a matter for chief constables and their police authorities. I understand, however, that in 1989–90 the police forces in Wales spent the following amounts on new technology for crime management and crime pattern analysis: Dyfed Powys £7,500, Gwent £3,500 and South Wales £89,500.
    In addition, the North Wales police spent £323,000 on a crime reporting system which will also provide some crime management and crime analysis facilities.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister will recall that in an earlier reply his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that he heeded the reports of Her Majesty's inspectors. Is he aware of the recent HMI report into the South Wales police which said that their lack of computers was hampering their effectiveness in detecting crime. The report states:
    "Crime management and crime pattern analysis——"
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase, not quote.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that that report makes it clear that because chief officers of police have to consult files manually they are hampered in trying to detect crime? Will he make it clear to South Wales police that further funding will be made available so that they can overcome that problem?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I am well aware of the HMI report and that senior officers in the forces concerned share its views on the necessity of improving the situation. Plans to do so must lie with the police authorities, and this year they are intending to spend a further £2 million on equipment. I hope that a great deal of that money will go on upgrading their computer systems. Of the amount that they intend to spend, one third will come from central Government grant.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on a report published today, which shows that one in five of the public in south Wales is not satisfied with the work of the police? Those people gave two reasons for their dissatisfaction—first, that the police are too busy to do their job properly and, secondly, that there are not enough police on the streets. If that police force does not receive money for its computer equipment it will be unable to do its job properly.
    Mr. Lloyd: From the figures that the hon. Gentleman cites, it is clear that 80 per cent. of people in the area are satisfied with the police. In answer to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), I said that a particular shortcoming in computer technology had been identified and knowledge of it shared with the chief officers. A substantial sum of money is available among the police forces in Wales to spend on equipment and no doubt they will spend it.

    Sentencing
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increases in sentences for serious and violent crimes there have been since 1984.
    Mr. John Patten: Between 1984 and 1988, average sentence lengths increased by 33 per cent. for violence against the person, 47 per cent. for sexual offences and 28 per cent. for robbery.
    Mr. Arnold: I welcome those considerable increases in sentences for violent criminals and I particularly welcome the fact that in the context of attempting to reduce the prison population, we are not weakening our efforts to deal with violent criminals. May we be assured that sentences will continue to increase in length, not only as a deterrent but to protect our constituents from violent and evil men?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's concern for public protection and for women's safety in this country. It is our intention that the courts shall have lengthy sentences available to them to deal with violent and sexual offenders, and it is quite right that that should be the case.
    It is also our plan that when a sex or violence offender is coming near to the end of his sentence and is about to be released into the community, there shall be new rules concerning the supervision of such an offender giving the victim and the victim's family the right to have their views taken into account as to whether, for example, a convicted rapist should return to the area where he lived before to reside for the rest of his sentence and that is quite right, too.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it has been made more possible, from a practical point of view, to increase sentences for violent and serious crime and to reduce the prison population because the judiciary has made space in our prisons by reducing the number of prisoners on remand, by keeping the number of fine defaulters down to well below 1 per cent. and by taking advantage of community service orders and the other alternatives to imprisonment that the Government have made prodigious efforts to increase?
    Mr. Patten: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says about the judiciary and I accept that he is entirely accurate to say that there has been a considerable recognition by all concerned, including the Labour party, that many non-violent and non-serious offenders can be punished adequately in the community, thereby helping the community and paying back for some of the wrong that they have done.
    We are absolutely determined, however that those who commit serious and violent crimes shall continue to be punished seriously and that the public shall be protected from them. Proposals by the Home Secretary include the

    1201
    proposal that in future a persistent sexual or violent offender who offends again, however small the offence, can be sentenced right up to the maximum for public protection purposes.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that judges are to some extent inhibited from passing the right sentences by the antique and arcane calendar of offences, many of which have not been changed since 1860 or 1861? Will the Government introduce a whole new range of offences to deal with homicide and violence which would enable judges to exercise their discretion more fully and properly?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, being a recorder as well as a Member of Parliament, that there has been a considerable amount of criminal law reform in the 1980s. However, I believe that what he says is well worth considering in the 1990s.

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special units have been established within the Metropolitan police area dealing with cases of domestic violence.
    Mr. John Patten: There are currently 35 such units. A year ago there were 12. The first ever was set up in 1987 and I am told that the commissioner plans more.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that special police units to deal with domestic violence are performing an extremely valuable role, not only in protecting battered women but in nipping violence in the bud and thus keeping together families which might otherwise fall apart? Does he agree that that initiative is pursuing the valuable twin aims of preserving the family and preserving law and order?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that more women are coming forward to report cases of domestic violence shows the confidence of victims in the way in which the police handle such cases, and we should pay tribute to the police for that. My hon. Friend is also right to say that early intervention by the police can stop small domestic violence incidents escalating into more serious cases of violence and can thus keep families together, which is what we all want to see. That is why in the next couple of months I shall be issuing a circular to the police encouraging them to set up more domestic violence units and to keep at-risk registers.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister satisfied with the number of units that have been established? Does he concede that this important issue needs to be dealt with rapidly by the police, with an increase in the number of officers trained to deal with victims of domestic violence? Does he agree that women who are victims of such violence must be confident that their case will be recorded as one of domestic violence and not just put down as a neighbourhood dispute, as so often happens in the police recording procedures?
    Mr. Patten: I hope that it will not alarm the hon. Gentleman if I say that I agree with him. It is important that every crime is reported to the police and recorded. The fact that the commissioner has introduced such an increase in the number of domestic violence units in the
    1202
    Metropolitan area is welcome. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will visit those in his district to see the excellent work done in them.

    Juvenile Offenders
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring forward his proposals giving courts stronger power to hold parents liable for the criminal activities of young offenders.
    Mr. Waddington: We shall bring forward legislation to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", including those on parental responsibility, at the first suitable opportunity.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one third of all crime is perpetrated by the under-17s and that some parents do not seem to know where their children are either by day or at night? Could the regulations therefore be introduced at the earliest possible date, bearing in mind the experience in the United States of America where similar regulations have caused parents to consider their children's actions more carefully?
    Mr. Waddington: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of that. It should be possible—I believe that it is—to bring home to parents their responsibility when a child goes wrong, without making the parents guilty of a criminal offence. We can do that by strengthening the powers to require parents to pay the fines imposed on their children, allowing magistrates to assess the fines according the parents' means as well as the child's means, requiring a parent to attend court when a child is brought to court and binding parents over to exercise proper control over their children. I should have thought that all right-minded people would understand the common sense of those proposals.

    Concessionary Television Licences
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on concessionary licences for retirement pensioners.
    Mr. Mellor: Under the 1988 regulations, the concessionary television licence is available to retirement pensioners and disabled people who live in registered residential or nursing homes or in equivalent sheltered accommodation provided by a local authority or a housing association. Some 875,000 people currently benefit from the concession. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have no plans to make any further changes to the scheme.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister realise that the 44,000 pensioners who live in the city of Leicester and millions of others throughout the country, have had to suffer a dramatic decline in their living standards because of the Government's policies in the past 10 years? Does he accept that millions of them simply cannot afford to pay the cost of a television licence as well as all the other charges that they have to pay, including the poll tax? Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting on the Front Bench next to him, to see whether resources can be made available to implement a scheme for all pensioners? The Opposition believe that British pensioners have made a valuable contribution to society and deserve special treatment.
    Mr. Mellor: The only problem with what the hon. Gentleman has said is that most of it is inaccurate. It is not true that pensioners' living standards have been falling in recent years—in fact, they have been growing. It is not true that every pensioner is in need. We know that many pensioners are well off—better off than those who would have to pay an extra amount in television licence fee if all pensioners were to receive the concession. The cost of the concession to other licence payers would be sufficient to take the television licence fee to more than £100. Despite the occasional weasel protestation from the Opposition Front Bench, they have never committed themselves to make that change, although I hope that one of them may stand up and clarify the point later.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will the Minister look into what I think may be an anomaly in the regulations, whereby even if all the residents of a retirement home are of pensionable age they are not allowed the concessionary television licence if the articles of the home permit persons to be admitted to the home from age 55 even if none under retirement age are actually present?
    Mr. Mellor: I think that everyone who has had to deal with this scheme has a passing regret that the scheme was ever devised, because it is of its very nature that lines must be drawn, thus creating anomalies and there are always some people just the other side of the line. We tried to tidy up the arrangements in 1988, but any tidying up still leaves hard cases. I regret what my hon. Friend has said and if that is the case I shall look at it, but it is of the nature of a scheme which was no doubt invented in a hurry and has caused a lot of trouble in the past 20 or 30 years.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the voters of Hammersmith and Fulham are very grateful to the Government for having cut their community charge by £99? Does she also know that my constituents are outraged that the Labour-controlled council is spending community charge payers' money taking the Government to court to try to put the charge back up again? Will she join me in assuring the voters of Hammersmith and Fulham that if they vote for a Conservative-controlled council today the capping will stay and every community charge payer will be £99 better off tomorrow?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Hammersmith and Fulham has for years been a very high-spending council. In 1987–88 it put the rates up by 127 per cent., and it has increased its budget significantly in recent years, so that this year it has set a charge of £424. The council has been capped because its budget was excessive—nearly £300 per adult over the standard spending assessment. The proposed cap gives a £99 reduction in the charge and, as my hon. Friend says, the
    1204
    voters have every cause to be grateful to the Conservative Government. Labour-controlled councils cost you more and Conservative-controlled councils cost you less—and give a better service.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding Members on the Conservative Benches that they are still in Parliament.
    Hon. Members: Where are the Opposition?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Such interruptions take up a lot of time.
    Mr. Kinnock: Several of my hon. Friends are out ensuring even bigger gains for the Labour party in today's elections.
    When the Prime Minister first decided to impose the poll tax, did she realise that all across the country. regardless of which political party has control of councils, three times as many people would lose through the poll tax system as would gain from it?
    The Prime Minister: If that is so, the enemy is not the community charge but high-spending Labour-controlled councils.
    Mr. Kinnock: By now the Prime Minister knows very well that that is absolutely not true. Why does she not heed the words of her fellow Conservatives in places like Redbridge, where the large Conservative majority on the council passed a resolution calling upon the Government
    "to desist from misleading the public and to accept its own overriding share of responsibility for the level of community charge"?
    Why does the Prime Minister not accept the inescapable truth of that statement from her Conservative colleagues and, just for once, come clean?
    The Prime Minister: Because it is local councils which set the community charge—I trust that the right hon. Gentleman does not argue with that—and, as he knows, the top 50 overspenders are all Labour-controlled councils. [Interruption.] The top 50 overspenders are Labour-controlled or councils with no overall control. The difference is well exemplified by my authority which, after safety net, has a community charge of £268 but which is top in the education stakes. The Labour-controlled authority where the right hon. Gentleman lives has a community charge after the safety net of £408 and is 74th in educational performance.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister realise that councillors of all parties, including her own, deeply resent the way in which she is trying to blame them for that which is her fault? Why will she not stand up and accept her own guilt?
    The Prime Minister: Labour councillors are expected to take responsibility for the community charges which they set. If they cannot take responsibility, they should not be there. The fact is that under Labour people pay more for poorer services and for spending on things that they do not want. Conservative-controlled councils cost less and provide a better service.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that every kind of diplomatic pressure is being brought to bear to secure the release of the hostages in the middle east? Does she agree that it would be wholly wrong to enter into direct negotiations with terrorists or those who are their sponsors?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Obviously we very much want to get our hostages out and every day we are trying to do something to that end. May I point out that our embassy staff have remained in Beirut throughout a very dangerous and difficult period? One of their main purposes in being there is to try to find out any information that they can about any hostages.
    Yes, we are using diplomatic contacts and pressure, but there are certain obstacles—for example, the fact that Iran broke off diplomatic relations with Britain over the Rushdie affair. We maintain a dialogue with Iran through our protecting power, which is Sweden, and through other contacts, and we shall continue to do that. We are also in touch with the Americans and, like them, we welcome the role that Iran and Syria played in securing the freedom of the two American hostages. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be wrong to make deals with those who take hostages and we shall not do that.
    Mr. Allen: This is a statement. It is an abuse.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a matter which is of grave concern to the whole House.
    The Prime Minister: It is wrong to make deals with those who take hostages. We shall not do that, and nor does the United States. The Archbishop of Canterbury has this morning reaffirmed his view that the Government's policy is sound and that one should never reward hostage-taking because to do so would encourage more of it.
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister comment on the collusion which has been exposed today between the Tory-appointed chairman of Lothian health board and the Scottish health Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), for the purpose of suppressing until after today—and I quote:
    "to avoid political embarrassment to the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party"
    —the proposals of that hand-picked Tory health board to close four hospitals and to cut nursing and paramedical services in order to meet a deficit? In how many other corners of Britain are similar plans being suppressed until today is out of the road? Does the Prime Minister realise that the people of Scotland will never accept the dual role of the hon. Member for Stirling as Scottish health Minister and as chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland in manipulating the Health Service for shameless political ends?
    The Prime Minister: I know of no such collusion whatsoever. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
    1206
    for Scotland has done wonders for the Health Service in Scotland. There are more hospitals, more nurses, more doctors who are better paid and more patients being treated than ever before. It would be kind if people could pay a tribute to the Under-Secretary who has had a good deal to do with that.
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend, following her statement last Tuesday, give greater reassurance to the House that the Government will introduce positive and persuasive ideas for co-operative evolution in the European Community? Will she apply her undoubted leadership qualities to breed cohesion among Community leaders to ensure that the Community develops in a way that benefits everyone in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. In the next few weeks we shall present ideas to make the institutions of the Community work better, on the basis of sovereign states working through national Parliaments and through the Council of Ministers in the Community in a way that benefits everyone. We shall also be introducing some different ideas for economic and monetary union—bearing in mind the approach of the House, which is not to move in anything like the Delors direction, as that would rob us of our powers. We think that our ideas would go further to ensure the co-operation of the Community states to benefit everyone.
    Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister read the reports in today's newspapers about the Dudley man who was sent a bill for £1·91 poll tax for the last two days of his wife's life? Does she not see that that adds shame to the verdict of inefficiency and injustice that is being passed on the poll tax at the ballot box today? How powerful must the vote of protest against the poll tax be before the right hon. Lady will listen?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to that action by Dudley Labour council, which was not under an obligation to collect that sum from the deceased person's estate. [Interruption.] The relevant regulations provide only that sums owing may be recovered in the administration of the person's estate and from his executor or administrator. The Department of the Environment has been advising authorities that if a person dies shortly after 1 April they should consider writing off any outstanding amount. Furthermore, there is no doubt that in this case the cost of billing Mrs. Wood's estate exceeded the amount of the charge.
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether she has any information about local authorities which provide good services at reasonable cost, as opposed to those which provide poor services at extortionate cost?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly comply. My hon. Friend will know the answer. It is Conservative councils which

    1207
    give good value for money, cost less and give excellent services. It is Labour councils which cost people more, offer poorer services and often spend money on things that people do not want. The object lesson is clear—elect Conservative councils.
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the Prime Minister sack the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—because he instructed Lothian health board to withhold its programme of hospital closures until after today's regional elections? Does she agree that that is typical of the hon. Member for Stirling and that the Scottish people have had enough of him because of his sustained attacks on their welfare?
    The Prime Minister: No, I will pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Health Service in Scotland for the excellent way in which the service is run, to the great benefit of most of the people in Scotland—who, I am sure, are much more satisfied with it than the hon. Gentleman is. I noted that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me a question about the community charge, possibly because the level of community charge set by Lothian is the highest of any authority in Scotland.
    Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
    Mr. Speaker: I will take it in a minute.
    Q.7 Mr. Gale: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
    Mr. Eadie: Should not the same strictures apply to the Prime Minister as apply to other Members of the House when they deal with matters not contained in the question?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for what is said in answer to questions.
    Mr. Gale: There is probably no one in the House who cares more than my right hon. Friend about the plight of the hostages in the middle east, but in the light of her earlier answer will she reaffirm that the only result of giving in to terrorists is, in the long run, the taking of more hostages, and that the only way forward must be through quiet diplomacy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. If we ever give in to blackmail it results in the taking of more hostages, which is why neither we nor the Americans will make deals of that kind. We both try and will continue to try, through our contacts, through the protecting power, and through other contacts that we have, to do everything possible to bring about the release of the hostages, about whom we are very concerned. We note that America has done no deals—it is through quiet contacts that her hostages have been released.

Business of the House
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 8 MAY AND WEDNESDAY 9 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill.
At the end of Wednesday, there will be a motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 251).
THURSDAY IO MAY—Completion of remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to general product safety. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY II MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I4 MAY—Private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Pakistan Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the spring adjournment on Thursday 24 May until Tuesday 5 June.
[Thursday 10 May Relevant European Community Document 7480/89 General Product Safety.
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 15-xxx (1988–89), para 1 and HC 11-xix (1989–90) para 1.]
Dr. Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider his treatment of Supply time? Why has such a lengthy time elapsed without the Opposition having a day on which we may choose a subject for debate? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman discuss that through the usual channels, because a backlog of Opposition Supply days appears to be building up and we do not want to have to take them all in a rush at the end of the Session?
Will the Leader of the House consider bringing forward without further delay the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which deal with the Government's vetoing of an arbitration award to the police in connection with their allowances, including their liability under poll tax regulations? We suspect that the Government have been hiding away this contentious issue until after today's local elections. Consideration of the order by the House is long overdue and I hope that it will come before us for debate before very much longer.
As the Leader of the House will be aware that independent forecasters are confidently predicting that next week there will be a further damaging rise in inflation, perhaps reaching double figures, will he arrange for an oral statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we can all question him about the damaging consequences for industry, the economy and mortgage rates of a further rise in the rate of inflation? The Leader of the House will have seen today's good news that John McCarthy and Brian Keenan have been seen recently and apparently are quite well. Sadly, there are no similar reports on Terry Waite and Mr. Jack Mann.
1210
Will the Leader of the House consider—I emphasise the word "consider" because I know that these are difficult and delicate matters—whether we should have a statement next week from the Foreign Secretary? We just witnessed, in effect, a statement from the Prime Minister with no opportunity for hon. Members to ask questions, which was an abuse of our procedures. I do not regard that as an adequate way—[Interruption.] I am not raising this contentiously; I am asking the Leader of the House to consider whether it would help all hon. Members to have a statement next week. No one is suggesting that we should deal with terrorists or should reach behind-the-scenes agreements with people who kidnap our citizens, but even the Archbishop of Canterbury has today called for direct dialogue.
Whatever the circumstances, Governments of other countries have been more successful in obtaining the release of their citizens who have been taken as hostages than have our Government. A reconsideration of existing policy and approach may be helpful. Will the Leader of the House discuss with his colleagues whether we may have a statement next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bear in mind the first point made by the hon. Gentleman—it was perfectly reasonable for him to make it—for discussion through the usual channels.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the House may not have noticed that the matter to which he referred will be debated on the Adjournment on 14 May. In view of that—I believe that the prayer is out of time—I am not sure that another debate would be appropriate or necessary.
As to the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement on the retail prices index, that would be a departure from precedent wholly without justification. The RPI is announced once a month, and has been since I can remember. I shall not introduce that innovation.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I understand and share the pleasure at the news that Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Keenan are alive. I share his anxiety for good news of the other British hostages. I have been concerned with their welfare for many years. He understands, as he implied in his question, the difficulty of making a firm commitment to a statement on that matter.
The House must understand that there are special factors affecting the British position—for example, as the Prime Minister said, that the Government of Iran broke off diplomatic relations, following events of which the House is only too well aware. All these matters are under discussion, but I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman wants. I shall bring his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important for the House to have an early chance to debate the future development of the political institutions of the European Community? When might such a debate occur?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my right hon. Friend's perfectly proper interest in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I shall bear his suggestion in mind, but I cannot give him an answer at the moment.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the National Health Service provision for Trent region, and on Leicestershire in particular? Is he

1211
aware that an all-party group of Leicestershire Members of Parliament is this afternoon meeting the Secretary of State for Health to express their concern that the 3 per cent. cut in real terms, which is affecting our county when it needs more health provision, is resulting in swingeing cuts in hospitals, wards and other services, which is disgraceful and is reflected in far too many other parts of the country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Any request for such a debate would be most likely to succeed in the context of a debate on the Adjournment. I hope that, if the time comes, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find it possible to acknowledge that there has been an increase in real terms of some 40 per cent. in the total resources for the National Health Service.
Sir Alan Glyn: In view of the changes occurring in Lithuania and the Baltic states, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider having a very early debate about the pressure that the Soviet Government appear to be putting on the reunification of Germany?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise an early debate on that specific subject. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain acutely and continuously concerned about that matter.
Mr. James Wallace: Following the Prime Minister's detailed clarification of the liability or non-liability of the deceased to the poll tax in England, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the Dispatch Box next week to clarify the position in Scotland? Despite many invitations during Scottish questions, he has failed to give us an answer about the position in Scotland. That lack of clarity has meant that many constituents of mine and of my right hon. and hon. Friends are distressed because councils have exacted poll tax on deceased people. We would welcome clarification from the Secretary of State for Scotland; otherwise, we will again be seen to be treated as second-class citizens.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My impression of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is that he has a greater gift than almost anyone to make the position crystal clear in answer to questions. I shall draw to his attention the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that it was not until the spillover Session last year that we had a debate on the defence White Paper. Will he reassure the House that this year there will be an earlier debate, perhaps shortly after the Whitsun recess?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend that specific assurance, although I can assure him that I will consider the timing of such a debate with as much sympathy as his request deserves.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a statement on the reports over the weekend that the House of Commons Commission will consider the salaries of staff, especially those in the Refreshment Department? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have a bill for a meal last night in the Dining Room of the
1212
House of Commons? It is for £5·40 for a three-course meal, which included half a litre of red wine. Is it not improper that hon. Members can eat meals at transport café prices on the back of cheap labour hired by the House of Commons Refreshment Department? Is it not fair to say that every Member of Parliament would willingly pay £1 or £2 more for a meal to ensure that such people are paid a proper wage for doing such important work in the House of Commons?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are proper and established mechanisms for staff of the House and for trade unions to put their grievances arid concerns about pay, and for those to be properly considered by the management. The House of Commons Commission will be considering some aspects of that question at its next meeting.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the parties to the Montreal protocol are meeting in London at the end of June, and that one of the specific items that they will be discussing is the depletion of the ozone layer? Is he further aware that early-day motion 932 calls clear attention to the need to phase out methyl chloroform?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to propose to the European Council of Ministers on 7th June that a phase out of methyl chloroform, an ozone-depleting chemical, be negotiated by the European Economic Community at the London meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol, on 20th to 29th June 1990.]
Will he convey that message to his Cabinet colleagues so that the Government can take a leading role in having that and other ozone-depleting chemicals phased out internationally and as a matter of urgency?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am aware of the meeting to which my hon. Friend has referred. I remind him that the Government have reached a common position with our European Community partners on the proposal to phase out methyl chloroform that was put forward during negotiations.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Norwegian Government have made clear their intention to seek the lifting of the moratorium on commercial whaling when the International Whaling Commission meets in July? Does he share the great concern of all hon. Members and of people outside the House that that should be proposed by the Norwegians, who previously had a good reputation for environmental care—although not in respect of whaling? Will he ensure that any Ministers who attend the United. Nations conference in Bergen next month will protest volubly on behalf of the House and the British people? Can we please have an early debate on the conservation of whale stocks, both in the north Atlantic and the Antarctic?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the hon. Member and the House will need no reassuring of the Government's real and continuing concern and interest in this matter, not least in the light of the request made recently by Norway. There can be no question of lifting the moratorium on commercial whaling until the scientific advice is clearly that whale stocks can be sustained at healthy levels. The Government consider that the International Whaling Commission must develop a new management procedure

1213
to guarantee that there will be no repeat of over-exploitation. That is the extremely cautious and concerned way in which the Government will approach the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to read the report on the front page of the Daily Mail about the extremely disturbing series of events that it is alleged are taking place in a prison in Nottingham? These events will be of enormous concern to my constituents. Is he aware that the Home Secretary has already started an investigation into these allegations? When that investigation has been completed, will my right hon. and learned Friend make time available for a statement on the results of it?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern with these matters. I hope that he is reassured by the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is conducting the investigation to which my hon. Friend has referred. I will bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the view that my hon. Friend has expressed, which underlines the gravity of the matter.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the Leader of the House draws to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland the valid point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), will he emphasise that local authorities in Scotland are beginning to issue 14-day final notices of poinding and warrant sales to the executors of the estates of people who have been deceased for a year? For example, in my constituency, the widow of a skipper who was lost at sea last year, has been threatened with that course of action for a sum of £12·16. Do not we need clarification of this ruling?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House understands that these matters have to be considered with due sympathy and consideration for the circumstances of the people concerned and with due regard to the legal provisions. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the example that the hon. Lady has mentioned.
Mr. Simon Burns: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider helping to unravel some of the confusion about the unfairness and the punitive nature of the roof tax by arranging a debate on the subject to help the Opposition explain their position?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My deep anxiety to unravel the difficulties of the Opposition does not extend as far as organising an important debate such as that at such short notice.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Leader of the House acknowledged, in reply to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the importance of institutional developments in the European Community. Therefore, will he consider reverting to the previous practice of having oral statements after the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, now generally called the General Affairs Council of the Communities, particularly as from now until June, and possibly until December, the Council will be preparing the way for constitutional discussions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I understand it, that question and the possible answer to it need to be considered afresh in relation to each meeting of the General Affairs Council. I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's point is brought to the attention of the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Nigel Forman: In view of the great importance to many of my constituents of the cost and conditions of travelling on rail commuter services in and out of the centre of London, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider organising an early statement—or better still, a debate—in which it may be possible for the House to discuss rail commuter services, especially in view of the threat reported in the press today that the price of rail services may be going up by a great deal more than the rate of inflation, which causes great concern to my constituents?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As a Member who also represents a number of London commuters, I understand my hon. Friend's concern with the matter. I do not want to vouch for the truth of the rumour to which he has referred—indeed, on the contrary—but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware of the growing support in the House, as evidenced again last night, for dealing with Northern Ireland legislation other than by Orders in Council, where possible. Will Parliament be given an opportunity in the near future to declare its intention on the issue, so that Northern Ireland might be governed by the same seamless robe of government rather than the machinations of the Northern Ireland Office?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told the hon. Gentleman, I think more than once, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is only too willing to consider his concerns and those of other Northern Ireland Members about the procedures for handling legislation and to consider any constructive proposals. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House share my concern at the announcement this morning that those responsible for illegal ballot-rigging in elections to the executive of the Transport and General Workers Union are now not likely to be identified or brought to justice? As the House is concerned about the links with that union and leading members of the Opposition, will he give an undertaking that there will be an urgent investigation into the affairs of the TGWU at an early date after the Whitsun recess?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure about the status of the news to which my hon. Friend refers. My impression was that the inquiry and investigations were still continuing. I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Ms. Majorie Mowlam: I do not want to bother the Leader of the House again by asking when we shall have a debate on the House of Fraser. I am not sure that even he can come up with another way of saying no or yes without giving a definitive answer, but a response would be appreciated.

1215
I ask, however, for an urgent debate on directors' pay. I am sure that he is aware that it is running at four times the rate of inflation. Many newspapers are carrying the story, and there is general public outrage at the 33 per cent. average increase in directors' pay. These increases are not, as one hon. Member has suggested, in line with the profits of companies, because the profits of many companies are diminishing. This is an outrage and a bad example. I ask for a debate so that the Government can join the Labour party and the CBI in condemning the increases.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I could make a link between the point raised by the hon. Lady and the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), and hope that the Opposition will take advantage of their forthcoming Supply day to raise the matter. More seriously, I share the hon. Lady's concern, although not to the extent or in the language expressed by her, about the course of the necessary curtailment of the growth of unit labour costs and the necessary control of our effective competitiveness alongside profitability. Those in charge of companies and businesses should take account of the need for moderation for themselves as well as for those whom they employ.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the deputy Prime Minister provide time for a debate on the preservation of open spaces in towns in Northern Ireland? The matter is urgent because, for instance, the people in Hollywood, in my constituency, will shortly be deprived for ever of the opportunity of using the old gasworks site at Kinnegar, Hollywood as a recreation ground. Secondly, decisions are being made in private about the seafront at Bangor, which was, disgracefully, turned into a car park. I understand that plans are being made for property speculators to build on part of the site.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not altogether sure whether the House of Commons is the best place in which to disclose those undoubtedly important details about the problems with which my hon. Friend is concerned. I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Since the Leader of the House cannot find sufficient time for debates and statements, is he aware that that conflicts with the statement that he has made about the holidays? Does he understand that the Whitsun holiday that he has just announced is probably the longest in the 20 years since I have been a Member of this place? Is he aware also that, when he got his job, Tory Members in particular were cheering him to the echo? I was puzzled to know why. I think that I have now found the answer.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I only hope that on that point the hon. Gentleman will join the rest of the House in cheering me to the echo.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers his response to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for more time for Opposition debates, will he consider imposing two conditions—first, that Labour Members should turn up for them and, secondly, that the Opposition should say what they would do if they were in power? Is it not the greatest con on the British electorate to promise the earth and not say how the money would be raised?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to two entirely legitimate criticisms of the Opposition. It is beyond my power to impose conditions on the Opposition, much though I would wish to do so.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we discuss the Government's abuse and misuse of statistics and parliamentary procedure? It has taken me more than a month and two points of order to obtain an answer from the Department of the Environment on the breakdown of local government finance. The original estimate was that 50 per cent. would come from local government grant, 25 per cent. from the national business rate and 25 per cent. from the poll tax, but the actual figures are strangely close—48 per cent., 26 per cent. and 26 per cent.—and that has been made possible only because they take into account the aggregate external finance figure, to which extra grants have been added. We should have a debate on how the Government are using figures.
That arrangement is dubious because, if the Government were correct and the poll tax was only 26 per cent. of the total, the Government would have no case against the levels that are being charged, because they are in line with their own predictions. Therefore, poll tax levels must be due to the legislation, not to local authorities.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am astonished and baffled by the hon. Gentleman's point. He complains about the accuracy of three figures—50 per cent., 25 per cent. and 25 per cent.—emerging as 48 per cent., 26 per cent. and 26 per cent. If, in any examination that he sat, he could achieve a 96 per cent. accuracy rate in respect of all three parts, he would be congratulating himself.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he will have the support of Conservative Members in his decision not to have a debate or a special statement next week on the hostage affair, because it might exacerbate a delicate situation? But will he give an undertaking that the Government will take every opportunity next week to continue to make it clear to the Iranian Government that no British Government could reward terrorism by making any bargain for the release of the hostages, and that, if the Iranian Government want to become part of the civilised world again, and to become acceptable and trustworthy, they have only one course—to make sure that all the hostages are released immediately and unconditionally.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear, as Ministers have often done, that it would never be right to reward hostage taking, and my hon. and learned Friend is entirely right to draw attention to that matter. On the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also made clear, we welcome the role that Iran and Syria have played in securing the freedom of two of the American hostages. We shall continue to encourage such a response in the most effective way that we can.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Leader of the House must be aware of the deep concern that many British people have about the potential danger of any sale of arms to Iraq. Early-day motion 869 points out that the Iraqi Government have practised genocide against the Kurdish people, have an appalling and disgraceful human rights record and that any trade with Iraq, be it direct sales from Britain, credit that is made available to the Iraqi

1217
Government, or diplomatic recognition and support for Iraq, in effect supports Iraq's human rights record and its attacks on the Kurdish people.
[That this House believes that the Government of Iraq has an appalling record on human rights and that it has used chemical and biological weapons against Kurdish people; believes that it is inconsistent to ban the sale of weapons or weapons material to the Government of Iraq whilst allowing credit and trade; and therefore demands a ban on all trade with Iraq.]
In those circumstances, may we have a debate in the House on our relationship with Iraq so that those of us who believe strongly that there should be no trade with Iraq while it continues its murderous practices against the Kurdish people, using chemical and biological weapons against them, can argue that all trade should be stopped to show that we are serious in our condemnation of the Iraqi Government's abuses of human rights?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No one hesitates to condemn the abuse of human rights in Iraq, as in any other country, and the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to that. He should also acknowledge that the guidelines on the sale of defence materials to Iraq remain in exactly the same state as they were when they were originally drawn up in the course of the Gulf conflict.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made clear about a month ago, cutting off all trade with Iraq would serve only to create a satisfaction among our industrial competitors and the loss of jobs in Britain. That is not a sensible thing to allow, however much one may abhor the abuse of human rights.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange a debate soon on early-day motion 854?
[That this House is appalled at Ealing Council's failure to pay statutory maintenance grants to many students for the past two terms; notes that those same students enter a third term without payment of grants due to them from that council despite repeated assurances that the grants will he paid in full at an early date; notes the highly hypocritical opposition of the Ealing Labour Council to interest free student loans as proposed by Her Majesty's Government whilst at the same time forcing students from the borough of Ealing to take out bank loans at high interest rates to pay for board, lodging and other essentials; and demands immediate action from Ealing Council to rectify the deplorable situation in which it has placed so many people who deserve better.]
In that motion, I draw attention to the fact that many higher education students in my constituency and across the whole borough of Ealing have not had their grants paid by Ealing's Labour-controlled council for three terms. Many of those students are in total penury and are having to make use of bank loans at very high interest rates, as a consequence of the actions of a council that opposes student loans at a zero interest rate. Can something be done for those students, who are suffering greatly at the hands of the Labour party?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told my hon. Friend more than once, he is assiduous in drawing to the attention of the House the shortcomings of Labour-controlled Ealing
1218
council. My hon. Friend has raised the matter before, and it has been investigated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Most outstanding grants have now been paid and steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is closely monitoring progress, and he will continue to follow up every individual case that my hon. Friend refers to him.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his attitude in respect of the whole Iraqi question? As certain persons have now been brought before the courts in respect of the so-called supergun, that matter is now sub judice. Initially, that was not the case, yet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refused to answer questions that even you, Mr. Speaker, ruled were not sub judice. Will the Leader of the House refer that matter to the Select Committee on Procedure to consider?
No Secretary of State, in either a Conservative or Labour Government, should be allowed to refuse to answer questions just because a case is before the courts. The House has not been getting the answers that it should receive, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will seriously consider my remarks. I am not raising a matter of self-interest—it is one which affects all right hon. and hon. Members.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not doubt for a moment the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. Circumstances arise when cases that might lead to prosecutions require investigation by the appropriate authorities. In the case in question, Customs and Excise is the independent authority responsible for conducting investigations and for bringing prosecutions. It could be equally embarrassing to the process of investigation as to the process of prosecution, for the matter to be questioned at large in the House.
I do not exclude interrogation of the circumstances in the House at a later stage, when the proceedings have been brought to an end, but there is a real need to be discreet, in the extent to which the House pursues matters that are the subject of investigation with a view to criminal proceedings. One cannot give as clear-cut an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question as he implies. I have examined that matter and will do so again, but at this stage I cannot give an undertaking to refer it to the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. John Greenway: The shadow Leader of the House asked for a rather narrow debate on the subject of the police housing allowance. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there would be merit in a wide-ranging debate on the police in general, in the light of recent reports about policing? Also, will he investigate a report in The Sun today that a young police officer injured in the recent poll tax riot in Trafalgar square has now died? Will he join me in conveying the sympathies of the House to that police officer's family and relatives and in condemning those who incited violence at the demonstration in question?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have indeed seen that report, and I join my hon. Friend in sending sympathy to the family of the police officer concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to note that that is endorsed by hon.

1219
Members on both sides of the House. I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion of a debate on the wider aspects of policing at some later date.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for an early debate on local authority finance? Would that give the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) a chance to expand on his speech in the House two years ago last December on the Local Government Finance Bill? When he was asked about Labour party policy, he said that he was coming to it, and later he grew really bold and said that he was coming to it soon. Is this not probably the most delayed second coming in the history of mankind?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in these matters and commend him on the way in which he has raised them.
Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the 16,500 aerospace workers in Lancashire fully appreciate that their future depends on the Government's strong economic policies and the orders that result therefrom for the defence industry. They are anxious to hear from the Government about the outstanding matters on the radar for the European fighter aircraft. Can my right hon. and learned Friend offer an early prospect of an announcement on that issue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friends in government are well aware of the interests of his constituents in this important matter and will endeavour to offer further information when it is available.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that we voted against the
1220
European social charter. May we have a debate about the implication that, despite our having vetoed the charter itself, many directives could come from the Commission as a result of majority voting which would be likely to prevent us from having certain employment, social and trade union legislation? Can we have a debate to make it clear to the European Parliament and the Commission that hon. Members on both sides feel that the matter is of great importance?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. He will recall that, at successive meetings of the European Council, the Government drew attention to our opposition to the social charter formulated as a whole and made it plain that each component part which may or may not come forward in the consequent action programme would need to be scrutinised closely and carefully, in accordance with the procedures of this House and other places.
Sir Ian Lloyd: In view of the characteristically churlish, ungrateful and ungenerous remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the dates for the Whitsun recess, may I express thanks, not only on my behalf but for all hon. Members, for the response of my right hon. and learned Friend to the suggestion made some time ago that one day at Whitsun is worth two at any other time of year? If the hon. Gentleman chooses to come back in the middle of Whitsun, could the lights be put on so that he may bask in his own reflected glory?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Subject to the availability of the lights at such a time, I shall certainly take account of the generous, gracious and encouraging remarks of my hon. Friend.

Points of Order
4.8 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister, not for the first time, read at some length from what was obviously a carefully prepared statement. The issue concerns British hostages in Iran and is an important one. There has been some discussion through the usual channels about whether it should be raised in the House, and about the most helpful way to proceed.
First of all, it is an abuse of the House for the Prime Minister to use Question Time to read lengthy prepared statements on important subjects on which hon. Members are precluded from asking questions. It is an abuse to read out long prepared statements of that kind.
Secondly, it is a totally unsatisfactory way for the House to deal with business, particularly sensitive and controversial issues that are not party political—certainly this is not a party-political issue. We are told by Conservative Members that such matters should not be raised at all. One of the Prime Minister's supporters repeated that argument this afternoon, but, at the same time, that hon. Gentleman and others seemed to endorse the behaviour of the Prime Minister. In those circumstances, the House gets the worst of all worlds.
Statements are made that cannot be questioned, and subsequently we are told that statements cannot be made to the House on which Opposition Members or Conservative Back-Bench Members could question Government policy. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter, to which we should give some thought. Perhaps you will let us have your thoughts in due course.
The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take up one thing mentioned by the shadow Leader of the House? He said that twice a week, regularly, week after week, the Prime Minister faces questions from this House, sometimes dealing with sensitive and non-party political matters. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the importance of her answers to a whole range of questions of that sensitivity being carefully thought out and considered in advance.
Mr. John Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it further to it?
Mr. Greenway: Yes, it is.
Is not it churlish of the shadow Leader of the House to criticise the Prime Minister's performance at the Dispatch Box bearing in mind that she, unlike most other leaders of European Community member states, stood at that Dispatch Box and answered questions for more than an hour only on Tuesday?
Dr. Cunningham: Since this is important, we might as well get the record straight. I was not criticising what the Prime Minister said, or her conduct in the matter. I was criticising what I regard as an abuse of the procedures of the House—an entirely different point. I was saying that it
1222
was an abuse of Prime Minister's Question Time. I made no comment on the content of what the Prime Minister said.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the House will allow me to deal with this matter. I am not responsible for questions that are asked. I have no idea what an hon. Member with an open question on the Order Paper is likely to ask, so I cannot be held responsible for what the Prime Minister says in reply.
Earlier in the week, we had a point of order deprecating such questions but perhaps one of the bonuses of open questions is that they enable questions on important matters that have occurred recently to be asked and answered. Whether there should be a fuller statement so that the Prime Minister, or the Minister concerned, can be properly questioned is a different matter and not one for me.
Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This relates to open questions and the answers to them. I appreciate that you are not responsible for the answers that the Prime Minister gives, but I know that you are anxious that as many hon. Members as possible should be able to participate in Prime Minister's Question Time and, therefore, the length of her answers may sometimes be relevant to how many hon. Members can get in.
You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, today that, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on the Health Service in Scotland, the Prime Minister, as well as answering that question, gave a further answer relating to the poll tax—in answer to a question that had not been asked. I know that you do not have responsibility for the content of answers, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that you would deprecate the lengthening of the Prime Minister's answers when she gives wholly irrelevant answers to questions that have not been asked.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a good practice to answer questions that have not been asked.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I reckon that we did fairly well this afternoon. We normally get down to Question 6, but today we got down to Question 7.
Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Why?
Mr. Lawrence: Could you kindly confirm, Mr. Speaker, that what the Prime Minister did this afternoon was certainly not an abuse of the procedures of the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely correct. When we have open questions and the Prime Minister answers a question that she may not have been aware she would be asked, it is equally open to other hon. Members who are called subsequently to put further questions to her on that same matter. That that seldom happens, of course, is not a matter for me.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance as a new Member and on behalf of many people who watch our proceedings on television or in other places who may be confused. Am I right to believe that, just as it is in order for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to read from a script when asking questions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has to answer questions on so many different subjects, can have information in front of her so she can read from it to ensure greater accuracy?
Mr. Speaker: Some tolerance has always been given—the hon. Member is not all that new—to those on the Front Benches, particularly to Ministers answering from the Dispatch Box, in the interests of accuracy. But quotations from Back Benchers and others are not allowed. "Paraphrasing" is the word.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: But, Mr. Speaker, would you deprecate the art of using planted questions? It seems clear from some answers given recently, especially last Tuesday and again today, that Conservative Members were asking questions on two topics to which the Prime Minister had long answers. It is clear that there was collaboration at some level.
Perhaps the Prime Minister, through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, might follow the example of the Leader of the House, who today answered 20-odd questions in a little over 25 minutes—giving clean, courteous, short, if muddled, answers—thereby enabling us to ask more questions of her.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Banks: Yes, it is.
Mr. Speaker: Before I took the Chair in 1983 I recollect hearing, in my previous incarnation, about planted questions, but I do not know what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is talking about in that context these days.
Mr. Banks: Has your attention been drawn to the reported remarks yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he referred to vegetarianism as
1224
an unnatural thing and somehow against the teachings in the Bible? I and others know that you, Mr. Speaker, are the most eminent vegetarian in the House. Was it not folly for even a Minister to suggest that somehow Mr. Speaker would indulge in any unnatural practices whatever? How do you intend to deal with the Minister? Do you think that there might be a case for examining whether he has finally caught mad cow disease?
Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that I want to get involved in that. I have dealt with the matter to the extent that I have sent a private letter—the contents of which, of course, I could not disclose—to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food giving him a quotation from Romans, which I think should put the matter in its proper perspective.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I crave the indulgence of the House to refer to the fact that it has been pointed out that yesterday I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to do something that makes no sense, perhaps not for the first time? I am reported as asking:
"Will he give an undertaking that there will be a single dual carriageway built … between Hawick and Carlisle?"—[Official Report, 2 May 1990; Vol. 171, c. 1022.]
I wish to make it clear that I uttered those words and that Hansard has not made a mistake. The mistake was in my head and I wish, for the avoidance of any future doubt, to delete the word "dual." I sought to ask him to make a single carriageway the length of the road between Carlisle and Hawick, and I am grateful for the opportunity to put that right.
Mr. Speaker: That can probably be permitted.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we should not worry about made cow disease but about mad heifer disease.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman said it.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That European Community Documents Nos. 4020/90, 4021/90 and 4022/90 on marketing certain plants and plant propagating material be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day

  Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.19 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  On 5 April this year my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General informed the House that the Government intend to make it possible to hand over to the Commonwealth of Australia, as a gift, one of the two vellum copies of the Act of Parliament that brought Australia into being as an independent nation. The introduction of that Bill on ANZAC day last week was a first step towards the fulfilment of that undertaking.
  The public record copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is already in Australia on loan. The effect of the Bill will be to release that copy from the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958, thereby enabling Her Majesty's Government to accede to the Australian Government's request that it should remain there permanently.
  There are two copies of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 which were printed on vellum. One is held in the record office of the House of Lords as the official record of parliamentary proceedings. The other is the Public Record Office copy, which has been on loan to Australia for the past two years. The Act established the framework for the Commonwealth of Australia, including the powers of its Government and judiciary, and its provisions have remained relatively unchanged since its enactment.
  The Act was drafted by Australians and endorsed at the time by a majority of Australians and by each of the Australian Parliaments and Governments. The Australians already hold a duplicate original of the royal proclamation, signed by Queen Victoria, that brought the Act into force on 1 January 1901, and a duplicate original of the commission of Royal Assent to the Act, also signed by Queen Victoria. The provision of that copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act on a permanent basis will, therefore, complete the trinity of documents which, taken together, represent Australia's birth certificate as a nation. Far from being a dimly remembered historic document, the Act is regarded by Australians as the embodiment of Australian nationhood, containing provisions that remain as relevant now as they were 90 years ago.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Does the Act include anything about the rights of aborigines in Australia? This matter concerns them and many other people in Australia, particularly in relation to what has happened recently. If it does not, what is the Government's attitude to that?
  The Solicitor-General: I shall seek to answer the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  A great deal of interest has been shown in the document by the Australian people. Since the public record copy of the Act was loaned to Australia for the bicentennial in
  1226
  1988, more than 2 million visitors have had the opportunity to see it on display in Parliament house in Canberra. There can be no doubt of the depth of feeling that lies behind the request to hold a copy of the Act permanently.
  The Government recognise that the arguments against the disposal of any of our public records are also strong. Public records are an important part of this country's heritage and form an integral and unique collection which goes back a long way. We would not lightly agree to disperse material from our national archive. But in view of the special circumstances of the Australian Government's request, including the fact that the people of Australia have become accustomed to having easy access to the document and minds are presently focused on old ties between our countries, the Government have decided that it would be right to find a way to offer the document to the Commonwealth of Australia as a gift, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General so informed the House, by written answer, on 5 April. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has now written to Mr. Hawke offering a gift of the document, and that offer has been warmly accepted.
  As things stand, the copy of the Act is a public record selected for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958. The provisions of that Act do not allow for gifts or permanent loans of records to be made. The Bill will make it possible for the document to be released to the Commonwealth of Australia by providing that this vellum copy of the Act alone ceases to be among the United Kingdom public records to which the Public Records Act applies. The Bill has been drafted in such a way as to make it clear that this change in statute refers, and is intended to refer, to this one document alone. The preamble refers to Her Majesty's Government's willingness to
  "advise Her Majesty to accede"
  to the Australian Government's request.
  The Bill will not technically make the gift but will rather make it possible, subject to parliamentary approval for the course of action that the Bill proposes. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that there will be an ideal opportunity formally to hand over the document when my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President visits Australia on official business this summer. To make this possible, the Bill must proceed rapidly so that Royal Assent may be obtained before the summer recess. It is also desirable that the Bill should come into force without the usual two-month interval after Royal Assent.The abbreviated timetable for the Bill will ensure that the proper arrangements are in place in time for my right hon. and learned Friend's visit.
  I am looking to my left to see whether I can answer the question of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) before I conclude my initial remarks. It may be that, with some manual assistance from my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), I shall be in a position to do so.
  The position, as I expected—but I am grateful to have confirmation of it—is that the 1900 Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not, as far as we know, refer to the aboriginal people. If, as a result of further investigations, I receive any contra-indication during the debate, I will let the House and the hon. Gentleman know.
  This short Bill will make possible a gesture which means a great deal to the people of the Commonwealth of

  1227
  Australia, a nation with close and long-lasting legislative and constitutional links with our Parliament. We at Westminster should welcome this opportunity to recognise the Australian commitment to parliamentary democracy, which endures within a framework that the 1900 Act set up. The gift of a copy of the Act is a symbol of the history, heritage and traditions that we share and of our friendship, and I commend it to the House.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. John Morris: I thank the Solicitor-General for introducing the Bill and, on behalf of Opposition Members, warmly endorse its purpose. It is right also to thank my right hon. Friend and namesake the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who, if not the father of this Bill—because it is the Lord Chancellor's and the Attorney-General's—is at least its stepfather. In that he was fully supported by hon. Members of all parties in the House, and the Bill is the result of his sterling work as chairman of the parliamentary ANZAC group, and with the assistance and co-operation of many people including, in particular, Mr. Doug McLelland, the Australian high commissioner in London. The House knows that once my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has a bone between his teeth he never lets go, and it was gracious and right of Mr. Bob Hawke, the Australian Prime Minister, to thank both the Government and my right hon. Friend for their part in bringing into effect a hitherto unique event.
  Mr. Hawke set out his country's case succinctly in his article in The Times of 22 February this year. I noticed from the tenor of the Solicitor-General's remarks that he had read this closely: many of the phrases that he used were borrowed from that article, perhaps without acknowledgment. He said:
  "Australia is a young country, yet it is fast developing a sense of history."
  He said that the Act which we are passing to Australia as a gift is not
  "a dry and dusty piece of paper, but a … document which continues to have a direct and immediate impact on a vast range of Australia's affairs."
  The constitution embodied in the Act has changed little since 1900. It is appropriate, therefore, that the handing over of Australia's birth certificate should coincide with the year of the centenary of the Australian Federation conference. As Mr. Hawke wrote:
  "The constitution set us on a path of peaceful and ungrudging disengagement from the protection of our British founders, and led to the irresistible emergence of an independent and self-reliant Australia."
  I think that the word "self-reliant" describes most of the Australians whom we know.
  Together with the duplicate originals, referred to by the Solicitor-General, of the royal proclamation bringing the Act into force on I January 1901 and the Royal Assent, both signed by Queen Victoria, the public records original of the Act—one of only two—will comprise, as Mr. Hawke said, and as quoted by the Solicitor-General, "a trinity of documents" which Mr. Hawke described in the article in The Times as his nation's "birth certificate". A big country needs a birth certificate in three parts.
  It would be churlish of me to comment unduly on the difficulties that were placed in the way of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and his supporters from all parties, but the letter from the Cabinet Secretary
  1228
  would provide unchallengeable material for those who write the scripts for the "Yes Minister" programme. It is right to say:
  "All's well that ends well",
  and I am sure that the cutting of the Gordian knot to overcome the difficulties owes a great deal to the Lord Chancellor who, I suspect, may have said in the face of the paraded and apparently insuperable difficulties, "Up with this I will not put."
  Of course, in recent years our relationship with Australia, particularly in economic matters, has changed. Not unnaturally, Australia has become more and more involved in its Pacific and Asian role. Nevertheless, the steady flow of young people who come from the other end of the world to spend a few years with us and in the rest of Europe, before returning to their own land, continues unabated. I suspect that the flow has increased. In the summer months the accent of Australia's young is heard in all sorts of activity, supporting themselves before moving on to other parts of Europe. What always strikes me is the warmth of their welcome and their closeness to people wherever they find temporary work. I wish all those young people happiness and joy during their stay with us. When they go home, having seen much of this part of the world, they will return with their ancestors' ties re-established on the basis of their own experience.
  We noted with pleasure that 2 million visitors have seen the Act while it was on temporary display. We noted, too, the intention to give it pride of place in the museum of political history planned for the old Parliament house in Canberra.
  I had two questions to ask but one has already been answered by the Solicitor-General. First, what thought has been given by the Government to possible requests from other Commonwealth countries? It seems inevitable that such requests will be forthcoming. My second question was about how Australia and the Government would mark the unique occasion of the formal passing over of responsibility for the Act, despite the fact that it is in Australia now. I welcome very much the announcement that the opportunity will be taken to pass over the Act when the Lord President visits Australia. That will be appropriate. I am sure the Opposition will seek to expedite the passing of the Bill to ensure that it receives Royal Assent in good time.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. Churchill: Let me congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—I almost said "my right hon. Friend", because he is the friend of so many of us on both sides of the House—on conceiving and promoting a Bill which will ensure that, for the first time, Australia has one of the two original copies of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. It is amazing that that was not done at the time, and that 90 years should have been allowed to pass before Australians could have a copy of their birth certificate. However, as the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, it is a case of "better late than never". The Bill will receive a warm welcome in all quarters of the House. It is appropriate that our sister legislature in Canberra should possess one of the two original documents.
  Last week I had the privilege of visiting the beaches of Gallipoli on ANZAC day, on the 75th anniversary of the Dardanelles landings, with which my family was

  1229
  associated in no insignificant manner. There I had the opportunity of meeting some of the British and Australian veterans of that great campaign, and the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke. I can tell the House that the fellow feelings between our countries are as strong today as they have ever been.
  It was at Gallipoli on that immortal day that the young men of Australia and New Zealand, by their deeds and sacrifice, demonstrated their nationhood. If the document that we are arranging to be passed over to Australia marked their birth certificate, it was ANZAC day on the Gallipoli beaches that represented their coming of age.
  Let me express to the people of Australia and New Zealand the gratitude of the people of Britain for the courage and the sacrfice of the ANZACs, who fought at Britain's side in two world wars. This historic document goes from the House to the people of Australia with our gratitude and affection.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful for the kind references made to me in earlier speeches. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) were extremely generous.
  This important Bill—which naturally I warmly welcome—has an interesting history. As the House knows, it succeeds a Bill that I drafted to secure for the people of Australia one of the two original copies of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. As has been explained by the Solicitor-General, one of the original copies is the British Parliament's own record of its proceedings; the other is the property of the Public Record Office.
  My Bill, which would give the people of Australia an oiginal copy of their constitution Act, was given its First Reading on 12 February. The measure had its origin in the visit to Britain last June of the Australian Prime Minister, when Bob Hawke addressed the ANZAC group of hon. Members and peers in a Committee Room. He spoke with deep feeling, clear sincerity and eloquence about the importance to the Australian people of having an original copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. He asked me, as chairman of the meeting and of the ANZAC group, to do whatever was possible to secure a copy for Australia.
  After many representations from Canberra, over a long period, Bob Hawke had also raised the issue with the British Prime Minister during his visit last June; but it remained unresolved due to problems in meeting Australia's request which, to the British Government, seemed insurmountable. He had been told that the Act's importance to Australia was widely recognised in Britain but that, although the Government here had sympathy with Australia's position, no way of meeting it could be found.
  Having promised on behalf of the ANZAC group that we would do our best to help, I sought to find out more about the problems that stood in the way of acceding to Australia's request. I did so by writing to Sir Robin Butler, Secretary to the Cabinet and head of the home civil service,
  1230
  who I knew to have been involved in exchanges about attempts to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the problems involved.
  In a letter of 3 August last from Sir Robin, I was told that to give Australia the British Parliament's copy would require an unprecedented affirmative vote of both Houses, and that to allow the Public Record Office's copy to be permanently loaned, or given as a gift, would require legislation. Sir Robin went on to say, in his letter to me, that to give Australia either of the two copies would lead to claims from other Commonwealth countries for copies of their own constitution Acts, and that in the case of the Public Record Office's copy it would be
  "inconsistent with the Public Records Act since, as a result of passing the document out of our jurisdiction, the Lord Chancellor would have no effective control over the facilities for its preservation and use as he is required to have by the terms of the Act."
  He predicted "spirited resistance" if the copy held by the Clerk of the Parliaments was released, and told me that the Government had proposed to the Australians that they should have an "Exemplification of the Act" of which he said:
  "The Government considers that this would be entirely suitable for display in the way proposed by the Australian Government and, in view of the difficulties in the way of making either of the original copies of the Act available to Australia on a long-term basis, hopes that they can be persuaded to give further consideration to this proposal."
  Although discouraging, the Cabinet Secretary's letter was helpful to me in summarising the range and nature of the problems then preventing Ministers from meeting Australia's request for an original copy of what has been described in The Times as its Magna Carta. At least I now knew that legislation would be necessary to break the deadlock and that it would need not only to take account of all that Sir Robin Butler said to me in his letter, but also spirited parliamentary support.
  The drafting of my Bill took particularly into account the Cabinet Secretary's point about the "floodgates" effect of meeting Australia's request. This was achieved by use of a preamble to the Bill and Sir Robin's point about the preservation and use of the document was also met—not that I had any doubt that an original copy of their own constitution Act would be treated any less carefully or with less concern for its long-term preservation by Australians that it would be here in the United Kingdom. The list of sponsors of my Bill, when it was published, also made it clear that the Bill had the support of senior representatives of every party in the House and that, given a free vote on the legislation, there could be no shadow of doubt that it would be approved.
  After publication of my Bill, I had discussions about it with the Lord Chancellor in the company of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who is a vice-chairman of the ANZAC group. We were both deeply impressed by Lord Mackay's concern to move speedily, when consulting about the Bill, all the interests involved; and we were completely satisfied that he would help in every way possible. Lord Mackay is a firm, true and enduring friend of Australia, and quite clearly, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) agrees, today's outcome owes much to his readiness to look anew and positively at the case for the legislation that we were seeking. With all my fellow sponsors, I am most grateful to him, and to the Leader of the House of Commons for all his help at a subsequent meeting with me.

  1231
  His Excellency Doug McClelland, the Australian high commissioner in London and his staff at Australia house, were continually helpful to me and my fellow sponsors. They have both my appreciation and congratulations on the now successful outcome of all their efforts to resolve a problem that has been with them and their predecessors for years. They can take pride both in what they have achieved and in the very high regard in which they are held on both sides of both Houses of Parliament here.
  Doug McClelland may remember that, in jocular conversation with Bob Hawke after his request to the ANZAC group, I said that in exchange for an original of the constitution Act I would like a copy—any old copy—of Australia's parliamentary pensions Act, which is much admired by parliamentarians here. I now have to say, as chairman of the managing trustees of our parliamentary contributory pensions fund, that I have already received a copy of their Act—I hope that the Leader of the House will have had one too—and thus the sooner we pass this Bill, the better!
  The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is, as we have heard, a fundamental part of Australia's history. The Act represents the transition of the Australian constitution from a set of ideals, put together by the fathers of the Australian Federation—rather than being developed and imposed by Britain—to the legal and constitutional embodiment of Australian nationhood.
  The importance to Australia of having an original copy of the document is illustrated by the popularity of the Public Record Office's copy while on temporary loan to Australia. As the House has heard, since being housed in the new Parliament house in Canberra, some millions of visitors have been to see the document. Currently under consideration is a proposal that the original part of the old Parliament house in Canberra, which is to be preserved, should become a constitutional museum for public enjoyment and educational purposes, and it is proposed that Australia's original copy of its constitution Act will now be the central feature.
  The arguments put to me against allowing the Australians to have an original copy of their constitution Act ignored the fact that in no other Commonwealth country was there a referendum before the British statute for its constitution could become law. It is therefore as much an Australian as a British document. Again, unlike the arrangements in other comparable Commonwealth countries, amendment of the Australian constitution has always been purely an Australian process both in initiation and in execution.
  No other Commonwealth country had such a dominant say in the form taken by the imperial Act conferring its constitution. The only British input was at a meeting in London of the then British Prime Minister with the premiers of the states—then the colonies—during the diamond jubilee celebrations of 1897; the subsequent provision of some legal advice on the drafted provisions by the Crown's Law Officers in this country; and the relatively small changes made by the British Parliament after negotiation with Australian leaders.
  This makes Australia's position unique in terms of the status of its constitution Act, and for us now to legislate to pass one of the original copies of the Act to Australia ought not, therefore, to be seen as a precedent for others to follow. On that point—one of clear importance in Sir Robin Butler's letter to me—I can assure the House that since my Bill was published in February, although it has
  1232
  received wide attention abroad, I have seen no suggestion that giving Australia an original copy of its constitution Act will be used as a precedent for other countries to follow.
  There will now be a wholly felicitous outcome to the Australian Prime Minister's request to the ANZAC group last June. What is happening in the House today demonstrates that very unusual things can still happen when parliamentarians work together to try to solve even the most insoluble problems. I know that right hon. and hon. Members, in all parts of the House, will act as one in giving a Second Reading to the Bill. By doing so we shall be giving great pleasure to the Government and people of Australia who, as the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said, in war and peace have been and remain among the most steadfast friends of the British people. We shall also be further improving Anglo-Australian relations by acceding to Australia's wholly reasonable request for an original copy of the Act which, as the House has heard, is the legal and constitutional embodiment of Australia's nationhood. There has been immense change in Australia since the Act was passed, but it is now, and will ever be, a document of enormous importance to all Australians.
  Finally, I must acknowledge with appreciation the Government's timing of the First Reading of the Bill. That it was timed, in keeping with my request, for ANZAC day on 25 April—a day so very important in Australia—was extremely well received both by the Australian high commission in London and in Australia. My hope now, like, I am sure, everyone else who has been involved in the long-running consideration of its important purpose, is that the Bill will pass quickly into law.
  In that regard, I have one brief, concluding point. Such is the length of time that it has taken to obtain for the people of Australia an original copy of the 1900 Act, perhaps to repay them with interest the Solicitor-General could have a third copy made for Australia of the Act that this Bill will soon become. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. William Cash: One or two coincidences have occurred in relation to the Bill, not least that the Chair on which you are sitting, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a gift of Australia. To that extent, this is a quid pro quo: we are giving back to Australia that which is rightfully hers.
  Last year, with the assistance of the high commissioner, Doug McClelland, I arranged, as secretary of the Lords and Commons cricket team, for us to play a most distinguished team from Australia, which we greatly enjoyed. One of the patrons and presidents of that team is Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister of Australia, who is a member of a club of which I am a somewhat unimportant member, Vincent's club in Oxford. Sir Robin Butler is also a member of that club. I hope that those interested in these matters will agree that a Bill of this importance and significance has some anecdotal interest.
  It is highly appropriate that we should give the Bill a Second Reading today because we owe much to Australia and to the Australians who fought with us in the war. I speak as one whose father was killed in Normandy fighting with Australians in that great endeavour between 1940 and 1944. I say that with all the depth of feeling that I can command.

  1233
  As we are now moving into a new era in Europe, we must remember the relationships that we have with our friends in the Commonwealth, and that the day must not come when Magna Carta becomes part and parcel of an Act such as this deposited in Brussels.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Perhaps I should declare an interest in the debate. First, half my family live in Australia and, secondly, I hope to visit the Commonwealth of Australia later this year but not, I hope, at public expense.
  On my last visit in the 1970s, I was asked by a distinguished Officer of the House to convey a personal message to his opposite number in one of the state legislatures. My call at that Parliament building coincided with the dramatic announcement of the retirement of the premier of that state. The inevitable interviewer on the steps of the building jabbed his microphone at my mouth and invited me to make a profound comment on the shock announcement, as he called it. It was such a delicate matter that any comment from me on the premier's decision was bound to cause offence. I kept a straight face and explained that I had had a tip-off and had just flown from London to lodge my application for the job and expressed my hope that the assembled press men would support my nomination.
  I thought that the stunned silence that enabled me to make my escape was the last that I would hear of it, but to my horror the next morning I discovered that an enterprising young journalist from one of the local newspapers had produced the headline, "Dark horse enters race for premiership."
  On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I will warmly support the Bill on Second Reading and throughout the rest of its passage. An uncle of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) served with Australians at Gallipoli. My hon. Friend was one of the sponsors of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I warmly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the sponsors on their initiative.
  The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that the Act is as much an Australian as a British document. I agree, but naturally, for understandable reasons, it is regarded as far more significant and precious by Australians.
  We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for explaining with much clarity, as usual, the background to the debate. We welcome his decision to avoid delay in implementing the Act when it has received Royal Assent.
  The Australian Prime Minister has been generous in his remarks regarding those who smoothed the way for today's debate. Many of us who are privileged to know the present Australian high commissioner assume that he played a vital role quietly in bringing the arrangements to fruition. The Commonwealth of Australia is well served by that distinguished public representative in London.
  The permanent transfer will mean much to older generations of Australians, but will have a separate meaning for younger Australians, because it will remove from their minds any impression that the United Kingdom is a far-away country about which they know little or
  1234
  which knows or cares little about them. Today's operations and the subsequent developments will, I hope, convince them that we care about them and wish them well in their new nation on the other side of the globe.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I have been an hon. Member for seven years, and for six of them I have been secretary of the Australia-New Zealand parliamentary group. I can say with complete honesty that no title among the few that I hold has given me greater pleasure.
  In those six years, little has given me greater pleasure in the House than to have had the closest working relationship with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who by happy coincidence is my parliamentary neighbour as our constituencies abut one another. As my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said, only parliamentary convention precludes me from addressing him across the Floor of the Chamber as my "right hon. Friend." I should like to pay a warm tribute to him for all the work that he has done in the House not only on the Bill but on behalf of Australia, for which he has been signally rewarded by the Australian Government, who honoured him last year. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that, in this Chamber, he is Australia personified.
  This is one of the Government's most successful privatisation measures. I hope that it does not cause any difficulties for the right hon. Gentleman. However, as the Australian Labor Government are enthusiastic privatisers, I should not think that it will cause him any difficulty. I am delighted that it is one of the pieces of Government legislation that has given rise to complete unanimity. I hope that that will be followed in all other measures that they introduce.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows that one of my great fears is that the Government may even try to privatise the Public Record Office. I hope that there will be some assurance on that important question before the debate concludes.
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall not be drawn into any controversy during this debate, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's point will be well taken.
  One of the least satisfactory aspects of our membership of the European Community has been the tendency of some Commonwealth countries, especially the older ones such as Australia, to take our growing and closer interests in Europe as betokening a loss of connection with or interest in Commonwealth countries. I am delighted that, today, we have an opportunity to declare to all the world that we value our continuing links with Australia—not only the friendly and diplomatic links, but the family and blood links mentioned by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).
  As years go by, it is important that we work at remembering the historical connections and cultural identities that still bind our countries together. It is more than 200 years since the American colonies severed their links with the British Crown, but we still like to think that we have a special relationship with them. We certainly have a special relationship with Australia. I hope that that will continue for many centuries and that this measure will be one way to cement that.

  1235
  It was a great pleasure to attend the ANZAC day service in Westminster abbey a few days ago. British through and through as I am, it gave me a thrill to sing, with full voice, the Australian national anthem. Although Australia is increasingly a cosmopolitan country, and although inevitably as the years go by the British element in its population will be diluted and the historical connections between our two countries loosened, there will always be a special relationship. It will always give us a shared thrill to sing that national anthem.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, I could not attend the recent celebrations in Gallipoli. However, I was in Istanbul only a short time ago and I made a special journey to the British war cemetry at Uskudar—named after the famous Skutari hospital of Florence Nightingale—where many Australians and New Zealanders are buried. It was a moving moment when I wandered among the gravestones and remembered the vast loss of life on the beaches of Gallipoli. The friendship of our two peoples all those years ago was symbolised on those beaches, and I hope that it will continue to be remembered as a symbol of connection between the two countries.
  As a supporter of the original measure introduced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, it gives me great pleasure to reaffirm my commitment to the friendship between our two peoples and to wish Australia well in the future.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who fought so hard for this Bill. I give it my total support. I first met Australians during the last war. I was attached to an RAF camp and I shall never forget the arrival of an Australian squadron. Our cinema was in a Nissen hut and the British officers sat in the front rows, the junior officers behind them, the sergeants and corporals behind them and the rest of us behind them. The Australians arrived, and they sat anywhere. It was marvellous. It was democracy in practice. They did not care whether someone was a leading officer, or an AC2 like me.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I do not think that it was entirely an operation in democracy. It is a tribute to the intelligence of the Australians to say that they know that the expensive seats are always at the back of the cinema.
  Mr. Heffer: Whatever their reasons, they took no notice of rank. Our officers were somewhat shocked. I thought that it would be the end of class rule.
  It was following that experience that I began to study Australian history. I soon realised that it was our people—southern Irish, northern Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh—who were transported to Australia because they were thieves, dissidents, or people with ideas. They would not just sit down and accept everything that this class-conscious country accepted. They believed in democracy, and it was wonderful.
  I learned a great deal from the Australians. They are wonderful people. They have a right to the document. Indeed, they have always had that right. They have a right to their freedom. However, I have always been concerned about the fact that we have turned our backs on them. I am not a British nationalist, although I was born in England
  1236
  and my relatives go back to the Saxons, but it saddens me to think that we joined the EEC and turned our backs on all those people who I was with during the war—the Australians, New Zealanders, southern Irish, northern Irish, and others from all over the world. That is a shame on this country. I believe in internationalism, but we have a responsibility to those people and they have a love for us, as was shown when they joined us during those war days.
  The Australians have a shame on them, too—the fact that they have never accepted the rights of the aboriginal people. I made that point at the time of the bicentennial celebrations when we sent Australia a gift. I was the dissident voice. I said, "Hang on, what about the aboriginals? They have rights, too." The Pope made it clear that he also thought that they had land rights. I certainly think that they have land rights. I say to our Australian friends——
  The Solicitor-General: I gave the hon. Gentleman an incomplete answer earlier. I now have a copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. Section 51 makes specific mention of the aboriginal peoples. It recognised that their position was already dealt with by the states. It reads:
  "The Parliament shall, subject to. this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:—The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."
  That means that it was a matter of law for the states in 1900.
  Mr. Heffer: I am grateful for that information about this important matter. There is no doubt that the mass of Australians have tended to ignore the position of the aboriginals, and that is quite wrong. An interesting book, "The Other Shore", has been written by a man called Hughes. If one reads that, or John Pilger's book on Australia, or watches television programmes about the position of the aborigines, one knows jolly well that there is a problem. I am not saying that it is a black and white problem—nobody should ever say that. There are always problems to which we do not get the full answers. However, aborigines have rights and those rights have been trampled on for a long time.
  I am not sure that nowadays I would vote for Bob Hawke. He is a bit like my Front Benchers, who seem to have forgotten what socialism is all about. The Australians argued for socialist rights long before we did. People like Tom Mann went there, came back here, and talked about socialism on the basis of what they had learnt there. Michael Davide, the Irishman, came back from Australia and argued for land rights. He had learnt from the Australians who argued for those rights long before we did. Australia had a Labour movement, a Labour party and democratic rights long before we did. Let us never forget that. We can learn from them as much as they can learn from us.
  The Australians are right and we were wrong to be so unforthcoming, but they should not forget the rights of the minority. The aborigines have to be treated equally, whatever and whoever they are. Had the Europeans not gone to Australia, it would not be as it is now, but the aborigines are the original Australians and have rights. They must have those rights and Bob Hawke should not forget that. He should not listen to Murdoch and all the others with their big money. To hell with their money—

  1237
  what is important is the Australian democracy, for which all Australians have fought. I was brought up on it because I learnt about it as a young lad after meeting Australians in the RAF. I was proud to meet them because they are great people. We are right to support them, but also to tell them that they should give the aborigines every right to which they are entitled.
  5.12 pm
  The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I shall draw together this helpful debate in which the view of those who have spoken has been unanimously in favour of the Bill, starting with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). He asked whether there might be other requests and, if so, how they would be dealt with. The answer could not have been put better than it was by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who is a progenitor of the Bill. He explained what a unique occasion this is, and how what is being given—to pick up the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)—is not a copy of the Act. We are talking not about a copy of a birth certificate but about an original of the birth certificate, which will go to Australia with our full-hearted consent. That is what makes it so unusual and that is why it is the subject of primary legislation which is confined to that document going to that country. Such legislation will not normally be repeated. We do not expect this to become a precedent—it is a unique occasion.
  I welcome the comments made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). I have mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme who, like other hon. Members, attended the ANZAC ceremony last week. We all have that deeply moving occasion in mind and it is highly appropriate that we should be having this debate so soon after that occasion.
  I have answered the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and shown that, even back in 1900, the aborigines were specifically mentioned in the Act, an original of which we are about to hand over. It is delightful to find unanimity on that point. If it had a carefully thought out provenance, it is all the better and more valuable as a gift in friendship for that. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Education and Training
  5.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4431/1/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a European Training Foundation, and 4432/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Education and Science on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a Trans European Mobility Programme for University Studies (TEMPUS); and supports the Government's view that these European Community initiatives will provide an appropriate means of providing assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the areas of vocational training, higher education and youth exchanges.
  The European Council at Strasbourg in December 1989 recognised the importance of training. It called upon the Community to establish a European training foundation for central and eastern Europe. I am sure the House appreciates the reasons for the Heads of States' enthusiasm for the principle of such a foundation.
  Countries emerging from the stagnation of central bureaucratic control need help in defining their training needs. We must avoid assistance from the west being fragmented or overlapping. The recipient countries should not be flooded with offers of help in some areas to the possible detriment of others.
  The Commission's proposal for the foundation started with Poland and Hungary because the Community's aid package covers only those countries at present. As other central and eastern European countries progress towards democracy, and become covered by the aid package, they may also benefit from the work of the foundation.
  The arrangements for extension, as our initial explanatory memorandum and the Scrutiny Committee's reports pointed out, were unclear. We have therefore pursued these concerns in negotiations, with the results described in our latest memoranda. The intention is that the foundation will contribute assistance in initial and continuing vocational training and retraining, including management training.
  The foundation works by providing assistance to the eligible countries in the definition of training needs and priorities. It will act as a clearing house to provide information on current initiatives and future needs in the training field, and provide a framework through which offers of assistance can be channelled. On the basis of this information, it will identify, and where necessary develop and support, specific projects in conjunction with member states and private organisations.
  The December European Council also asked the Commission to bring forward a proposal for an exchange programme similar in character to those available for Community citizens. This is now known as the trans-European mobility programme for university studies, or TEMPUS to give it its more user-friendly acronym.
  TEMPUS acknowledges that it has often been young people in the forefront of the pro-democracy demonstrations. They will also need to be at the forefront of the economic changes. TEMPUS will enable students from central and eastern European countries to study at a university or undertake a university placement within the

  1239
  Community. There will be a small element of exchange, but most traffic is expected to be in the east-west direction. TEMPUS is modelled on the Community's ERASMUS programme, the European Community action scheme for the mobility of university students.
  The Community will support activities which link universities and enterprises in central and eastern Europe with partners in the Community, such as retraining of language teachers and the development of short intensive courses and distance learning. That element of the programme is modelled on the Community's community action programme in education and training for technology—the COMETT programme. The likely demand for TEMPUS places within the United Kingdom is not yet known, but there is already much interest in English language training and for courses based in English.
  The United Kingdom began negotiations on the foundation and TEMPUS with a number of concerns. These were set out in explanatory memoranda Nos. 4431/90 and 4432/90. In the 12th and 13th reports on the proceedings of the Select Committee on European Legislation, the Government were invited to make available further explanatory memoranda about those issues on which they are seeking clarification in Brussels. These memoranda set out progress to date and deal with the specific points in the Scrutiny Committee reports.
  As negotiations have progressed, the links between the proposals to set up the foundation and TEMPUS and the objectives of the European Community treaty have, at our insistence, been made clearer. It is important to remember that the latest presidency text, on which our supplementary memoranda are based, makes it clear that the foundation and TEMPUS are two of the mechanisms by which aid to Poland and Hungary will be achieved. The preambles are based on the preambles already adopted for regulation 3906, which makes clear the Council's view that intensified relationships brought about by such aid will contribute to a harmonious development of economic activities within the Community, and so achieve one of the objectives of the treaty.
  I am sure that it will be common ground on both sides of the House that both measures will amount to a worthwhile contribution to the end which we would all share. In that light, I commend them to the House.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I thank the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the documents. I agree with his final comment that there is no disagreement on either side of the House about the overall value of the programmes. I agree with many of the Minister's comments this evening, including his commitment to investment in education and skills. I agree also with his comment that, to help central and eastern European economies to develop, it is necessary to develop those skills at all levels. The Minister was right to say that there is a need to develop managerial skills as well as the need to develop what I shall describe as middle-level skills, which are those that apply to technicians and vocational training that are important in terms of economic development.
  The Opposition welcome both of the programmes. They are important contributions to the development of eastern Europe and to links between eastern Europe and
  1240
  the European Community. I shall put three specific questions to the Minister about the programmes in the hope that he will be able to answer them. The explanatory memorandum supplied by the Department of Education and Science says in the 10th paragraph on the third page that the flow of students—this point has been made by the Minister this evening—is much more likely to be from east to west. I am, of course, referring to the TEMPUS programme. It is important that British universities, polytechnics and colleges play their full part in the process. We should not be squeezed out of it so as to become second-class contributors to the programme.
  The problem highlighted in the 10th paragraph is that students coming from central and eastern European countries would normally be charged full-cost fees. It is important that students are not prevented from participating in the scheme because the British Government charge full-cost fees. I shall welcome the Minister's comments. If we charge full-cost fees, there is a real danger that students from central and eastern Europe will decide to go to Germany, France or other European Community countries and not come to the United Kingdom. It would be a shame if Britain were excluded from TEMPUS on that basis.
  When the Minister was talking about the establishment of the European training foundation, he referred to the possibilities for exchange as part of the development of vocational skills. Again, I suspect that the traffic will be mostly one way, from east to west. There may be a good deal of profit in a number of senses for some of that traffic to be from west to east, so that British youngsters and British workers of more mature age have the opportunity to develop certain skills in other countries and building up economic and cultural links on that basis. I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance that it may be possible for British youngsters to participate on that basis and to use the exchange mechanism in that sense to go to either Poland or Hungary.
  The Minister rightly said that the two schemes are limited to two eastern European countries, Poland and Hungary. It is clear that there is a need for similar developments and exchanges with other eastern European countries. What criteria will be used when considering whether other countries should become part of the process? It is not unlikely that, before too long, countries such as Czechoslovakia will want to participate. How might they be included in the programme, what criteria will be used, and what are the cost implications of such a development for other countries?
  The Opposition approve of the proposals, which build links across Europe. They help in the development of eastern European countries. It is important that the European Community plays its part in that development. On this one occasion we can say to the Minister and his colleagues that we support some of the activities of the European Community. We support the positive way in which they have made a contribution to the schemes.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Willian Cash: I think that this is the first time that I have addressed the House when I have been the only Back-Bench Member on either side of the Chamber,. It is important, however, to debate matters that stem from Europe when points of principle are involved.

  1241
  The Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member, considered the relevant document yesterday. Hon. Members will note that it is dated 2 May 1990. Some hon. Members may have noted the early-day motion which I tabled this morning, which refers to new Treasury memoranda on economic and monetary union. The motion refers to the report of the Commission on that subject and the important memorandum of the Treasury of 23 April, which is available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
  We are discussing an issue which arose during the sitting of the Select Committee on European Legislation yesterday in respect of training and management, which is of immense importance to the people of Europe, including Poland and Hungary, and of especial importance to the future prospects of Britain if it is to catch up with Germany, which now has a 70 per cent. trade surplus with the rest of the European Community put together. That issue is related to the future economy of Europe, including this country. I feel that we should debate economic and monetary union, as well as the issues that are before us, as early as possible. You may not want me to go down that path now, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you may allow me to do so on a future occasion.
  There was a time when we were in danger of being somewhat pedantic about the treaty base of EC legislation. This proposal is based on article 235, which deals with proposals for which no explicit powers are set out in the treaty. But there are occasions—this is one of them—when it is clear that, in the interests of a wider Europe, that flexible association of states which, in combination with the EC—I hope that it will not become federal in the sense in which I have described it on many occasions—we can build on matters such as education and training a new, prosperous and freer Europe which will benefit all the people of Europe and bring peace and prosperity to all the people within that common home.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for the way in which he responded to my initial comments. It seems to be one of those days when there is amity throughout the House. Our colleagues in the outside world should be looking to see what we, on both sides of the House, can do when we are left to it.
  The hon. Gentleman properly touched on a particular point of concern relating to tuition fees, for which our structures tend to be different from those of our partners in the EC. The Government, in conjunction with EC officials, are considering how to proceed. It would be unrealistic for me to try to work out exactly how that will be resolved, but it would be anomalous if a programme which we thoroughly and wholeheartedly welcome foundered on what is essentially an important point of detail which we must get right. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern, and the Government are actively considering how to take the idea forward.
  Mr. Fatchett: Can the Minister give us the likely time scale of those deliberations? There are clearly implications not just for the TEMPUS programme but in other directions as well. The Minister said that it would be anomalous to favour a programme and then create
  1242
  difficulties in relation to TEMPUS, but presumably other countries with which Britain has certain relationships, particularly bilateral aid relationships, will be looking at the outcome of the deliberations.
  I realise that it is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I hope that he will tell his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science that the decision must be taken within a broader framework. It would be useful if we could have some idea when the deliberations will be completed.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point. The Civil Service has a number of helpful phrases, many of which will strike doom into the hearts of hon. Members—words such as "shortly" and "in due course". We want to make progress as soon as possible. This is an outstanding detail—not an issue—which we must resolve, and I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's point is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The matter must obviously be dealt with as soon as possible.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that an exchange from west to east would be possible. That is an important point which we have taken on board. There is no doubt that the structures allow for that, but, as I understand it, eastern countries feel that they cannot handle large numbers from the west at present. Without dwelling on their difficulties, one can understand the reason for that. It is anticipated that there will be such an exchange, but we must bear in mind the response from the eastern bloc countries.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about extending the programme beyond Poland and Hungary—a point raised by the Scrutiny Committee in its 12th report, when it sought clarification of the procedure to extend the foundation's work beyond Hungary and Poland. It felt that it should reflect the need of the Council of Ministers to control that process.
  To some extent, we have tried to reflect the concerns about that in the original explanatory memorandum, because we share the Scrutiny Committee's views. Procedures for extending the work of the foundation beyond Poland and Hungary have been clarified; and that is described in my Department's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 30 April. They are linked to the council designation of
  "such a country as is eligible for economic aid".
  That extension would require a further Community legal act, such as that in relation to regulation 3906, which underpins the original package. Progress can clearly be made there. These matters have a momentum of their own.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) reminded us with fast footwork and his customary elegance that there are other matters that he would like to be debating. Were Ito attempt to do so, since my footwork is not as fast as that of my hon. Friend, I suspect that I would be pulled up quickly. I shall simply say that I shall bear in mind what he says. He is right to draw attention to the fact that article 235 underpins this matter and that, to use a polite phrase, as one lawyer to another, it is a catch-all provision to take account of things which might not otherwise be thought of.
  Mr. Cash: If I may be allowed to use another language, c'est le blancmanger qui mange-tout.
  Mr. Nicholls: I was recently reproached in a Standing Committee for saying in Latin that I did not understand Latin, but that I was prepared to use the vernacular. As I was responding to a Latin tag from another lawyer, I thought that that was appropriate. On that occasion, I was properly reprimanded by the Chair for responding in a foreign language, so I had better not do so today.
  Article 235 is there to ensure that there is harmonious economic development and so on. Inevitably, catch-all provisions have to be looked at with some care to make sure they are not catching more than all. However, we can be satisfied that this is a worthwhile initiative to take forward.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4431/1/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a European Training Foundation, and 4432/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Education and Science on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a Trans European Mobility Programme for University Studies (TEMPUS); and supports the Government's view that these European Community initiatives will provide an appropriate means of providing assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the areas of vocational training, higher education and youth exchanges.

  Education and Training
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      VALUE ADDED TAX
      That the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 752), dated 26th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.—[Mr. Pa tnick.]
      Question agreed to.
      5.37 pm
      Sitting suspended.

  London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am grateful that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are present to assume your august responsibilities in connection with the Bill. I apologise, though not on behalf of the Bill's promoters, to right hon. and hon. Members for the fact that we are here all together at this time. It is an exciting time politically in the country, but particularly in respect of London elections. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, had a difficult task in selecting the business to be considered tonight. I understand that there are four London-related Bills in the pipeline, so it seems that any choice that you made would include a London Bill.
  The London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill is important, and although it is being promoted by Westminster city council, it is on behalf of and at the request of the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities jointly. Section 87 of the Local Government Act 1985 states that a London borough may promote a Bill for its own borough or for another borough. Schedule 1 to the Bill lists all the 31 participating councils promoting the Bill out of a total of 33. The two exceptions are the City of London, which usually has its own legislation, and Camden, v, here I believe there was some problem with the passing of a resolution to include that authority in the statute because there was insufficient time to do so. I have since been told that two of the remaining 31 boroughs wish to be dissociated from clause 4 of the Bill, so 29 London boroughs—comprising a mammoth population represented democratically by councillors—have asked for the Bill to be presented in its entirety.
  I have been surprised at the way in which the arguments encapsulated in the Bill have developed over the past few weeks, but only clause 4 gives rise to any aggravation. I draw to the attention of the House an instruction that I tabled yesterday, and which appears on today's Order Paper:
  "After Second Reading of the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords], to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they do not allow Clause 4 (Private Hire Vehicles) unless they are satisfied that it will not jeopardise the unique and valuable position of the licensed Hackney Carriage trade within London."
  I understand that that instruction has not been called, and I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarification.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It may be for the convenience of the hon. Gentleman and the House if I say that, although Mr. Speaker has not selected the instruction, it will be in order for hon. Members to refer to it in the course of the Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Hanley: It is not for right hon. and hon. Members to question why an instruction has not been called, but II understand that that usually occurs if it is believed that the issue enclosed by the instruction will be fully debated by the Committee when it seeks evidence from the various

  1245
  petitioners. I shall explain later the purpose of the instruction, but first I wish to dispose of those clauses which are not at all contentious.
  The Bill before the House is the second of its type to be promoted. The first received Royal Assent in February. Like the Bill now under consideration, that measure conferred a variety of general powers on London boroughs. One of its most significant provisions related to improvements in the street trading code.
  The Bill now before us was deposited in November 1988 and was allocated by the House authorities to originate in the House of Lords. Several petitions against the Bill were received in another place and hefty negotiations followed. The Bill went before a Committee of the Lords in October 1989, and subsequently was carried over to the present Session.
  Apart from procedural provisions, the Bill contains five substantive clauses. Clause 5 concerns the restoration of water, gas and electricity services. It slightly amends existing legislation to enable a participating council to arrange, where appropriate, the reinstatement also of water supplies when they have been cut off. It is a social clause, and all the participating boroughs believe that it would be useful.
  Clause 6 relates to crime prevention, and I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member disagrees with its intention, which has been welcomed in principle by the Government. It will allow a participating council to engage in various activities described in the clause for the purpose of crime prevention. The Government expressed some reservations about certain details and negotiations are continuing. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) in his place as he is a leading authority on the subject of crime prevention.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: Clause 6 appears to be an excellent provision, but perhaps my hon. Friend will explain certain of its features in more detail. Clause 6(5) states:
  "Before exercising the powers of this section, a participating council shall consult the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis."
  My reading of that, having studied the rest of clause 6, is that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will have to be consulted before any spyhole is fitted in a door or any grille fitted to a basement window. That seems a little excessive.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I had expected it as he is an expert at intervening and asking for explanations of greater length. My hon. Friend regularly requires lengthy explanations and very great patience needs to be shown to answer his questions. I will therefore accommodate him and speak as slowly as may be necessary.
  London local authorities currently have no powers to undertake crime prevention activities other than incidentally through their housing, social services, and environmental health functions. As a consequence, they have relied on section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 to finance many crime prevention schemes. London boroughs have many calls on the funds available under that provision. As a result of that competition for finance, crime prevention measures have suffered from a lack of funding in a number of London local authorities.
  1246
  The problem has been exacerbated by the proposed changes to spending limits for section 137 funding brought about by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Those changes, which will come into effect later this year, impose a ceiling on such funding of £5 per head of population. The effect will be that boroughs with small populations will have significantly less funding available. It is now proposed that London local authorities will have powers, including the power to spend money, to take measures conducive or incidental to the prevention of crime or to helping to alleviate its effects.
  Clause 6 will enable local authorities to spend money on items such as security marking of belongings, the provision of locks and alarms for the elderly or disabled living in private accommodation and the improvement of lighting in buildings. There are also powers to provide counselling and compensation for victims where there is inadequate provision. In addition to spending money directly on crime prevention measures, local authorities will be able to make grants to voluntary organisations to carry out similar functions. I hope that that explains adequately some of the provisions, although my hon. Friend may wish to make a speech later.
  Clause 7 is on liquor licensing. The clause has powerful support from the police. It will stop up a loophole in the liquor licensing laws. The details are rather complicated, but they involve a careful distinction between wholesale and retail selling.
  Clause 8 amends the Croydon Corporation Act 1960. Under section 159 of that Act, Croydon borough council is limited to an expenditure of £500 a year for various activities, the principal of which is functions associated with town twinning. The limit, which may have been appropriate in 1960, is now unduly restrictive on the borough council and 30 years later it seems that the section should be removed.
  I am a great advocate of twinning. My borough is twinned with the lovely towns of Konstanz in Germany and Fontainebleau in France. I am sure that £500 would not go far towards returning the excellent hospitality and friendship that we receive when we visit those two excellent towns. Croydon, too, should be twinned. The 1960 Act relates only to Croydon and I am sure that the twinning would be sensible and not over-expensive. I doubt whether there would be twinning with central American towns or even Soviet ones. Nevertheless, it would certainly help European friendship.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport on his future position as Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. That is a tremendous honour and he is exactly the right man for the job. His presence and that of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who speaks for the Opposition, show that public transport is important in the Bill.
  There are three petitions against the Bill, all relating to clause 4 which deals with private hire vehicles. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, the petitions will be referred to an Opposed Private Bill Committee which will have the opportunity to hear evidence from the promoters and the petitioners and to judge with the benefit of that evidence. The Committee will have the opportunity to consider the other provisions of the Bill and to require the promoters to justify them, if appropriate.
  I have already read out the instruction to the Committee which I tabled but which was not called because it seemed superfluous to the activities of the

  1247
  Committee. I tabled it because I did not want anybody to believe that the Bill was intended to be harmful to the licensed hackney carriage trade in London. The black taxi trade is part of London—for many, it is London. Its quality is unique. Neither I nor the promoters intend to harm it and 29 London boroughs believe that the clause will not harm it.
  There are many reasons for clause 4, but first I shall state my credentials for moving it because recently there has been some black propaganda about why I am moving the Bill. Some have said that it is a case of tail-end Charlie, that everyone else recognised the strength of the black cab trade and declined the job and I was the only one who did not. For the past three years I have been trying to promote a private Member's Bill on behalf of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Many hon. Members are patrons of that trust, which is based in the middle of my constituency. Diana Lamplugh, whose energy, enthusiasm, good will and good works are known to many right hon. and hon. Members, has been trying to introduce legislation to tighten the laws on minicab drivers. I know that many hon. Members refuse to understand the clause, but in the past week when I have been talking on television and radio many people outside have begun to understand that the clause is not anti-black-cab. If anything, it is anti-unlicensed-minicab. If people believe that the one follows the other, I should like to hear their arguments.
  Of the many cases, I shall cite one in the Evening Standard which starts with a telling word:
  "Another woman has been abducted, raped and assaulted after being taken for a five-hour ordeal by a bogus mini-cab driver."
  The clause would merely bring London into line with the rest of England and, for all I know, further afield—no more and no less. In London anybody, even a Member of this House, so long as he declared it in the Register of Members' Interests, could get an "A to Z", although that seems to be a luxury for some minicab drivers, get an old banger or even use an existing private car and set up as a minicab driver. All one needs is a few cards with a telephone number and one is away.
  Not long ago I was provided with a minicab by a company in north Kensington which I was visiting. This is not apocryphal—it is an exact case. The driver, who seemed Nigerian or Ghanaian—later he confirmed that he was Ghanaian—asked me where I wanted to go. When I said that I wanted to go to the House of Commons, he asked what was my favourite route. I told him not to worry about that but just to take me there. He then explained that what he was trying to find out was what the route was. It turned out during our interesting conversation that he had been in this country for seven days as a holidaymaker and was earning a little money on the side. He could drive and the car was provided by his employers. He did not know London, although occasionally during his student days he had acted as a part-time taxi driver. He claimed to be a barrister.
  That experience is all too common. It is almost comical. What is not comical is the type of example set out in the Evening Standard article and many others. Hon. Members may remember the case which darkened Christmas two years ago. A young girl with two companions left a pub in north London and asked a minicab driver outside whether his was the cab that they had ordered. He said yes. He took the two friends home and then made as if to take the young girl to her house, but did not do so. Over the following
  1248
  days the papers and television were full of the fact that the girl was repeatedly raped by the man who was described as a body builder. Eventually, three days later the case ended in a fatal crash in East Anglia. Over Christmas the public had little to think about but the fate of that poor girl, who was lucky to be alive at the end of her ordeal.
  The sole reason why that happened was that the apparent minicab outside the pub had no plate. It was not a minicab, but posed as one. London is not in line with the rest of the country as London minicabs have no identifying plate. Indeed, they are not allowed an identifying plate. No woman can check to see whether there is a plate. Diana Lamplugh has tried consistently to change that. The article in the Evening Standard quotes her as saying:
  "There's absolutely no way of telling an honest mini-cab driver from a bogus one, or one with a criminal record. There is no proper licensing of these people and attacks of this kind are bound to carry on. The driver should be vetted and there should be a sign so that people can see if a car approaching them is a cab."
  Clause 4 brings London into line with the rest of the country. The black cab trade, which has been vociferous in its publicity, has said that the Bill will do nothing to help and that there are many deficiencies in the legislation governing areas outside London. I agree wholeheartedly. The main publicity published by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association states:
  "Stop the minicab cowboys getting a licence to cheat".
  The black cab trade also states:
  "The Bill does nothing to stop kerb crawling touts".
  No, it does not: there is already a law to stop such touts, but we have to start somewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the Home Office, through the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, is currently sponsoring an investigation into the activities of minicab drivers and the safety or otherwise of their passengers, particularly women and children. That investigation is costing the Home Office in excess of £20,000 and the objective is to introduce legislation to tighten up the activity of minicab drivers throughout the country.
  In 1976 the rules which currently govern minicabs throughout the country were introduced, but at the direct request of the black cab trade those rules excluded London. In London minicab vehicles do not have plates on the back because the black cab trade did not want that. If the recommendations of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust are acceptable to the Government and to the Transport and General Workers Union and their representatives in Parliament, which basically means the Labour party, any Bill designed to cater for the entire country will be hybrid until we have a level playing field and London is in line with the rest of the country.
  Mr. Patrick Ground: My hon. Friend probably knows more than most of us about the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the research that is being undertaken, about which I have read something, but how far has that research gone? Is work at the Home Office still in train? If so, when will the results be published?
  Mr. Hanley: The research is still in train, at a total cost of £41,000. I have some of the earlier findings with me but I shall not delay the House by reading them out. I also have correspondence between the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the Home Office sent in the course of that research. It is expected that it will be finalised towards the end of the summer or by early winter so that legislation can be introduced next year.

  1249
  What we are introducing is not the be all and end all, but the provisions contained in clause 4 must be introduced before the recommendations of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which will cover all the country, can be introduced. Perhaps the House will decide that tonight is not the night to introduce the clause. Perhaps we shall have another year of delay and the rules that the House deemed suitable for the rest of the country in 1976 will not be extended to London. Perhaps some hon. Members believe that mincabs should remain without any identification on them, but that means that attacks similar to the one that I described will occur next year, the year after and even beyond.
  I asked the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association what recommendations from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust it would accept. A letter sent by the LTDA says that this is not the right time to produce clause 4 because the trust is still carrying out its investigations. I therefore asked LTDA representatives what recommendations they would accept, but they said that they could not say what they would accept because they had not seen the recommendations. Such prevarication has been displayed for understandable commercial reasons, and it is born of the fear that trade will be lost as a result of the clause and the trust's recommendations. That understandable fear is groundless and regrettable.
  I accept that clause 4 does nothing, as the LTDA has already pointed out, to stop "kerb crawling touts". It does not stop those who illegally ply for hire and stop for those who hail them. We cannot blame the clause for not stopping those practices—they are illegal, but that does not stop people breaking the law. It is for other authorities to arrest such people.
  The LTDA has also said:
  "The Bill will not control minicab fares".
  It will, however, ensure that taxi meters are used. In 1976 meters were thought necessary as it was felt that market forces would force out of business someone who charged extravagant fares on their taxi meter. I agree with the LTDA that the possession of a meter will give a veneer of respectability and value for money. No one can guarantee that a driver will not cheat on a taxi meter, but I will explain what local authorities will be able to do in relation to those meters. I appreciate that local authorities will be unable to fix fares, but we must hope that the Suzy Lamplugh Trust recommendations will do something about that.
  Mr. Steve Norris: Central to my hon. Friend's argument is the proposition that before we can deal with the problem of the unlicensed trade we must have universal standards throughout the country. What advantages does my hon. Friend see in the regime operating under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which governs the rest of the country, against the regime operated by the Metropolitan police, which governs black cabs in London? What elements in the scheme which operates elsewhere in the country are superior to those which operate in London under Metropolitan police control?
  Mr. Hanley: That is an interesting point. Nothing is superior to the training, experience, standards of quality and service and quality of vehicles of the black cab trade
  1250
  in London. It is possible, however, for certain unlicensed minicabs to offer supreme quality and service. I should hate people to think that the whole trade is dissolute. There are people of the highest quality who are not drivers of black cabs but have wonderful minicabs of supreme quality and comfort and their services are used because of that. They are not always more expensive than black cabs. There are many honest people offering quality trade in the unlicensed minicab business, but in the general cab trade there is nothing superior to black cab training.
  I understand that there are about 20,000 black cabs in London and 40,000 minicabs. I wish that there were 60,000 black cabs in London. Unfortunately, some people found that they could not operate black cabs in their area. After all, there would not be 40,000 minicabs in London if there was no need for them. Nevertheless, the House must understand that in my view the training that we give to drivers of black cabs is the best available in the world. I hope that when the Suzy Lamplugh Trust reports, something will be done about the training of minicab drivers. Does the Minister believe that there is room in London for minicabs as well as black cabs?
  It is sad to think that the black cab trade does not want to see any improvement in the minicab trade because it fears that people might then choose minicabs, believing them to be as acceptable as black cabs. That argument has been put forward, although members of the black cab trade say, "That is not the position. We are not frightened of the minicab trade." Yet they resist the improvements of which I have been speaking.
  They say that such improvements would not prevent women from being preyed on by bogus minicab drivers—simply because minicabs would have plates on the backs of their vehicles—even though people would know they were minicabs. While that would be an advance on the present situation, the black cab trade does not want that improvement to occur and would prefer the minicab trade to remain as it is. Nor does the black cab trade specify under what conditions it would allow changes to take place.
  It is important for the House to consider just what restrictions do not apply to minicabs in London now. I accept that our proposals may not be perfect, but those who believe that the changes we propose should not be made must thereby disagree with the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
  For a start, if a licence were granted, it would be good in any of the participating boroughs. In other words, a person licensed in Richmond to drive a minicab could drive in any of the other boroughs. Apart from two hon. Members of whom I am aware, all other hon. Members who represent London boroughs—Conservative, Labour and Liberal—accept that their councils have asked for the introduction of these provisions. Yet strangely, because they believe that they are under the instructions of, or are expressing the interests of, drivers of black cabs, they believe that their councils are wrong. Redbridge has disagreed and wishes to be dissociated, as does Greenwich, for different reasons.
  I shall detail the restrictions that the measure would impose on minicab drivers in London, and the public may think it remarkable that they do not already apply. Section 46 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 says that the owner of a private hire vehicle

  1251
  requires a licence, as does the driver and the operator. So the owner, driver and operator require a licence from the local authority.
  Section 48 says that the licensing of private hire vehicles shall be authorised by the council so long as
  "they are satisfied … that the vehicle is … suitable in type, size and design for use as a private hire vehicle"
  and shall not be
  "of such design and appearance as to lead any person to believe that"
  it is a black cab. If hon. Members believe that any of those restrictions are undesirable, let them say so. The vehicle should be desirable for the purpose for which it is being used. The vehicle should be
  "in a suitable mechanical condition … safe; and … comfortable."
  That is a requirement of the 1976 Act.
  The drivers of black cabs say that minicabs are not inspected to the same rigorous degree as are black cabs. I accept that. I wish that they were inspected to such a high degree. I am asking, however, that their condition be brought up to the conditions at least required by the local authority so that they are fit for the purpose. At present, any old banger can be brought on to the road as a minicab. Will my hon. Friends who object to the course that is being proposed say why they will not force minicabs in their areas to be fit for the purpose? Why will they continue to allow their constituents to drive unlicensed cars?
  Under section 48 of the Act, a council may require signs to be displayed or prohibit signs from being displayed on vehicles. Although signs might be prohibited, there would almost certainly be a plaque on the vehicle, and should the licence he removed, the plaque would have to be returned to the council. There might also be an identifying badge for the driver, and that badge would have to be available and he seen by the passenger at all times.
  I wonder whether the girl who was raped three Christmases ago, and her friends, had they seen the number of the driver or known the borough from which the minicab came, would have taken a different view. Indeed, had they known for certain that it was a minicab, they might have felt more secure. They might have remembered the number of the driver and of the cab or the name of the licensing authority. Because it did not have a disc, they might not have got into the car and that girl might not have met such a terrible fate.
  Section 49 says that if the owner of a private hire vehicle transfers his interest to somebody else, he must notify the council of that. That seems fair. Section 50 says that the owner of a private hire vehicle must take it for inspection by the council when required, although the council may not require inspection more than three times a year. In other words, inspection could take place three times a year.
  Hon. Members who are perhaps voicing the views of other interests say, "We do not believe that minicabs in London should have any restrictions in respect of quality and inspection. Let us wait until a more perfect law is available." They are saying, "Let us wait until more minicabs cause damage on our roads." Indeed, black cab drivers have told me that if a girl is raped after the Bill becomes law it will be my fault. That makes me anxious to push the measure even harder because I believe strongly that when my constituents telephone for a minicab they should get one that is fit for the purpose and know that the driver and owner are fit people and that the vehicle has been inspected.
  1252
  Not only should minicabs be inspected to ensure their quality, but the places where they are kept should be inspected. Further, if a minicab is damaged in such a way that its safety, performance or appearance is suspect, it should be repaired.
  The owner of a minicab should have to provide a certificate of insurance. Incredibly, even that is not required at present before a person can become a minicab driver. The only requirement concerning insurance is the general one that applies to an ordinary car driver. Despite that, minicab drivers carry passengers for years, and if those passengers are injured they may not be covered.
  Section 51 says that the district council will license anyone who applies to be licensed to drive a private hire vehicle unless he is not
  "a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence"
  or he has not held a full driving licence for at least 12 months. The council can attach conditions to the grant of a driver's licence.
  The Metropolitan police computer is valuable in weeding out unfit people—people with sex offences recorded against them, for example, and people who might put the public at risk. The LTDA has said that the Bill would not improve Metropolitan police checks on driver criminal records. How could it? The Metropolitan police runs black cabs in London and owns the computer. Local authorities have no right to look at the computer. I wish that they could. I would like to see the establishment of a central authority with power to examine the computer, and put names through it, to see who has committed crimes. It might discover those who could be a danger to the public and who, therefore, should not be given approval.
  Follow-up procedures should take place. If a person is found to be an "unreliable source", something could be done about it. Let us remember that at present that line of responsibility does not exist. The line of responsibility is first to the licensing body. Being the local authority, those who are licensed will be accountable to it.
  Section 53 of the 1976 Act says that a licence shall be valid for up to three years and that the driver of a private hire vehicle shall produce his driver's licence for inspection if required. That seems a sensible provision, but it should apply before a driver goes on the road. At present, his driving licence need be produced only if he is stopped by a policeman and asked to produce it. But he could have been carrying passengers for years, perhaps even on a provisional licence.
  Section 54 concerns the issue of drivers' badges, a subject with which I have dealt. I agree that a driver should wear a badge at all times and that it should be plainly and distinctly visible when he is driving a private hire vehicle.
  Section 55 deals with the licensing of operators of private hire vehicles. It says that if it is believed that an operator is not a fit and proper person, he shall not be licensed, and conditions can be attached to the licence.
  Section 56 concerns the booking of private hire vehicles. It says that a licensed operator must keep a record of all bookings that are accepted, that those bookings should be entered before the commencement of each journey and that the records must be available to the council or police on demand. In other words, it will be known where a car is, where it is going and what it has done. That will control many aspects of the minicab trade. I fear, however, that hon. Members will say that that would be undesirable.

  1253
  Section 57 states that applicants for those licences must submit certain information, and I have mentioned references. Many other items can be put on the application form to weed out those who are unfit to carry the public. Section 60 involves the suspension and revocation of vehicle licences, and says that the council can suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a vehicle licence. Section 61 relates to the suspension and revocation of drivers' licences and there is a similar provision for operators' licences under section 62.
  In the last small batch of sections, section 68 states that an authorised officer of the council and a policeman may inspect and test a private hire vehicle that is licensed. Under existing legislation, they do not have to test them for the purpose of carrying passengers, but merely for normal roadworthiness, as with an MOT. Section 69 states that it is a criminal offence for the driver of a licensed private hire vehicle to prolong a journey unnecessarily either in distance or time. It is an offence for a person to drive too far or too long, and can result in a licence being removed. Hon. Members and licensed taxi drivers may say that that still does not stop fraud because taxi meters have a veneer of authority about them.
  I recall the case of a Japanese business man arriving at Heathrow. This tale is not apocryphal, but true. He drove from there, in a licensed black cab, to the centre of London, where all three Japanese passengers were asked for the amount on the taxi meter. Not only minicab drivers are crooks. They exist in all walks of life. There are crooks in the House—[Interruption.]—perhaps. It has been rumoured that in the past, many years ago, there might have——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean that there were crooks among hon. Members.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that intervention, and I unreservedly withdraw my remark. In all walks of life there are those who may carry out their tasks dishonestly, even drivers of black cabs. Those who would carry out such crimes and elongate journeys, either through mileage or time, are a tiny proportion of the minicab trade and an even tinier proportion of the black cab trade, which is the best taxi trade in the world, and I would do nothing to harm it. I do not believe that the clause will harm them, and nor do the 29 local authorities promoting clause 4.
  I have set out the requirements for carrying out business as a licensed minicab driver in the rest of the country, but not London. Will my hon. Friends say why introducing that legislation now is undesirable? Why is it undesirable for women to feel more secure because at least there is a licence disc on the back of a cab? Why is it undesirable to introduce legislation to provide that a minicab is fit for the purpose? Why is it undesirable to take references for minicab drivers? Why is it undesirable that, following an offence, a minicab driver, operator or owner should be taken off the road? I ask those questions time and time again, because the legislation, warts and all and imperfect though it is, should be introduced so that the law is consistent throughout the nation. Improvements to
  1254
  bring up to the standard of black cabs those minicabs that are not should be brought into line following the Home Office research.
  My instruction on the Order Paper asks that the Committee should not allow clause 4 unless it is
  "satisfied that it will not jeopardise the unique and valuable position of the licensed Hackney Carriage trade within London."
  What greater bona fides could I give than the fact that the promoters believe that if the black cab trade is harmed we should not proceed with clause 4? However, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association has rejected that statement of intention. I wonder why. Is it because it fears that if people feel that minicabs are slightly more respectable, less of a danger to women and children, less disreputable because the quality and state of their vehicles and their reputation is better they may choose to use minicabs, rather than be forced, scared, into black cabs? If that is the sort of confidence that the black cab trade needs for its business, I am ashamed of those in it who feel that.
  People have come to my office during the past week and written me letters. There has been hysteria about clause 4. Hon. Members have talked to me in the strongest terms, and when I have explained exactly what is being introduced they have been aghast and said that they did not realise. I ask my hon. Friends present today to consider what clause 4 means and what rejecting it means.
  If the speeches following mine show that hon. Members want to stop elderly and poor people from having their gas and water reconnected, delay crime prevention and victim support, not clear up vehicle licensing laws and allow Croydon only £500 for the purpose of twinning, hon. Members should say so. I ask the hon. Member for Deptford to take that point to heart. If hon. Members would like the parts of the Bill relating to those matters to continue, I ask them to allow me to listen to their speeches and make their decisions later.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend mentioned vehicle licensing. He must be the first to confess that clause 7 is pretty short. From what it says, it appears that it proposes to extend off-licence sales in London. As the House will be only too aware, one problem we face today is too many off-licence sales for liquor consumption in the street. The purpose of the Licensing (Amendment) Act 1989, which Parliament in its wisdom passed last Session, was to introduce more flexible hours for on-licences to get liquor drinkers off the streets, and back into pubs where they rightly belong and can be supervised by a publican, who risks losing his licence, livelihood and even his home if he does not supervise drinking properly. That would appear to be an extension of off-licence drinking, which has serious——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Hanley: I doubt that any contributions will be brief this evening.
  The clause is powerfully supported by the Metropolitan police and tightens up a loophole in the law. If my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) wishes to know anything further—I have always wanted to say this to an hon. Friend—I shall write to him.
  Mr. Hugo Summerson rose——
  Mr. Hanley: I shall not give way as I am just about to end. I know that my hon. Friend, who is always present on such occasions, will want to make his own exhaustive speech. The debate would not be the same without him.
  The promoters and I will willingly listen to the arguments. However, the people listening to the speeches following mine will hear that it is not just me, the so-called tailend Charlie, who has been mugged by private hire car vehicle operators to introduce a clause to give them total respectability. My speech represents the interests of 31 London boroughs for most of the Bill and those of 29 boroughs for all but clause 4. The people of those boroughs elected the councils that have approved a Bill for women in London who do not want to fall prey to bogus taxis and minicabs, children who have to be picked up from school by minicab and all those who, although they wish that a black cab would take them, find that it is difficult to get one. I ask hon. Members to explain carefully why they do not want what has been passed by Parliament for the rest of the country. If you seek to do away with this for London, you should seek to repeal the legislation in the rest of the country, and seek to explain why you believe that women——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My beliefs do not enter into it.
  Mr. Hanley: I fully accept your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we may privately discuss your thoughts on this, and I am sure that you will agree with me wholeheartedly.
  Suffice it to say that I will listen to all the contributions which follow. If I feel that hon. Members are likely to put in jeopardy those parts of the Bill which I have explained and with which all hon. Members must agree, I will ask if they will allow me to intervene.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: I should explain to the House that I represent the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. My representation is listed in the Register of Members' Interests.
  This subject is very emotive and has been for a number of years. I oppose clause 4. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) that I am not against the rest of the Bill. The criminal clause is very helpful to boroughs all over London, and there is no doubt that the other parts of the Bill will be helpful for London as a whole; but I am concerned particularly about clause 4—so concerned that I put down a blocking motion.
  Before I give reasons for my opposition, I would just like to look at what has happened to the Bill. It started off with 52 clauses and has arrived here with a mere eight left. Much of it was taken out in the House of Lords.
  Last year, the Government produced a Green Paper—or, at least, it was rumoured that they would produce one; it never actually arrived. Rumour had it that the Green Paper might contain some provision for the licensing of minicabs, but the Government in their wisdom decided to withdraw it. I believe that we heard no more about the licensing of minicabs because, back in 1976, the Government decided that the licensing of minicabs would be inappropriate in London because of the special situation of the black cab.
  London is very different from the rest of the country. Without doubt, it is a special case. In other large cities
  1256
  —Birmingham, Manchester and so on—one will see black cabs, but not in anything like the numbers that one finds in London. I believe that the Government decided at that time that, although it was right to license minicabs in other areas, if they were to bring in the type of legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has described, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, for London, it would have a dramatic effect on the whole of the black cab trade. As a result, we have seen an increase in the number of black cabs in London, and we shall see an even greater increase as time goes on. The provisions in the 1976 Act as described by my hon. Friend would be dangerous for London, and I want to explain why.
  Let us take the taxi meter first. We have heard that drivers of minicabs will have to register with the local authority in order to have a meter but that they will be able to charge whatever they like, as long as that charge has been registered with the local authority. In the black cab, however, the prices on the meter are governed by legislation. The Government decide each year what the fare to be charged in a black cab will be. This will cause a difference in fare structure, and people with minicabs will be able to charge whatever they like.
  What about tourists? London has an abundance of attractions for the tourist—the Palace of Westminster, Buckingham palace, the Tower of London and all the others; indeed, the black cab itself is a great tourist feature. The many thousands of tourists will be charged exactly what the minicab driver wants to register with the local authority and charge per mile. There have been many cases of tourists arriving at Heathrow and travelling by minicab to central London and being charged something like £100. That is well known to the black cab trade, to the Department of Transport and to the Metropolitan police. It is very difficult to catch such people. It means that we can never compare like with like, because minicabs will charge one amount which they can choose and register, and black cabs will be charging an amount which is controlled by Government.
  Let us now look at safety and the danger of a woman being raped by a minicab driver. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond has said about the tragic cases that he has described, but the problem is that, when those cab drivers register with a local authority, their backgrounds will not be investigated. In the black cab trade, before a licence is granted, the background of a driver is investigated and he is checked for a possible criminal record. This means that, although minicabs may carry a plate, we will be unable to stop undesirable people driving minicabs.
  This legislation, therefore, is not a vast improvement. In many ways, we would all like to see a much greater tightening up and improvement, but this is not happening. This Bill will not lead to any more investigation of drivers' backgrounds——
  Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is very patient and did not intervene in my speech, and I will try to resist intervening in his, but, under the private hire vehicle provisions of the 1976 Act, section 57 has the power to require applicants to submit information and references. I have answered the point about the police computer. If any of that information were found to be inaccurate, the licence could

  1257
  be revoked. As regards the airport, my hon. Friend must recognise that minicabs have restrictions on plying for hire at such places.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I feel that I have answered those points.
  Mr. Bendall: I do not think that the points have been answered. The point I am trying to make is that, if a minicab driver goes to register with the local authority, under the provisions of the 1976 Act his background cannot be investigated in the same way as that of a black cab driver. My hon. Friend referred to a minicab driver who did not know the route. Black cab drivers in central London have to spend two years "on the knowledge" to gain a green badge.
  If a black cab driver charges the wrong fare or refuses to take a passenger, he can be reported to the Metropolitan police. For some offences, the driver would lose his licence for a considerable time. In fact, I have known black cab drivers to lose their licences for ever if the offence was very serious. Therefore, the regulation of black cab drivers in London is stringent. I should like the provisions of the 1976 Act to be strengthened outside London, because people are far from happy about some of the things that are going on.
  The black cab is unique to London. The laws to regulate and control black cabs have stood the test of time. Many of them go back to the days of the hackney carriage. They have evolved over many years. It would be tragic if there was to be a decline in the black cab trade, which might happen with the piecemeal legislation which is proposed. The Bill would lower standards.
  Black cabs have to be inspected twice a year. My hon. Friend referred to vehicles in the provinces being inspected three times a year under the 1976 Act. If they were, it would be all right, but that does not happen. Black cabs in London are inspected twice a year by the Public Carriage Office. I cannot see 32 London boroughs setting up individual inspection areas and making their own arrangements for the licensing of minicabs. There might be different rules and regulations in each of the 32 boroughs. Nothing in the Bill provides for the overall registration or inspection of vehicles. It would be disastrous if different arrangements applied in the 32 boroughs.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the standards applicable to maintenance might be different in each London borough? If that were the case, there would be a hotch-potch of regulations which it would be impossible to enforce.
  Mr. Bendall: Although certain standards are set out in the Bill, I find it difficult to believe that all 32 London boroughs will set up inspection arrangements to ensure that cabs are roadworthy. Inspection will be costly. Appointments have to be made. Sometimes there are long queues of black cabs waiting to be inspected, and the carriage office cannot get through all the work. If it is difficult to get through the inspections at the moment, what would happen if an additional 60,000 vehicles had to be inspected? I do not think that the Bill would lead to an improvement in vehicle maintenance. The only slight improvement is that the driver would have a badge and there would be a plate on his vehicle.
  1258
  In regard to kerb crawling and touting, we all know that for many years it has been illegal for minicab drivers to ply for hire, but the drivers take no notice of that. If we go to Charing Cross or any London station on a Saturday night, or to the west end when the theatres and cinemas close, we see many mini-cabs plying illegally for hire. The Bill will not stop that. If mini-cabs are licensed, they will be given an air of respectability. The public will think that it is legal for them to ply for hire. When that happens, where will the black cab trade go?
  Mr. Summerson: Down the drain.
  Mr. Bendall: My hon. Friend has put the words in my mouth. It will go down the drain. What is the point of a black cab driver spending two years on the knowledge, which is very costly, if a minicab driver can ply for hire? I am sure hon. Members have seen people with little maps in front of them riding motor cycles around London; they are learning the routes. It takes enormous concentration and time for someone to learn the knowledge. Who will bother doing that if people in minicabs can charge more? People will not take the trouble to learn the knowledge if they think that they will not get a square deal. Kerb crawling will continue, and more and more minicab drivers will ply illegally for hire. The Bill will not stop that.
  Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is expressing a genuine fear of hackney cab drivers. I am a great fan of the black cab trade, and I would not advise anyone to travel any other way. But if a minicab touts for business currently, there is no way he can be stopped unless he is arrested on the spot, because it is an arrestable offence. At the moment, all one has is his number plate.
  If a person touts for business after clause 4 becomes law, there will be an identifying mark on the back of the cab. It will carry the name of the licensing authority and a member of the public could say, "I saw that cab stopping when someone put up his hand. That is an offence and his licence should be taken away." The licensing authority could do that. If clause 4 becomes law, it will be easier to catch up with drivers who tout for trade.
  Mr. Bendall: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not think that that would happen. Often people are happy to get a minicab late at night when they come out of a theatre or a club. The Bill would give minicabs an air of respectability, and as a result they will tout and kerb-crawl more than they do now. There is no way in which that can be stopped, because there are only five enforcement officers in Greater London, and—given the number of minicabs in London—that would be a joke.
  I do not want to see the destruction of the black cab trade. That could happen if we do not compare like with like, and the black cab is given a rough deal compared with the minicab.
  There are other consequences of the Bill that my colleagues have not thought about. The unique black cab produced in England comes in two forms: the Metro and the Fairway—the 4X—which is a famous cab produced in Coventry. Large numbers of those cabs are now exported to, for instance, Japan and Kenya. In the event of a reduction in the number of people purchasing black cabs and not prepared to do the knowledge, our export industry would suffer. If black cabs were not produced in great numbers, people would not buy them, because they would no longer be able to compete: they would be downtrodden,

  1259
  as it were, by minicabs crawling along and touting for business. Eventually, our export industry could be destroyed, as no one would be buying black cabs for home use.
  Another problem is the enormous number of fleet cabs. If the black cabs were to disappear, there would be unemployment in the factories producing them, and among drivers. The back-up servicing would also be hit. I do not know if any of my hon. Friends are aware of it, but behind the black cab trade there is an enormous back-up service in little railway arches. If there were no black cabs to service, what would happen to those firms? That would start up a continuous problem, and I do not know where it would end.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes that there are not enough cabs in outer London. Whereas inner London is called the green badge area, outer London is the yellow badge area. In outer London, drivers used to have to train for two years or so. Outer London is split up into geographical areas, and the number of those areas has now increased. The Public Carriage Office and the Government are trying to reduce the time for the knowledge training in outer London, which in due course should increase the number of black cabs available in outer London.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes said, the public feel safer in a black cab. Those cabs are purpose-built for safety. They have been specially designed over the years to be used in large cities and conurbations such as London. The cab has a first-class turning circle, which other vehicles such as minicabs do not have. Surely we should be encouraging those black cabs in our cities, as we already have enough transport problems in London. The black cabs are part of the co-ordinated transport system of London. They are purpose-built vehicles with the right turning circle, the right safety and the right insurance. We should be discouraging the wrong vehicles, such as the minicabs——
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Japanese minicab.
  Mr. Bendall: As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) points out, someone will soon try to step into our export markets. Japan and Germany are already working on a cab. It would be tragic if something that is unique to Britain, which is helping our exports, were ruined.
  Let me say a few words about the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes that I admire what it is trying to achieve, and in no way do I want to stop those achievements; however, I do not want to see those achievements used to the detriment of others. The black cab trade has been built up since the early 1900s. It would be tragic if taxi drivers asked what was the point of paying £18,000 or £19,000—with hire purchase—to buy a specialised black cab when they could buy an old banger to do the job. There would then be a lowering of standards and the ruination of the taxi trade. While I sympathise with what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, I think that it would be tragic if, as a result of the Bill, the black cab trade in London was ruined.
  Black-cab drivers are highly intelligent people, interesting and well read in politics and other matters. They are always happy to discuss politics, and no doubt many hon. Members in the past few weeks have been
  1260
  tapped up about the Bill, as they are concerned about its possible effects. I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that he is being got at too harshly.
  In the years that I have represented taxi drivers in my constituency, I have always found them generous and kind people. My hon. Friend may not be aware of the amount of charitable work that they do, such as arranging visits to coastal resorts for disabled children. That takes place because of the closeness of the trade and the uniqueness of the black cab. We do not want to lose the black cab: that would be a tragedy for London, and a tragedy in general.
  I am not attempting to stop the progress of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, but the black cab must be preserved in the years ahead.
  Although they seem to be staying neutral tonight, last year the Government seemed quite happy for many cabs not to be licensed, but they have tried to help by improving the yellow badge area outside London and in a number of other areas which will be added to the scheme. I learn from my friends in the trade that that improvement has already started. Many more people have applied for yellow badges in those areas, and I am sure that all this will help to build up the black cab trade, not hasten its decline. That is why I am worried that, even before the improvement gathers momentum, the laws for London might be changed. If we were talking about somewhere outside London where there was no black cab trade, I should have no hesitation in supporting the Bill, although I should like more stringent controls applied outside London.
  One of the greatest anxieties of the black cab drivers is to do with minicabs being able to charge whatever they like, and being able to ply for hire. One night in Birmingham recently, the police decided to purge illegal minicabs that were plying for hire. A great deal of police time and a great many police were involved in the exercise, and they caught about 45 people that evening.
  More recently still, there have been many similar problems in Reading. I quote, for example, from the Bracknell Post, which, in an article headlined "Unsafe scandal of town cabbies", states:
  "A major crackdown on Reading's private hire minicabs has revealed 40 per cent. have been carrying passengers in cars branded unsafe".
  That is covered by the 1976 Act.
  "An investigation by Reading Borough Council and police has revealed some drivers have been carrying passengers without proper insurance".
  That too is covered by the 1976 Act.
  "A borough council spokesman said: 'If they were involved in an accident these passengers would not have been able to claim a penny'. In the past five months, 19 drivers have lost their licences because they did not have passenger liability insurance."
  These people have been caught, but many are not caught, and the article goes on to prove that the 1976 Act is not working properly because it is not being properly enforced by local authorities.
  If we introduce measures similar to the Act in London, we shall be in danger of ruining our entire black cab trade, and that would be an utter disaster for London.
  8.24 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: It is irritating enough to find oneself on the Front Bench on the evening of the local government elections but it is even more so to find oneself here to discuss a private Bill which, although undoubtedly well intentioned, signally fails to

  1261
  live up to the claims made for it in clause 4. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) said that the promoters did not intend clause 4 to harm the black cab trade. We accept that assurance of intent, but the effects that are anticipated are a matter of judgment and opinion. That is why the instruction to the Committee tabled by the hon. Gentleman is no guarantee of a satisfactory outcome to the differences between us.
  We accept that the promoters' intention is to use clause 4 against the disreputable part of the minicab trade, but our concern is that the clause cannot achieve the objectives of safe and fair travel—objectives which I believe we all support for the taxi trade.
  Over the past few weeks we have made our position clear to the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities, and we understand that it now accepts the need for reconsideration. We further understand that both Labour-controlled and the Tory-controlled associations have sought to control minicabs because of the problems which are clear to all of us who live or work in London. We sympathise entirely with their concerns.
  Of course, there are legitimate operators who try to offer a fair service, but there are many who are disreputable. All too often, minicab vehicles are in a bad condition, dirty and unsafe. All too often, the drivers have little knowledge of the routes, and some of them are unsafe drivers. I am especially aware of the dangers that women riding in minicabs face in a capital city. A recent survey for London Weekend Television revealed that 4 per cent. of women questioned said that they had been attacked by drivers when travelling home at night. Obviously, action is required.
  There is an unmet demand for taxis in London and it is women, particularly, who increasingly seek safe transport after dark and in suburban areas, where other form of public transport may be infrequent or even non-existent at night. Hiring a minicab is often the only solution to getting home for a person without a car or for a driver who has sensibly left the car at home when attending a social function.
  We in the Labour party are clear about the need for the taxi trade as a vital supplement to other forms of public transport in London. The problem is that the best service in the world—the black cab trade—has not been able or allowed to keep up with growing public demand. That is Labour's starting point—the recognition of a public need and of an existing service with the highest possible public standards. The challenge for all of us—politicians, local authorities and the cab trade—is how to raise the standards of all who would ply for hire, and how to satisfy the increased demand for taxi travel.
  Would clause 4 meet our aims? The answer is a definitive no. We accept the case that has been pressed upon us, particularly by the Transport and General Workers Union. I acknowledge an interest, albeit not a personal financial interest, in that I am sponsored by that union. I wish to rehearse the critique of clause 4 put to us by Peter Martindale of the TGWU. First, no uniform or minimal training standard for drivers is required in the clause. Evidence given to the Lords in Committee shows that even the most enthusiastic councils do not propose to provide training but propose only to test topographical
  1262
  knowledge of their own boroughs. It is therefore possible that a person who is licensed will know one borough but will not know the next into which he frequently moves.
  No uniform or minimum vehicle standard is required in the clause, which is appalling given that these cars will travel about 100,000 miles a year. The vehicles will not be required to have a partition fitted for driver protection or for the passenger privacy which a GLC survey showed women preferred in cabs. The vehicles will not be required to be wheelchair accessible. Wheelchair accessibility is one of the radical and progressive steps that have been taken by the taxicab trade in London and for which all travellers with disabilities are deeply grateful.
  Worst of all, the lack of access to police records means that there would be no certainty that drivers licensed under clause 4 would not have a record of criminal personal assault or even rape. Clause 4 lays down no means of vehicle recognition or identification, and the absence of unified standards will make recognition of licensed vehicles impossible. London's many visitors will be particularly vulnerable to "licensed minicabs", as opposed to "licensed cabs".
  Residents of London will also be confused by the use of standard saloon cars. A third tier will arise illegally, as it has elsewhere, and will find it easier to work where it can masquerade as legally licensed vehicles. No borough would be able to tackle vehicle recognition because it would not be able to exclude vehicles which had been registered elsewhere.
  The Bill does nothing to tackle the problem of the many people working in the minicab sector who have little commitment to the industry. Therefore, the sanctions imposed by the Bill in terms of the removal of licences would be ineffective.
  Mr. Hanley: If legislation were introduced to tighten the points that the Transport and General Workers Union has made—and if a clause similar to clause 4 were introduced to bring London into line with the rest of the country before that legislation was introduced—would the hon. Lady and her party support it?
  Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman presents a hypothetical case. More important, he fails to acknowledge that London is quite different from the rest of the country. Black cabs operate to extremely high standards which do not exist elsewhere. London's high standards should be observed by the rest of the trade. We should not seek to introduce a two-tier system which, where it exists, has immense problems.
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The House will be interested by the hon. Lady's speech. It sounds as though she is in favour of minicab licensing in the circumstances that she has described. She is making an important statement on behalf of her party. The House would appreciate her confirmation that she is in favour of minicab licensing if those conditions can be achieved——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it would be in order to concentrate on the Bill.
  Ms. Ruddock: As you suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should proceed. I will make it absolutely clear to the Minister and his colleagues exactly where the Labour party stands on the issue.
  Mr. Hanley: Is the hon. Lady saying that, even if legislation were introduced to tighten the deficiencies of the minicab trade in London along the lines recommended by the Transport and General Workers Union, it would be unacceptable to the Labour party as it would refer to minicabs in London? Is the Labour party's intention that there should be only black cabs in London and not minicabs? I am seeking clarification from the hon. Lady.
  Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is seeking not clarification but to put words into my mouth. The standards that should be met by the cab trade already exist in London—those to which black cabs are subject.
  I said how local authorities would not be able to deal with the difficulties of vehicle recognition. The Bill does nothing to tackle the problem of the many working in the minicab sector who have little commitment to the industry. Therefore, the sanctions that the Bill provides would be ineffective. The loss of a licence in one borough would not preclude the driver from working in another borough.
  As the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes acknowledged, the Bill provides no powers for boroughs to set fare levels within their own area, let alone within London; nor does it require meters to be fitted to the vehicles that they license. Experience from outside London shows that there are many difficulties with legislation such as this, and there is a case for tightening the legislation which applies to other parts of the country. The recent "Operation Cinderella", which has already been referred to and which was carried out by the police and trading standards authority in Birmingham, showed how acute the problems are.
  We believe that the Bill is incapable of reforming the fly-by-night nature of minicabs. At best, it might provide a veneer of respectability. Its failure to lay down training for drivers, design and maintenance of vehicles and methods of operation will not develop the commitment to the taxi industry that is shown by London cabbies.
  London's cabs are acknowledged to be the best in the world. It is our contention, therefore, that we should first consider providing all the public with a first-class taxi service by extending the regulation of the best system in the world while phasing out minicabs, which are agreed to be unsatisfactory. In other words, we should base London's future cab service on what is good rather than what is bad.
  That is the policy of the London Taxi Board, which is made up, I remind hon. Members, of the following cab trade representative bodies: the London Motor Cab Proprietors Association, the Cab Fleet Owners, the Joint Radio Taxis Association, Taxi Radio Circuits, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, the Owner Drivers Society and the cab section of the Transport and General Workers Union.
  The Labour party is not arguing a protectionist case. Indeed, we believe that at times cab drivers have been their own worst enemies. It is not difficult to find a Member of Parliament who can testify to the number of refusals by black cabs to accept his or her fare home after a late-night sitting.
  There must be reforms in the licensing and training of black cab drivers to achieve expansion of their numbers and greater flexibility in the hours that they are prepared to work, while still maintaining the same high standards.
  I am delighted to learn of the changes that are already under way, to which the hon. Member for Ilford, North
  1264
  (Mr. Bendall) referred. The London Taxi Board has negotiated a change in the knowledge of London training with the Public Carriage Office to allow new cab drivers to obtain a licence for a sector of suburban London in approximately four months. The scheme has been implemented since last September, and in January there were 990 participants who, after a high standard of training, will get a first-class job. The new scheme is capable of rapidly expanding London's cab trade to the suburbs, where it is most needed.
  The taxi board has published draft proposals which, when adopted, will apply the most up-to-date techniques to the knowledge and, with the adoption of computerised radio systems in cabs, will facilitate further expansion in the cab trade to provide thousands of first-class jobs and a first-class service for all, particularly for those with disabilities and for women. Cabs are wheelchair-accessible and have an internal partition between driver and passengers for discretion and safety, which women acknowledge that they particularly want.
  The Labour party supports the London Taxi Board's plan to reform the knowledge training. Standards will be maintained, but the time taken to complete it will be reduced. I believe that that is the key to making more cabs available.
  I have no doubt that the travelling public want a safe, recognisable vehicle with a meter showing a regulated fare driven by a well trained and vetted driver. Those standards are available within the black cab trade, and they are the standards for which we should aim, but they are not met by clause 4 of the Bill.
  Labour's opposition is not a case for inaction or an acceptance that London should continue to play host to a huge, unregulated sector of minicab businesses. We accept the need for urgent action. To that end, we are setting up a working party to include trade and local authority representatives. We will publish a plan through which, we believe, the problem can be solved. It will bring into being sufficient numbers of cabs of sufficiently high standards—the black cabs—to meet the need. It will take time, but we will outline the programme and recommend it to the Minister and Conservative Members. It will be consistent with our overall plan for an integrated and co-ordinated public transport system, under the auspices of a strategic authority for London. Planning for London, especially in transport, must be on a London-wide basis. We know that the two London boroughs associations support that general view. We hope very much that through our working party we can point the way towards solving what we acknowledge to be a very serious problem.
  I am happy to support other clauses in the Bill, which provide a number of sensible measures. As a London Member with an inner-city constituency, I welcome all reasonable measures for crime prevention and the means afforded to local authorities to take those measures. I also welcome the proposal to reinstate essential supplies. My constituents, who are among the poorest in London, are the most likely to find themselves facing debt and the misery and insecurity of cut-offs under this Government's policies.
  8.41 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now to give the Government's view. I shall be brief as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for the way in which he so helpfully introduced the Bill. I thank him for his kind words about me, but must emphasise that they were based merely on newspaper rumours. I have the greatest sympathy for him, because his motives for introducing the Bill have come under attack. I have no doubt that his motives were excellent, as was made quite clear in his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) put the contrary view with equal skill. That has led to an interesting debate.
  I am pleased that all hon. Members who have spoken have paid tribute to the taxi trade in London. I shall remind the House of the view that I gave on 11 May 1989, when we concluded the review of taxis in London:
  "In the case of London, it has become clear that the high standards of service and propriety offered by taxis are highly valued by … the public. London passengers enjoy a quality of service based on purpose-built vehicles developed to enhance driver and passenger comfort. Their roadworthiness and cleanliness are ensured by standards set by the Public Carriage Office, and drivers must pass through rigorous driver testing."—[Official Report, 11 May 1989: Vol. 152, c. 486.]
  I announced at that time that the Government had no intention to legislate.
  Before I deal with clause 4, which is central to the debate, I shall comment on the other clauses. In general, the Government have no objection to the principle of London local authorities, as they are empowered to do by statute, promoting a Bill seeking additional general powers for the London area. With one exception—clause 6—all the provisions in the Bill to which Government Departments objected have been either withdrawn or disallowed by Committees in the other place. On clause 6, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, while having no objection to the purpose of the clause, considers that the powers are too widely drawn. Negotiations are continuing with the promoters to provide a more tightly drawn provision. I hope that the issue can be resolved satisfactorily if the Bill proceeds to Committee.
  On the provision for licensing minicabs, when the Bill was introduced, the Government's response to what has since become clause 4 was that it seemed impracticable and that the case for licensing was not proven. The matter of practicability has since been addressed to some extent by the Bill's promoters, but I have to say that nothing has emerged greatly to strengthen the case for licensing.
  With regard to practicability, the Government were concerned that simply extending the private hire licensing provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 would create 31 separate licensing authorities and consequent scope for the cross-border hiring confusion that sometimes exists outside the capital. The amendment since tabled by the Bill's promoters making vehicle, driver and operator licences issued by one London council valid in any other participating borough should ease much of the cross-border problem.
  However, we are still concerned that confusion may arise about the public's expectations of control stringency compared with that actually applied by individual licensing boroughs. For example, it is possible that licence
  1266
  applicants will migrate to particular boroughs where the most minimal standards required by the clause are applied, but then concentrate operations in more restrictive boroughs. No doubt such confusion could be overcome by the boroughs agreeing common licensing conditions, but it is only right to point out that there are still potential practical difficulties with the provision.
  We considered the need to legislate on London's minicabs. Hon. Members may recall that the Department of Transport conducted a fundamental review of all taxi and private hire vehicle licensing legislation, which was completed in May of last year. During the review, reactions were obtained from the public, from licensing authorities and from those within the trades on the absence of minicab licensing in London. Allegations of malpractice in the trade were made then, as they are often made, but they were rarely supported by hard evidence. I was not content at that time to propose changes on the basis of the limited facts that I had before me. I felt that I did not have enough evidence about the extent of the problem, or sufficient evidence to suggest that licensing would deal with it. It was not clear in what way we could bring criminal record examination into play. For all those reasons, I decided against legislation.
  Hon. Members have alluded to the Government's funding to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which is conducting research into passenger experiences with and perceptions of the London minicab trade to determine whether licensing is likely to make any difference to safety. The results of that research should be available 12 months from when it began, which was last January. Perhaps I should remind the House of what I said when I announced the Government's participation in that research:
  "I believe that taxis in London provide a safe and reliable service, and that the same is generally true of minicabs too. However, I am aware that some people feel anxious about travelling in unlicensed vehicles. There is, at present, very little firm evidence to establish whether this anxiety is justified and I welcome the proposal to gather evidence on this point."
  There is a consideration, which some hon. Members have already touched upon, relating to the ability of licensing authorities to check on driver integrity. Complaints have recently been made to me by members of the licensed taxi trade, and in particular the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, about the alleged criminal element in the minicab trade and about the lack of provision for checks on drivers' police records in clause 4. It is right to point out that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 does not give provincial licensing authorities automatic access to the police records of licence applicants either for minicab drivers or taxi drivers, and that consequently clause 4 cannot give such access to London authorities.
  Hon. Members will appreciate that this is neither the time nor the place to address the broader question of disclosure of information from police records. It is an issue that I know the Home Office has been reviewing. Suffice it to say that, while some hon. Members might consider that the fact that clause 4 does not offer criminal record checks is a reason to oppose it, others might, on balance, support the principle of extending to London the controls available to councils in the rest of the country.
  Those are the Government's views on what we consider to be the main implications of clause 4. I should stress, as was said when the Government's view was given in another place, that, overall, the Government's opinion on clause 4 remains neutral.

  1267
  I note that there are three petitioners against clause 4, and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee if the House passes the Bill. The Committee will be in a good position to examine in detail the issues involved and will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) made a powerful case for the principle of regulating the private hire trade in London, and particularly the minicab end of the trade. I was surprised that the Minister did not seem to have the same experience as many of us of the deficiences of the less reputable minicab operators. Many of us have had experience of drivers who do not know the basic elements of London geography. A year or so ago, I had the misfortune to be collected by a minicab that had been sent by a London radio station, which should have known better. After five minutes going in the wrong direction, it became clear that the driver had no idea how to get to the radio station. I had to direct him to the radio station, from there to Broadcasting house and then back to Westminster. That is not an unusual experience with such drivers.
  We have all had experience of rusting vehicles with bits falling off them that are both unsafe and unsavoury in which to travel. There is also legitimate concern about the standard of drivers. I used to he a magistrate in the east end of London. A distressing number of offenders who appeared before me gave as their occupation either company director of minicab driver.
  Mr. Norris: Or both.
  Mr. Cartwright: Yes, or both. That underlines the problems about which we are concerned.
  I have had experience of another problem in the past year or so. That is the mushrooming of 24-hour a day minicab offices in residential areas, which set up without the benefit of planning permission. My constituents have all the noise of cars arriving, doors slamming, drivers shouting and radios blaring 24 hours a day. Although planning permission has not been granted, it takes local authorities a long time to sort out such problems. If they cannot enforce the planning regulations, there must be a question mark over whether they can enforce the powers given in clause 4.
  The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes made a powerful case for the principle of regulation and the most stringent enforcement of high standards on the minicab trade. However, he did not persuade me, or other hon. Members, that clause 4 is the right way to achieve that objective. It is clear that the reputable end of the private hire trade wants some system of regulation, but it is also clear that it has reservations about clause 4. A number of us have received a letter from the London Private Hire Car Association dated 1 May. It says:
  "Our reservations about implementation arise out of the problems that have occurred in putting into effect the 1976 Act outside London and the proposals that implementation within London should be by the 32 London Boroughs allowing for wide differences in requirements."
  Other hon. Members, including the Minister, have referred to that point.
  It is ridiculous that 32 boroughs should apply different standards and introduce different systems and procedures.
  1268
  London is an entity. It is not a collection of 32 self-governing islands. It needs a uniform system and, if such a system is to be brought in, it should come after the most careful investigation by the Department of Transport and through Government legislation rather than legislation from the boroughs.
  I am somewhat surprised that the London boroughs should be seeking these additional powers. Most local authorities are busy telling us with every breath that they can muster that they cannot use the powers they have because they do not have enough resources. Here they are in London, apparently looking for new powers—powers that need resources. We have already heard that they will not have access to criminal records so as to carry out the careful scrutiny of minicab drivers that many of us think is essential in any system of regulation.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman said that he finds it strange that the 32 London boroughs are asking for extra powers, and I agree. However, there is a possible reason why they have been driven that way—the absence of a Greater London council. We have all agreed—even the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—that there is something wrong with the minicab trade in London. It is conceivable that the authorities, also agreeing, thought that somebody had to find some method of control and have come up with this, which is little more than a dog's dinner. They are trying to make a seven-course dinner out of a pan of boiling water. They are searching for some control, but that control should be exercised by a Greater London authority.
  Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Member makes a fair case. It would have been a more persuasive case had the boroughs concerned been willing to agree to a standard system that each would have operated on a voluntary basis. It may have been easier to have it imposed by a supra-London authority, but if the 32 boroughs had wanted an effective system, it would have been better if they had got together and agreed that they would do it the same way. Sadly, that has not happened.
  If the boroughs are to do the job effectively, they will need resources. They will have to take on staff, set up administrations and check vehicles. I doubt whether they will check them three times a year, which is what the Bill provides for, but if they are to do the job properly, duties will fall on them and extra costs will be incurred. We know that the boroughs will not get extra money from the Government, and I find it hard to believe that they have the money already. My local authority—poll tax-capped as it is—will have to cut its spending in the current financial year by £10 million. I cannot believe that it will have enough spare resources to take on this additional responsibility. We may be told that this scheme will be self-financing and that the income from licences will be sufficient to meet all the costs involved. Having been in local government for quite a few years, I am suspicious of anything presented as self-financing, because nine times out of 10 it turns out to be nothing of the sort.
  Although this proposal is well meaning, it will create the impression of regulation whereas any system that flows from clause 4 will not provide the stringent and effective enforcement for which the public has every right to look. Therefore, I urge the sponsor of the Bill to withdraw clause 4.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Steve Norris: I begin by echoing the commendation of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has had to plough a difficult furrow in sponsoring the Bill. Much of the Bill is unexceptionable, however, and there is no doubt about his bona fides when it comes to clause 4, which has detained us this evening. It would be churlish not to admit that one of the greatest mistakes that one can make in politics is to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. My hon. Friend presented an interesting case that suggested exactly that—he said that we should allow some change to be made to the regulations on minicabs in London but less than that which many of us who intend to oppose clause 4 would wish. His intentions are clearly honourable and commend him greatly to all those who are concerned about the safety and regulation of the cab trade in London.
  The rumours about the imminent move of my hon. Friend the Minister from one tower of Marsham street to another are rife. This evening, he handled the "on the one hand, on the other hand" argument with great dexterity. He proved the greatest of all adages in politics, which is that if someone cannot ride two horses at the same time he should not be in the circus. I have no doubt that on his move to the Department of the Environment to take up new duties, he will, if the appointment is confirmed, demonstrate dexterity as a bareback rider comparable to that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a trapeze artist.
  The title of the Bill is the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill, not the London taxi Bill. I say that because I am especially interested, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes is, in clause 6, which relates to the crime prevention powers of local authorities. There is a respectable pedigree for the inclusion of the clause in the Bill by the authorities, not least the eighth Home Office circular of 1984. That circular stressed that the police alone could not be expected to be responsible for preventing crime in the community. It stated, in effect, that crime in the community could be prevented only when the community as a whole accepted that crime is its problem. As part of that, everyone has a responsibility, personal and corporate in his individual life and business life, to do something about crime.
  The most telling illustration was that even the Department of Energy is responsible in part for the prevention of crime. In many London estates, the most frequently committed crime is that of breaking into utility meters. Coinless meters eliminate that offence, but the speed with which that sort of meter is installed is, or has been in the past, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. There is a link with crime, even with a Department that is as far removed from it, ostensibly, as the Department of Energy. With local authorities, the link is even more powerful. The authorities have a key role in the prevention of crime, and one of my greatest regrets is that in general debate we do not recognise that local authorities, whether or not they are guilty of mini-imperialism, and whether or not it is right to restrict them to the provision of a number of basic services or to regard them as having a more general duty, have a
  1270
  unique status as enablers in the community to ensure that effective crime prevention measures are developed to the benefit of everyone.
  Crime Concern is the charitable trust that I established in 1988, with Home Office support, to promote voluntary crime prevention. I am delighted by the interest that is being shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who is a Government Whip. The trust has been working with many local authorities on the establishment of area crime reduction programmes, which are an effective implementation of the safer cities initiative. There are co-ordinators in post in Luton, Sandwell and Solihull, and recruitments are in hand in Kirklees, Halton, and Suffolk. Programmes are agreed in Peterborough, Plymouth, Walsall and elsewhere. It is being demonstrated in all these places that local authorities, hand-in-hand with voluntary organisations, and with the co-operation of the police, can be effective focal points for crime prevention initiatives.
  My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the reservations that have been expressed by the Department of the Environment about the necessity of clause 6, and in some ways I share those reservations. The work to private dwellings and commercial premises described in clause 6(2) could be carried out by a housing authority, facilities for self-defence classes could be provided under education or social services powers, facilities for vocational training courses could be provided under education powers, facilities for counselling victims of crime could be, and frequently are, undertaken by local authorities or sponsored by local authorities under their social services powers, and many of the facilities necessary for the undertaking of research to aid crime prevention do not require particular funding. Many in the Home Office would argue that we suffer from a plethora rather than a dearth of research and that that is not a priority for crime prevention work.
  There can be no great objection to the general move to put local authorities in the centre of the frame on crime prevention, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, but I share the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on whether the particular form of words in the Bill is necessary for the advancement of that objective.
  Let me deal now with the notorious clause 4—words which must be strangely redolent to Labour Members, not to mention the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) who will in his time have entered into the odd debate on the significance of clause 4. However, I shall not embarrass him further. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who represents a substantial number of London black cab drivers, did an excellent job in cogently explaining why clause 4 is deficient. He was ably supported by the hon. Members for Deptford and for Woolwich.
  I do not doubt that the London cab system is the best in the world. I know of no other system which provides the breadth of security, safety and reassurance to the casual user that is provided by the London taxi system. Not only is it a tourist attraction in itself, it is an ambassador at home for those here on holiday.
  With some honourable and often hilarious exceptions, cab drivers are, in the main, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, charming, generous, witty,

  1271
  friendly, amusing and, most of all, they get to where they have to go honourably by the quickest route whether or not the passenger's first language is English.
  Epping Forest is a far cry from Oxford, East where such was the surprise at my election that when I went to the drinks party afterwards my supporters said they they were delighted that I had won but that they never thought I would do it, implying that if they had thought so they would have been much more careful in selecting their candidate. At Epping Forest I learnt quickly that the constituency slogan was, "Tax are things for keeping down the stair carpet." I thought that that referred to income tax, but I later found that it had a more general application. My constituents are vigorous in their defence of free enterprise and a low taxation economy. As such, I value their opinions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes referred to his Ghanaian barrister who, after a week in Britain, decided to become a minicab driver without knowing the way to the House of Commons. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Minister was unable to obtain sufficient evidence of the deficiencies of the minicab trade. I share the casual experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, which I venture to suggest will be familiar to most other people who have used them.
  The operation of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 has been less than adequate. Although well intentioned, sadly, that Act led to the creation of no fewer than three tiers of operation. The first is the London black cab. Beneath that comes the regulated minicab, and the third tier is the unregulated minicab. It is not exceptional to find a minicab driver who does not have a clue where he is going and who charges whatever fare he thinks one can stand according to the cut of one's suit—it is more likely to be the rule. The more that I speak to people about the Bill and about minicabs in general, the clearer it becomes that the experience I describe is the norm throughout the country. It goes beyond the instances recounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes.
  When there is a system of using ordinary cars to which minimal alterations are made, and subject only to minimal servicing, a sub-culture is created—and that is where the danger lies. As to the attitude of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), who could not be present this evening, asked me specifically to make it clear that she, as a trustee of that trust, is very concerned about the operation of clause 4. As she points out, the woman who enters a minicab alone, and perhaps at night, is confronted by someone who she has never met before in her life. One can stop right there—one need not elaborate on that statement. The attendant risks if one cannot be sure that the person driving that cab is not someone whose criminal record has been examined, whose general bona fides have been scrutinised, and whose general temperament has also been tested by an examination process, are self-evident.
  I move on from the assertion that one advantage of the well-regulated London cab system is that its drivers know where they are going to make the point that London cabs are safe in terms of the stringent standards applied by the Public Carriage Office. It is always amusing to hear cabbies complain in vitriolic terms about the scrupulous
  1272
  standards applied, but no doubt those standards operate in the interests of the general public—and they are certainly higher than the standards anticipated by the Bill.
  I do not share the view that applicants for licences would flood to those boroughs where the minimal knowledge requirements applied. My belief is that they would flood to those where the least stringent servicing requirements were enforced. There certainly would be a minimum standard of minicabs—the standard of the least stringent borough in terms of inspection and servicing, which would be highly undesirable.
  Not only are London cabs safe, but London cabbies are vetted.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a growing practice in the west end late at night of private cars plying for hire, and that to allow clause 4 to reach the statute book would exacerbate that situation? Given the incidence of attacks with which we are already familiar, a considerable number of Londoners, never mind tourists, would be placed at considerable risk if we were to permit a badly drafted Bill and an ill-advised clause to pass into law.
  Mr. Norris: I agree with the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North who made the telling observation that one usually needs a cab just at the very moment when they all seem to disappear. In those circumstances, any port is welcome in a storm. If a cab or what purports to be a cab pulls up late at night, the human reaction is to leap aboard. That is the danger and the nub of the matter.
  I now return to the way in which cabbies are vetted because some elements have not yet been mentioned. First, we have heard about the requirement that they should be knowledgeable about the routes that they will ply. I take that as a sine qua non. There is every intention of referring to that requirement in clause 4. Secondly, as I remember vividly from that wonderfully amusing play by Jack Rosenthal called "The Knowledge", part of the tortuous process which the cabbie must undergo to obtain knowledge is a personality test. An endeavour is made to ascertain whether those who wish to ply for hire as a driver have the temperament appropriate to an extremely stressful job. That is an important requirement which we should not overlook.
  The third and most important requirement is the thorough vetting of the applicant's criminal record to ensure, rightly—we cannot stress this too much—that whoever holds one of those prized green or yellow badges is fit to take not only a person whom he or she has never met but property to a distant location. The present facilities in London allow for that. It is common for cab drivers to be entrusted with property to be conveyed from one point to another without the consignor having to worry about the bona fides of the driver. I have known of young children being entrusted to cab drivers to be taken from one address in London to another. That is the most marvellous commendation and one of which to be proud.
  The crux of the argument is whether we should allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. A contrary principle is also involved. It is that if we allow clause 4 into law—it would effectively mean that the standards of the 1976 Act would also apply in London—we shall live with it for many years to come. That is the reality of legislation.

  1273
  We would deem ourselves to have dealt with the problem. That simply would not be good enough because the problem, as evidenced elsewhere in the country, and as many hon. Members know, is that the standards laid down by that Act, albeit with good intentions, simply have not created the right conditions. It is no exaggeration to say that people are less safe outside London in areas where the black cab system does not operate than they are in London when they use black cabs.
  I notice the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in his place and attentive as ever. He, too, has drivers as constituents and shares my experience and that of all London Members and London regional Members that that is undoubtedly the case. One of the greatest assets of our transport infrastructure is that we can rely on standards applied by the Metropolitan police in the licensing of London cabs. Sadly, that facility is not available to those who pick up a cab, for example, at a station in most of the major termini in Britain.
  Mr. Arbuthnot rose——
  Mr. Norris: I note that my hon. Friend, who has several interested constituents and who is my distinguished neighbour in Wanstead and Woodford, wishes to intervene.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Is the problem partly that we would deem ourselves to have dealt with the problem and that many female passengers travelling in London now would also believe that? They would be lulled into a sense of security that would be illusory and false.
  Mr. Norris: That is absolutely correct and my hon. Friend expresses the problem well. The veneer of respectability—a phrase used by other hon. Members—would apply to minicabs if the clause was passed into law and that is the precise danger to which my hon. Friends have alluded.
  The dilemma is whether we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and oppose the clause or accept that we cannot allow a deficient principle to pass into law. There is ample evidence elsewhere in the country to suggest that the principle is deficient. With the greatest regret and with the greatest respect for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, I believe that we must reject the clause.
  The clause does not relate to competition and it is not a proposal designed to extend a great free-market principle to the carriage of persons about London. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said that between 800 and 1,000 new licences are issued every year and that the new system of licensing those from outer London in more zones than hitherto is likely to lead to an increase in the number of those licences issued. The hon. Member for Deptford also said that something is being done about that problem. We are making progress to help those who cannot currently obtain a black cab licence.
  One may argue that competitive forces may, on occasions, drive down the cost of a minicab, but that is not surprising when one considers the investment required for safety in the proper London cab and the investment required in terms of time to acquire the "knowledge"—cab
  1274
  drivers estimate that it takes up to 650 hours. In terms of a reasonable rate of pay, the time spent to acquire it represents an investment of about £4,000.
  A minicab can be cheaper than a black cab, but is it like for like? I am afraid the answer is no and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford has not accurately observed that we would still be offering London people a two-tier system, if not a three-tier system—one which operates dangerously elsewhere. Sadly, the lower two tiers would be deficient.
  I hope that many of the Bill's provisions can be retained, but, if necessary, my hon. Friends and I who live with this problem in London will be obliged to oppose its further passage. In many ways I regret that decision, but I hope that the House will accept that the price we are being asked to pay in terms of clause 4 is too high.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a modest but nevertheless important Bill of a completely uncontroversial nature except in one respect.
  One gives wholehearted support to the provisions in the Bill which deal with the restoration of water, gas and electricity services. Such restoration will be of concern to many of our constituents who are confronted with that problem. I welcome all that is said about crime prevention. It is vital that we should spend more time and money on counselling the victims of crime and on the other laudable crime prevention measures outlined in the Bill. I hope that all those measures will proceed—but not clause 4, which is of a different ilk. It has been hastily brought to the House, it is ill-conceived and I fear that it would have the reverse effect of that intended by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).
  Mr. Hanley rose——
  Mr. Boateng: I will give way in due course. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that he has erred in this respect.
  Mr. Hanley rose——
  Mr. Boateng: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Considering that good is being held back by the presence of clause 4, that clause should be allowed to disappear quietly so that the good may proceed. I commend that course to the hon. Gentleman. I give way to him in the hope that he will accept my advice, in which case I need speak no more.
  Mr. Hanley: I rise simply to explain to the hon. Gentleman, who was not here earlier, that this is not a private Member's Bill. I am not its promoter. I am merely introducing it on behalf of 31 London boroughs, including all the Labour London boroughs. The hon. Gentleman should therefore not blame me for any aspects of the measure of which he disapproves. He must blame his own council, which is a sponsor of the Bill, including clause 4.
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. I was not for one moment blaming him for doing what he feels that he must do.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is being somewhat disingenuous. If in the course of this debate he would tell the sponsors of the Bill, who are usually present at such discussions, that to hon. Members

  1275
  who represent London constituencies—including myself—clause 4 is totally unacceptable and must be removed from the measure, he could report their view to the House before the conclusion of the debate.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is as perceptive as ever. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes is being somewhat disingenuous, though not for the first time.
  Mr. Hanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is himself being disingenuous in view of the fact that the sponsors include his local authority and that of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
  The Suzy Lamplugh Trust is conducting research with a grant of up to £20,500 from the Department of Transport and is endeavouring, with the Police Foundation, to raise a matching sum. I hope that that research will continue in the coming year and will result in legislation which the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Islington, South and Finsbury will be able to support.
  It is with regret, in view of their remarks, that I give an undertaking that the promoters, including the hon. Gentleman's local authority, will ask in Committee that the clause, together with schedule 2, be withdrawn.
  Mr. Boateng: One welcomes those occasions when good sense prevails, particularly in the case of one's own local authority. I am delighted to hear the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes promoting the cause of my local authority so ably and effectively, and I hope that he will promote the welfare of my area on other occasions, too.
  We must not overlook the serious point that is raised. I am a patron of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which does much good and important work, but that has not stopped me opposing clause 4 root and branch. Because I support the work of the trust and because safety and security, particularly for women, are vital, we must nurture, enhance and extend the role of the black cab rather than do anything to diminish it.
  The House must review carefully the results of the research being undertaken and it may be necessary for legislation to be introduced in due course. I am sure that that will be welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House when it comes forward. For enabling the debate to take place, those who promote the Bill deserve our thanks.
  I want us to bear in mind one fact that was put most cogently by a constituent, Mrs. Elsie Dellar of Kensal Rise, who wrote to me. The House will need to consider what she said when it considers legislation once the results of the research currently commissioned are available. She asked me and my colleagues to answer the following few, but vital, questions. First, she asked whether the licensed minicab drivers would have to give up two years to do the knowledge. She further asked:
  "Would their vehicles have to have a complete overhaul once a year? Would their meters be sealed and checked? Would they be checked for any criminal offence or record? Would they have medical checks? Would they use vehicles specified by the carriage office? If to all these questions the answer is yes then by all means license them because they would be what they should be—a London cabbie."
  That says it all.
  Mrs. Dellar continues that if the answers are no and my colleagues and I vote for minicabs to be licensed, we will be giving the public over to any person who wants to drive a car without any effective control whatsoever over the
  1276
  circumstances in which they drive it and the peril that they may cause to the public. Such people must be viewed with a great deal of circumspection.
  It is impossible to water down the qualities that need to be possessed by London cabbies, who are the pride not only of our nation, but of all those from wherever in the world who care about how these tasks are performed. Cab systems in the rest of the world are deficient in every respect when compared with ours. We must build on the useful debate that we have had today and of which we shall no doubt hear more so as to strengthen the black cab's position and not diminish it.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Patrick Ground: I shall make two short points because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. First, I am not convinced of the need for a separate licensing system for private hire vehicles in London. I have used minicabs and black cabs for many years, and my experience of both has been satisfactory. I endorse everything that has been said about the standards of black cabs and accept that that is the standard for which to aim. However, I am not satisfied, from the anecdotes that have been told and the results of the review carried out by the Department of Transport, that there is sufficient hard evidence to justify the sort of system that we are being asked to consider tonight. I want to see much more hard evidence before I am prepared to be convinced about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) complained about being in a minicab with a driver who did not know the way to the House of Commons. That may happen with minicabs, but I do not regard that as sufficient hardship to require an elaborate licensing system for minicabs.
  The review being undertaken by the Home Office and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust has plainly not yet finished. It appears that it will not be completed until later this year, possibly next. The case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes shows that the consideration of the need for such legislation should await the conclusion of research that establishes the need for such a system.
  Secondly, I am not convinced that, if the licensing of private hire vehicles in London is needed, individual London boroughs are the right bodies to exercise that control. We are down to 29 London boroughs now and it is very unsatisfactory to have a secondary system for London supported by only 29 boroughs. If I am right in detecting what has been said by Opposition Members, that number is likely to fall pretty quickly, so it is even more unsatisfactory that the system should enjoy such piecemeal support.
  I am struck by the fact that there was no consultation between the London boroughs and the Licensed Taxi. Drivers Association or the formal associations and trade representatives of the private vehicle trade in London before this legislation was begun. It is a sign of inadequate consideration and preparation. After the House had decided in 1976 not to have this particular form of control for London, surely substantial study, consultation and consideration were required before attempting to change the position which Parliament had established by a deliberate act some 14 or 15 years earlier.
  I strongly oppose clause 4, and I am delighted to hear that, on the strength of tonight's debate, my hon. Friend

  1277
  the Member for Richmond and Barnes has committed himself to withdrawing the clause in Committee; retention of the clause would have made it extremely difficult for me to support the Bill.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: Ambrose Bierce, the late 19th century American satirist, defined a taxi as a tormenting vehicle in which a pirate jolts you through devious ways to the wrong place, where he robs you. That is not a description which I would like to apply to all minicab drivers, but some of them certainly come into that category. I must be a little careful in what I say about minicab drivers because I have several minicab firms in my constituency which, being in outer London, is not very well served by the black cab. On the whole, they do an excellent job, but there are pirates among them.
  I have been extremely worried about the effect that clause 4 would have had on the black cab system which is well proved, well tried and excellent—a system without peer in the world and one at which people from other countries look with envy, wishing that they had something like it.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on the way in which he introduced the Bill this evening, and I congratulate him warmly on the way in which he realised what hon. Members thought about clause 4 and decided to withdraw it. He has conducted himself extremely well tonight, and the whole House will be grateful to him.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I join the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) in welcoming the important statement of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The decision of the hon. Gentleman and of the sponsors of the Bill to seek in Committee to withdraw clause 4 is welcome and means that we can allow the Bill to receive its Second Reading.
  Some provisions in the Bill, especially in relation to the restoration of water, gas and electricity services, and to crime prevention, are welcome and we wish them good speed on to the statute book.
  Clause 4 concerned me greatly. Many of my constituents drive black cabs and clause 4 represented a real threat to the black cab service in London. That threat has been effectively removed by the statement of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes. We will want to see what happens to the Bill in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman will stand by his word and we will have seen the last of clause 4. Perhaps more considered measures can be brought before us later which will pose less of a threat to the invaluable service which black cabs provide in our capital city.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: The Bill has very few of its original clauses. When it started its life in the other place it had 58 clauses, but only eight are left. Some are very important and we wish to see them pass into law. Clause 4 has caused many of us difficulty. I welcome the
  1278
  agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to seek the withdrawal of the clause in Committee. It was ill-advised to include it in the Bill for the simple reason that we are very fortunate in London to have such an excellent taxi service. The black cab system is the envy of the world and it would be wrong to undermine it in any way. Where it is competing with minicabs it is subject to unfair competition.
  I am in favour of the law descending upon minicab firms and drivers who do not conduct their business properly, but it is not right to do it in the way suggested in the Bill. Some months ago a constituent of mine who was riding in a minicab found herself in an accident in which she was injured. The driver managed to take her out of the cab, put her on the roadside and drove off. She later contacted the office where she had made the booking but the people in the office denied any knowledge of the booking. That is typical of many minicab firms. I hope that the Government will consider requiring minicab drivers to have proper commercial insurance. They should suffer hefty fines if they fail to comply with the requirements.
  I am convinced that clause 4 was the wrong way to approach the problem in the centre of London. There are not so many drivers of black cabs living in my constituency as in Ilford, North, but there are a considerable number and they have expressed concern about the measure. We have to ensure that they are properly looked after and that their taxi system is not undermined. I should be the last to say that we should not have ample competition, but certain standards must be met. Women need a safe and reliable form of transport, especially late at night. They need to know that they can get home without being molested, and that they can rely on the driver to have integrity, not to have a criminal record, to have adequate insurance and to be properly qualified in driving skills, so that they know where they are being taken. The black cab service is second to none.
  I am delighted to welcome the Bill, and I wish the remainder of it a successful passage through the House.
  9.44 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: As a provincial Member, I had not intended to barge in on the cosy deliberations of London Members. However, I am increasingly alarmed at the terms of clause 4. Anything up to half my constituents come to London every day to work, and they are proud of the standard of service provided by the black cabs in our great capital city, but clause 4 would undermine that service.
  As a west Kent Member, I have many constituents who serve as licensed black cab drivers in London. They are alarmed at clause 4. Their concern can best be summed up by a letter that I received from Mr. J. L. Rogers of Istead rise in my constituency:
  "In London we already have a licensing authority, the Metropolitan police, which produces the most envied taxi service in the world. This Bill will completely undermine this service, as people who would want to sign on to do 'the knowledge', could see a much easier option to become 'legal'.
  Clearly, whether or not the promoters intended it, clause 4 would do much to destroy the quality of the taxi service in London. Therefore, I was reassured to hear from the sponsor of the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—that he intends to

  1279
  recommend that, in Committee, clause 4 and its attachments be withdrawn. On that basis, I do not intend to oppose the Bill.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As another outsider, I came back from my constituency tonight, as I am worried about clause 4. It must be said to the House that clause 4 must go. Anything less would not he acceptable. I must declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and as a practising barrister, but I have also drawn experience from my days as a member of Sheffield city council. Unfortunately, in Sheffield we did not have a large number of black cab drivers, so we had the minicab problem.
  The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) spoke about clause 6. When I served as deputy chairman of a licensing committee many years ago, I experienced the problem that it was not possible to place restrictions on where drivers went. We did not have enough knowledge about them, and, more important, we could not control their vehicles. The black cabs meet those criteria. As I said earlier, I am worried about carriage—especially at night—by persons who are not vetted in vehicles that may not be of the right standard and quality. That is a matter for further concern, and we should examine it in the near future in a wider area than London.
  I see that the Minister for Public Transport is in his place. I have heard horrible rumours that he is about to move, but most Ministers are about to move in the near future, so it matters not. If he does move, perhaps his successor will mark my words: there is a considerable feeling in the House that we should examine licensing, vehicle structure and control, as it is causing increasing concern. One reads and hears of attacks on innocent members of the public by minicab drivers who adopt a "here today, gone tomorrow" approach, whose names are sometimes unknown, and whose vehicles are sometimes uninsured and probably began their first journey of the day from the scrap yard and returned to it on their last journey of the evening. Throughout the day, they place the lives of human beings at risk.
  As for clause 6, I welcome the idea of crime prevention, but I do not think that the clause goes far enough. Its wording is very loose and, in Committee, I should like the Minister to reassure London local authorities that he will help to fund crime prevention. We have all been faced with rate capping in the past; my own local authority has just been poll tax-capped.
  When deciding how to spend money—for instance, on supporting bodies that give assistance to victims, on neighbourhood watch schemes and so on—local authorities, when capped and when their standard spending assessments do not include money for crime prevention, cannot encourage it. I gently suggest that money is necessary for preventing crime. The Home Office does its bit for crime research, but local authorities have an enormous part to play in bringing home good crime prevention ideas locally; they in turn might just bring down the crime rate and that would enhance the quality of our lives.
  However, all this requires money. Clause 6 is not broad or detailed enough, and perhaps it needs tidying up in
  1280
  Committee. On this important night, when local authorities are being elected and re-elected, I suggest that, before the Minister departs for other shores, he might persuade his colleagues that there could be some mileage in putting a little Government money into helping local authorities with crime prevention.
  I apologise for trespassing on the affairs of London, but as an outsider who lives and works in London occasionally, I thought that some things had to be said.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Hanley: The whole House has given a vote of confidence tonight to the licensed hackney carriage trade. I repeat what I said earlier: it is the best carriage trade m the world. The promoters—the 31 London boroughs—did not and do not intend any harm or insult to that trade; they merely wanted to protect the public from the deficiencies in the London minicab trade and in the minicab trade throughout the country by bringing into London legislation exactly the same as that which has served the rest of the country for the past 14 years. This legislation was perhaps to be a precursor of tougher legislation, following important research by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.
  There are many other important clauses in the Bill and it is clear from the thoughtful contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House that people would be sad if the other clauses failed. So the promoters have reluctantly—but understanding the feelings of the House—given a firm instruction to the Committee to withdraw clause 4 and schedule 2. I hope that, in return, those who have petitioned the Committee will feel that they can withdraw their petitions so that the Bill can become an unopposed measure in Committee. I know that I have the assurance of the licensed taxi drivers' trade; I do not yet have the assurance of the TGWU——
  Ms. Ruddock: I cannot give an instruction for the withdrawal of the petition, but I will certainly recommend it and expect that it will be accepted.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive intervention.
  Mr. Bendall: I do not want to delay the House, but the LTDA will do likewise. It cannot speak for others, of course. I believe that there is a third petition.
  Mr Hanley: There is a third petition. As it was only on clause 4 and schedule 2, the House would appreciate it if' the petitioner would think carefully, read tonight's debate and act accordingly.
  Mr. Bendall: I have had the nod from the Strangers' Gallery to withdraw the other petition.
  Mr Hanley: This is a most happy but strange occasion. I am acting on behalf of 31 London boroughs and I find myself thrilled to have failed so magnificently but achieved the withdrawal of the three petitions.
  The House will welcome the fact that the Bill is now an unopposed private Bill. In that spirit, may I ask that it be given a Second Reading?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed.

  Railway Line (North Wales Coast)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  9.55 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): This is the second Adjournment debate that I have been fortunate enough to secure. On the first occasion, I referred to the town of Holyhead and its importance as a port linking Ireland with Wales, England and mainland Europe. The fact that in this debate I will concentrate my remarks on railway links, which form an integral part of the transport network linking Ireland and Europe, shows the continuing importance of the topic to my constituents and to the people of north-west Wales.
  The town and port of Holyhead prospered when strategic decisions were made about the A5 across to the island over Telford's bridge and the railway link built over the Britannia bridge. In the 19th century, the Holyhead to Dun Laoghaire and Dublin link became the premier route for Irish traffic.
  Almost two centuries later, Holyhead once again assumes central importance as new links are opened for European traffic. The position of Ireland and Wales on the Community's periphery makes good road and railway communications vital to our prosperity. As the House knows, our economy in north-west Wales has a weak base and in recent years has been buffeted by the economic downturn and recession, but to enable us to fight back, as we will, and to compete effectively in the Europe of big companies and financial battalions, an integrated transport network is essential.
  The opening of the channel tunnel later this decade and the introduction of the open market in 1992 bring into focus the need for early decisions, as we are in the process of setting a European network of communications to serve us for the next 100 years. Any area that has no link in that network will be severely disadvantaged and in danger of becoming an economic backwater. The gap between the rich and poor regions will become even wider.
  My view, which is shared by many others, as I will explain, is that the north Wales coast railway line between Holyhead and Crewe must be upgraded and electrified as part of the process of improving our communications. British Rail's current position is that the line does not have priority in its strategic planning and it is not prepared to commit itself to the investment necessary for such a scheme, although European Community funds could be available for the project. Indeed, although it has upgraded part of the line between Bangor and Crewe, it is not prepared to upgrade the section across the island of Anglesey. On parts of that section, trains are reduced to low speeds because of the condition of the track. I ask the Minister to have talks with British Rail officials on that specific issue.
  Upgrading the line is a prerequisite of any electrification scheme. The track must be suitable to take the high speeds that trains can achieve on an electrified network. When the channel tunnel opens, apart from the sea crossing between Holyhead and Ireland, a passenger travelling from Dublin to either Brussels or Paris will have the benefit of an electrified line right across the system, apart from the Holyhead to Crewe section. We will be the weak link in the chain——
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Mr. Jones: The campaign to have the rail link electrified has received a significant boost in recent months. The Dublin chamber of commerce, which represents the Irish Republic's main business community, believes that the bulk of Ireland's container loads should be carried via Dublin to Holyhead and then onwards. Currently, that route is losing business to the more circuitous routes through Lame and Belfast, at an estimated cost to the Irish economy of £56 million a year.
  I ask the Minister to consider the recommendations in the report of the Dublin chamber of commerce, entitled "Corridor to Competitiveness", where many of the arguments are set out in detail. The report argues that the Holyhead to Dublin route, which is referred to as the central corridor, should become the premier route for Irish commercial traffic, both for roll-on, roll-off and for lift-on, lift-off traffic. That is ro-ro for roads and lo-lo for trains. Combined, they account for 58 per cent. of Ireland's external trade, 80 per cent. of which is destined for the United Kingdom market and the balance for the continent.
  For most traffic, the central corridor offers the most potential as a reliable and efficient route, providing a short sea crossing to Holyhead and the shortest door-to-door mileage. Of the total number of units emanating from the Irish Republic, a further 125,000 could be accommodated through the central corridor given better facilities both at Holyhead and Dublin, better communications, and certain other factors. There is enormous potential for Holyhead, but clearly we must become more competitive in journey times and more efficient in port handling facilities and we must secure more frequent sailings.
  The Irish business community is seeking its Government's backing for the development of a central corridor on the Irish side, with better links to Dublin and better facilities in the port. That backing will almost certainly be given, but it will be meaningless in practical terms unless both the Welsh Office and the Department of Transport are equally committed to securing developments at Holyhead and improvements in the rail network. Only 65,000 units are currently transported by rail through that central corridor. If we are to maximise Holyhead's true potential, that figure must increase significantly.
  I readily acknowledge the large investment already undertaken by the Government to dual the A55 across north Wales and the recent announcement to dual the A5 across the island, which is most welcome. That will increase Holyhead's competitiveness. The shipping companies that operate from the ports, Sealink and B and I Line, estimate that those improvements will enable them to carry more commercial traffic.
  However, in the end, the road could become the victim of its own success. Even now, we expect it to carry more traffic than was ever envisaged. That is why it is essential to have a rail link as an alternative, but it must be good, efficient and provide a quick service. Once the road is complete, the rail service must retain its competitive edge; unless it does so, it will lose out dramatically.
  The campaign to secure the electrification of the line has, in the main, been taken on by the so-called three counties committee, representing the counties of

  1283
  Gwynedd, Clwyd and Cheshire. I place on record my compliments for the tremendous work done by this team in keeping the issue in the public eye and campaigning vigorously. It began its work in 1985, and subsequently commissioned a report, backed by European Community funding and the British Government, to look at the case for electrifying the line, with particular regard to the benefits for inter-city and freight traffic.
  The consultants' report shows that, even by the United Kingdom investment criteria, a conditional case could be made for electrification at a cost of about £50 million. It also said that further work needed to be done to establish the opportunity for developing the Holyhead route as a principal freight route between Europe, Britain and Ireland and including an electrified link to Manchester.
  The consultants' evaluation has already identified that the concentration of international freight on the line would improve the viability of electrification. The Crewe-Holyhead railway link would, after the opening of the channel tunnel, be the most direct and quick surface route between most of Europe and Ireland. It establishes further that the upgrading of the Crewe to Holyhead line is probably one of the most effective ways to reduce the peripheral status of Ireland and Wales in the post-1992 European Community.
  We need to consider the prospects for that line if it is electrified. The overall market for which rail competes in the commercial sector is growing rapidly, at a rate of 5 per cent. per annum. The rail route captures 10 per cent. of the Irish-Great Britain market and a direct route from Ireland to the continent is not available realistically until the channel tunnel opens. However, the potential for increase is substantial when the current Ireland-Europe traffic is brought into the equation, and that will be the case when the channel tunnel is operational. This accounts for 25 per cent. of the total. To attract more traffic or to persuade shippers to diverge from other routes, its use must be effective in terms of cost and transit time.
  The overall growth in the total market has been estimated by consultants as 33 per cent. by 1993 if present trends continue and the forecast growth estimated by the single European A is realised. Total markets will be as much as 1 million units by the late 1990s. Therefore, we must look at the potential to increase the current 65,000 units carried by rail through Holyhead, and the consultants estimate that this could increase to over 100,000 if the line is electrified. I acknowledge that this depends on better handling facilities at the port of Holyhead and more frequent sailings.
  The representatives of the three counties met the European Transport Commissioner, Karel Van Miert, in October 1989 to ascertain whether European Community funding for the project would be available. The three counties' representatives asked the Commission what assistance could be made available. The Commissioner, fully appreciating the force of the European argument in relation to Ireland, was sympathetic to the electrification proposal. It appears that the Commission would be keen to promote this line as one of European significance and support it by transportation funds when they become available. However, the Commissioner pointed out that it would be possible for that European support to be secured only if an application was made by Governments, and in this case that includes both the British and Irish Governments.
  1284
  The three counties committee was so encouraged by the response in Brussels that it arranged a further series of meetings with the Irish Government and representatives of the Irish business community to discuss the plan. I was fortunate enough to be able recently to join the delegation for part of its deliberations in Dublin. At a meeting with the Irish Transport Minister, the local authorities were encouraged by his response. He seemed to be an enthusiastic supporter of the project. He suggested that he was prepared to discuss the matter with his counterpart, the Secretary of State for Transport, and I ask the Minister to tell us whether any communication has been received from the Irish Government on the issue and whether the United Kingdom Government are ready to respond, or to tell us how far matters have progressed.
  I have read a report by Mr. Tom Ferris, the head of the planning unit of the Department of Transport and Tourism in the Irish Republic, on the implications of the channel tunnel for Ireland. He makes it clear that for Ireland to benefit from the channel tunnel link there must be significant improvements in the quality of service from ports such as Holyhead. He reports that for rail passengers, good train communications from ports such as Holyhead are essential.
  Any switch from road to rail traffic carries significant environmental benefits. Indeed, any such switch is likely to confer environmental benefits through reductions in air pollution and noise. Those benefits are unlikely to be significant, however, unless the development of the railway is accompanied by other initiatives, especially those designed to capture container traffic. I believe—I am sure that the House will accept this—that a switch to rail would also reduce accidents. British Rail's accident record is excellent. Another advantage would be a reduction in our dependence upon oil.
  It is important—this is an aside from the main thrust of the debate—that consideration should be given to better rail links between north and south Wales. It causes some irritation and anger to people in north Wales that it is far easier to travel to London by train than to our own capital city of Cardiff. I ask the Minister to impress upon British Rail the need to introduce a good, fast and efficient inter-city service between north and south Wales to reduce the noisy, tacky and unacceptable sprinter trains which currently service the route.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his precious Adjournment debate. I support everything that he said about the electrification of the north Wales line. I say as a Clwyd Member that this case is well put. He referred to a link between north and south Wales, but also to be considered is the electrification of the Crewe-Wolverhampton line via Shrewsbury. That would lead to better communications with the channel tunnel south, which is important. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply to that as well as to my hon. Friend's submissions.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention. I am sure that the Minister will have heard it.
  The Minister will appreciate that I have set out the argument for electrifying the north Wales line in a European context. That electrification, however, would have enormous economic spin-offs for the economy of

  1285
  north Wales generally. It would go a substantial way towards providing us with an essential ingredient of economic regeneration of the area, which is that of good transport communications. To my constituency, of course, Holyhead is the beginning of the line, not the end of it. I believe that the case for electrification has now been set out fully. I urge the Minister to respond positively, to say that the Government are prepared to consider the matter constructively and that the Department of Transport should arrange an urgent meeting with British Rail and the three counties committee to ascertain how best the plan can be funded. With such a commitment, I am sure that British Rail would also come out in favour of the plan.
  The plan is supported by the Irish Government, the Irish business community, Irish local authorities, the Welsh business community and Welsh local authorities. The European Commission is also prepared to entertain an application. All that I need to say to the Minister tonight is: join the club and invest in a worthwhile project.
  10.14 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): That is a beguiling invitation from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), and I congratulate him on securing the debate. I thank him most warmly for his courtesy to me before the debate, which will enable us to have a more worthwhile debate than we might otherwise have had.
  I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to the work that is under way on the roads programme, which has been taken seriously. To date, 50 of the 60 miles of the A55 between Chester and Holyhead have been improved to dual carriageway standard at a cost of £327 million. The three improvement schemes currently under construction are expected to cost about £269 million, and the two final schemes in preparation a further £21 million. Therefore, total expenditure on the A55 will approach £620 million, and work is expected to be completed by the end of 1993. As the hon. Gentleman said, plans to upgrade to dual carriageway standard the A55 between Holyhead and the existing dual carriageway were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and I am pleased that that, too, was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), through whose constituencies the north Wales coast railway line passes, would have wished to be present for this debate, but due to their ministerial duties they cannot be here. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) is here, and I am delighted to see him. However, those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who cannot be here have expressed to me their interest on behalf of their constituents in this important subject. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) intervened in the debate, an opportunity unfortunately not open to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. Some of the remarks that I am about to make are of general application and will help the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West.
  Improvement of railway routes, and particularly electrification, is an emotive subject on which a few outside commentators sometimes generate more heat than light.
  1286
  The question of the best means of traction on a particular route is, first and foremost, a matter of operational and economic significance which should be determined by BR. On some routes, the operational and economic arguments point to electrification, and on others to using diesels. The notion that somehow a non-electrified line is a poor relation—almost something to be ashamed of—is wrong, but I am aware that that feeling exists. Often, higher speeds can be achieved on some diesel-hauled lines than are achieved on other lines where electrification has taken place.
  The Government are happy to give approval to railway investment wherever it makes commercial sense. Our record speaks for itself. In the past two years alone we have approved four electrification schemes totalling £90 million, and in the past 10 years 12 schemes totalling £780 million, including the largest-ever single electrification scheme—the east coast main line—costing £460 million. Electrification takes place where a case can be made for it to the Government.
  I understand that BR currently sees no reason to electrify the Crewe to Holyhead line. That view is based in part on the joint study carried out with BR's co-operation by Clwyd, Gwynedd and Cheshire county councils, which so far has failed to demonstrate an economic case, but I understand that further work is being carried out to see whether other, non-user benefits can be identified. However, British Rail has plans to upgrade the line from Chester to Bangor by straightening the worst of the curves, thereby improving line speeds so as to take full advantage of the 90 mph class 158 express trains due to come into operation in the next two to three years. Those new trains will provide smoother, more comfortable rides, with air-conditioning, luggage space and tables at each seat. But perhaps the greatest benefit will be a reduction in the journey time of up to 18 minutes—another demonstration that journey times can be improved without electrification.
  To answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question, I understand that on the Holyhead to Bangor section of the line, because of prevailing geological conditions, there will always be difficulties in running at very high speeds on some sectors. However, it is hoped that upgrading the line will result in an average speed of 60 mph—a considerable improvement.
  I recognise that the channel tunnel is a new ingredient, and I should say something about that. As far as channel tunnel passenger traffic is concerned, British Rail's current intention is to link services from north Wales into the trains from Manchester to Paris and Brussels. It does not believe at this stage that there is a commercial case—in the short to medium term at least—for operating through services, but it will be keeping its planned services under constant review, both up to the opening of the tunnel and thereafter. It will revise its plans as appropriate, as the pattern of demand for international services and the associated commercial opportunities become clearer. It is some years before the channel tunnel will be open, and none of us really knows what opportunities it will create.
  The Irish Government made the point to us that the north Wales railway to Holyhead is of great significance to Ireland in the wider European context. Correspondence has been exchanged between the relevant Irish Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Irish Government are anxious to ensure that inadequate infrastructure or services on the line do

  1287
  not inhibit Ireland's ability to take advantage of the channel tunnel to facilitate speedier access, particularly for freight, to continental Europe.
  We have made it clear that we are happy for British Rail to examine that aspect, to see whether any extra international traffic arising as a result of the opening of the channel tunnel would justify upgrading or electrification of the route. I am sure that British Rail welcomes the prospect of any additional freight traffic—which can, of course, be hauled perfectly well without electrification of the line.
  British Rail's plans for freight are based on daily services operated from three "train operating centres" at which wagons from private sidings and freight terminals can be sorted into complete trainloads for common destinations. By those means, daily services could be provided from all over the United Kingdom to many continental centres. One of the facilities is likely to be at Crewe. Therefore, whether or not the north Wales line is electrified, all channel tunnel freight movement on the line is likely to enter the system at Crewe, and a change of locomotive traction at that point would not represent a penalty on movements.
  I know that there are some Governments and important voices in the European Commission who believe that the Community should establish a large transport infrastructure fund to pay for improvements to such lines. I have to say that the Government have reservations about that approach. From the point of view of narrow national self-interest, the United Kingdom would certainly have to pay more into such a fund than it would get out of it. In effect, there is a risk that the British taxpayer would be subsidising uneconomic projects elsewhere in the Community. A quick look at the map of the Community would show that that is likely to be the case.
  More importantly, projects which would not be cost-effective should not, in the Government's view, be subsidised—whatever the source of the funds. We are very happy that the line should he looked at in the wider European context, but I must sound a note of caution to any in our fellow EC countries who believe that there is, or should be, a pot of gold available to satisfy everyone's wishes.
  In the same vein, it has been suggested that the European regional development fund or the existing transport infrastructure programme are appropriate sources of money. However, the sums available under either are substantially smaller than even the amount required for an electrification scheme of the type being proposed today. In the case of the ERDF, this seems to be the result of a self-denying ordinance that the Commission itself has applied to the use of those funds.
  1288
  While it is true that the Community has a role in developing European transport in preparation for 1992, its role is very much one of opening up barriers to trade and facilitating access between member states. We should not be distracting ourselves with setting up unnecessary new funding mechanisms when existing institutions such as the European regional development fund or the European investment bank can perform perfectly well in those areas. Instead, we should be concentrating on the benefits to be gained in making further progress with liberalisation, technical harmonisation, and deregulation—which will themselves encourage both the efficiency of transport operations and the development of infrastructure.
  Perhaps I may conclude the debate by emphasising again the need for a sense of proportion when talking about electrification of railway lines. The large costs of electrification are justified only if they produce worthwhile results. The main benefits are operational—normally in terms of reduced maintenance and operating costs to the railway operator. The direct benefit to passengers in terms of speed and comfort can be negligible—possibly a small decrease in journey time from faster acceleration. High-speed journeys, air conditioning and comfortable vehicles can be achieved with diesel rolling stock.
  Whether a line will benefit from electrification depends on trends in costs, including fuel prices, and on the density of use. If an equally good service can be provided more economically by diesel traction, that is the right course. What matters is quality, reliability and journey times, and I am sure that British Rail's large investment programme is starting to produce the results that all of us wish to see, not only in north Wales, but throughout the country.
  I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about good links to and through his constituency. The Government have shown clearly their commitment to that in the road programme that I described, with its substantial investment in providing dual carriageway through to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is clear that British Rail, too, is intent on making improvements.
  Many improvements can be made other than electrification. Electrification is not the be-all and end-all. At present British Rail does not see the case for electrification, but it is happy to continue studying it in conjunction with the councils that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  The Government's attitude remains that if a worthwhile case is presented to us we shall be happy to approve it, just as we have been happy to approve so many cases in the past.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicles
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the number of private and commercial vehicles expected to be on the roads in 1990, 1995 and 1999.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department's low and high forecasts of the number of privately and commercially owned cars on the road are:

  Million

  11990

  19·9–20·0

  1995

  22·1–23·1

  1999

  23·7–25·5

  1 Average for year.

  Forecasts are not made for other vehicle types.

  Balloon Flights
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the carriage of passengers by hot air balloons is a recognised method of carriage as defined and regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority in schedule 1 to the Air Navigation Order 20, November 1989, pursuant to the Civil Aviation Act 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Hot air balloons are classified in schedule 1 to the Air Navigation Order as a sub-group of aircraft, so they may be registered in the United Kingdom and flown for purposes specified under the order, including the carriage of passengers.

  To carry fare-paying passengers (other than in circumstances defined in the order as being private flights) a balloon must be certificated by the Civil Aviation Authority in the transport category (passenger) as set out in schedule 3 to the order, the operator must hold an air operator's certificate and the pilot must hold a valid professional balloon pilot's licence.

  There are currently 43 hot air balloons certificated in the transport category (passenger) in the United Kingdom, and 27 air operator's certificates have been granted.

  A6(M) Stockport Bypass
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider using the money saved by providing fewer than eight lanes for the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass to lower the motorway alignment.

  Mr. Atkins
  The proposed motorway for much of its length would he significantly lower than the adjacent ground level. A further lowering of the alignment could 608
  not be justified. It would require more land, increase considerably the amount of surplus soil to be disposed of and cost some £6 million more.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey,Official Report, 26 April, column 265, if he will estimate how many flights were carrying (a) medical isotopes, (b) reactor fuel and (c) radioactive material for military purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Of the approximately 8,000 flights per year which carry radioactive materials, I understand that over 99 per cent. carry isotopes for medical and industrial use. Radioactive materials transported for military purposes are a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Radioactive Substance (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) Regulations apply to the transportation of radioactive material for military purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Secretary of State for Defence is the competent authority in his own right for the transport of radioactive materials for military purposes. The Ministry of Defence uses containers which are designed, manufactured and tested in complete conformity with the appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) transport regulations.

  Shipping
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the proportion of exports from and imports to the United Kingdom, excluding ferry operations, carried in British registered ships; and what approximate proportion of ships engaged in ferry services to and from the continent are registered in United Kingdom ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 May 1990 c. 549]: About half the ships engaged in ferry services to and from the continent are United Kingdom-registered vessels.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Business Expansion Schemes
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will mount a full investigation into the delays by the Board of Inland Revenue relating to the Swan Valley Railway (Holdings) plc appraisal for a business expansion scheme.

  Mr. Lilley
  I shall write to my hon. Friend about the case.

  DTI Statistics
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much warning was given to United Kingdom industry of the ending of the quarterly sales inquiry;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the value of short-term production statistics to British industry;
  609
  (3) what representations he has received from British industry calling for comprehensive replacement of the quarterly sales inquiry statistics;

  (4) what information he possesses on differences in the official collection of detailed short-term production statistics in the United Kingdom and in other Group of Seven countries;

  (5) what account was taken of the policies developed by the statistical office of the European Community in the decision made on the future of the quarterly sales inquiry;

  (6) whether he will now undertake (a) an assessment of the burden of form filling faced by British industry and (b) a review of the decision to curtail the quarterly sales inquiry.

  Mr. Lilley
  The outcome of the review of DTI statistics was announced by DTI Ministers on 10 May 1989. The main recommendations included a reduction in the volume of product sales statistics collected in official inquiries and released in the "Business Monitor" series. Most quarterly product inquiries were converted to an annual basis, and the number of headings for which information was collected was substantially reduced. The review also recommended a strengthening of the monthly sales inquiry used for compiling the index of production. Following enlargement of the Central Statistical Office in July 1989 to incorporate statistical inquiry work previously carried out by DTI, ministerial responsibility for implementing the review recommendations on product statistics fell to Treasury Ministers.

  The last of the full quarterly sales inquiries related to the second quarter of 1989. Announcements explaining this change were included in the "Business Monitors" appearing during June and July 1989, and a detailed article on the impact of the review appeared in British Business on 14 July 1989. Subsequently, explanatory material was sent to 82 interested trade associations. Central Statistical Office staff are aware of 22 complaints relating to the loss of quarterly product statistics. Most of these concern the loss of data for particular industries or individual products.

  The Government recognise the value of accurate and timely product statistics to both business men and official users. There is, however, a need to strike a balance between benefits to users of the information and the costs to business of completing statistical forms. The Government will ensure that statistical form filling is kept to a minimum, consistent with the information needs of government and business. Any unnecessary inquiries will be discontinued.

  International comparisons are difficult to draw due to differences in institutional structures, roles played by trade bodies, periodicity of inquiries, and so on. The following estimates of product counts for which sales or production information is collected are based on work carried out by the West German Statistical Office in 1987: UK 4,500 (since reduced to 3,000), France 10,000, West Germany 6,400, Italy 1,000, US 11,000 and Canada 3,800.

  When the review of DTI statistics was carried out, proposals for developments in EC product statistics, known as PRODCOM, were at an early stage. The first detailed statement of Eurostat proposals is expected in the form of a draft regulation later this year. Views of UK business men and trade bodies on the PRODCOM proposals are being sought to ensure that any resulting scheme takes account of UK industrial needs. Key features
  610
  of the scheme, including periodicity, variables to be collected, panel sizes and so on, are not yet known. Meanwhile, it would be premature to launch further assessments in this area.

  Real Take-home Pay
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much average real take-home pay has increased for (i) a single person and (ii) a married couple since 1978–79.

  Mr. Lilley
  Real take-home pay this year for a single person on average male earnings is estimated to be 40 per cent. higher than in 1978–79. For a married couple with non-earning wife and the husband on average male earnings the increase is estimated to be 38 per cent.

  Revaluation, Southwark
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a complete list of the rateable value, by property, of retail premises in Walworth road and Peckham road(a) before and (b) after the recent revaluation.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. Lists containing details of the 1973 and 1990 rateable values of all retail premises in Walworth road and Peckham road are available for inspection, free of charge, at the office of the London borough of Southwark and the Southwark valuation office.

  Affinity Credit Cards
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from charitable organisations about the value added tax and corporation tax implications of affinity credit card schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received various representations, including a submission from the Charities' Tax Reform Group (CTRG), since the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 7 December 1989, at columns 308–09. Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue have also had discussions with the CTRG about the tax implications of charities' affinity card schemes. It has now been agreed that, with the appropriate contractual arrangements, VAT will be charged on the promotional and other services supplied by the charities, but will not apply to contributions made by the credit card companies for which the beneficiaries are not obliged to do anything in return. The corporation tax treatment of individual schemes will depend on the contractual arrangements, but schemes can be set up in such a way that the charity's income from them qualifies for exemption from corporation tax.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the notes on those clauses of the Finance Bill to be taken in Committee of the whole House will be made available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Yes. The appropriate notes on clauses were placed in the Vote Office earlier today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given to introducing regulations compelling petrol forecourts to display their petrol prices in both gallons and litres; and what representations he has had concerning those presenting high prices per gallon displaying prices only in litres.

  Mr. Forth
  Following consultation with interested parties, I laid an order in 1988 relaxing the requirements to display the price per gallon in addition to the price per litre. Under the recently adopted EC units of measurements directive, the United Kingdom will be required to phase out the use of the gallon for trade after 31 December 1994 at the latest. Although the gallon continues in the interim to be permitted to be used for trade, I understand that the overwhelming majority of garages already sell petrol by the litre. Accordingly, I do not consider it is now necessary to require petrol forecourts to display petrol prices in both gallons and litres. In the last year I have received four letters of complaint about this matter.

  Sea Food
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any proposals for the introduction of new labelling laws requiring manufacturers to declare the net defrosted weight of packed sea food.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department issued a consultation letter earlier this year proposing that legislation be introduced requiring packages of frozen prawns, shrimps and scampi to be marked with the weight net of ice-glaze. There was no opposition to this proposal which has now been notified to the EC Commission under the terms of directive 83/189/EEC. Subject to satisfactory completion of the notification, I intend to lay an order in Parliament to be debated by both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield of 28 March,Official Report, column 209, which self-regulatory organisations have membership requirements that go further than the vetting of individuals of significance to the shareholdings or management of the business that is making application for authorisation under the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that the Securities Association and FIMBRA have membership requirements that go further than those mentioned in my previous reply.

  Financial Times Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representation his Department had at the Financial Times conference on industry and the environment held in London on 23 and 24 April.
  612
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department was not represented at this event, but representatives of the Department of the Environment did attend it.

  Weights and Measures
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to make any changes to the previously announced arrangements for metricating the quantities in which whisky, gin, rum and vodka may be served for consumption on licensed premises; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I announced on 14 December that I intended to lay in draft an order which would permit these spirits to be served in a single round metric quantity of 25 ml from the middle of this year and to end the use of the existing imperial measures by 31 December 1994. Having considered representations on these proposals, it remains my intention to lay an order shortly along the lines previously announced. However, in addition I propose to consult interested parties about the possibility at a later stage of permitting one further round metric quantity of 35 ml and of extending the requirement to use prescribed measures to cover other spirits.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what expertise his Department has made available to eastern European countries in toxic waste landfill disposal.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: My Department has organised bilateral seminars on atmospheric and water pollution control with representatives from Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria respectively. The seminars, which included advice on landfill were designed to identify areas of industrial technology which show potential for bilateral commercial development. Assistance to certain eastern European countries on a range of matters, including environmental problems, is also available under the Government's know-how fund and the European Community's PHARE programme.

ENVIRONMENT

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish data on urban development corporations showing both for 1988–89 and 1989–90, by individual urban development corporation(a) the area of land reclaimed, (b) the total area of land bought, (c) the area of land bought by compulsory purchase order, (d) the number of houses built or refurbished, (e) the area of industrial and commercial floorspace built or refurbished, (f) the miles of roads constructed or improved, (g) the value of public expenditure and (h) the value of private investment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The latest available information is set out in the tables.
  613

  UDCs: 1989–90

  UDCs

  Land reclaimed (ha)

  Total land acquired (ha)5

  Land (ha) acquired by cpo6

  Housing refurbished or built

  Ind./comm. Floorspace (sq m)

  Roads (km) improved or built

  EFL (£ million)

  Private investment (£ million)

  Black Country

  71·7

  141

  0

  400

  220,000

  6·4

  38

  100

  Bristol

  5

  3·3

  0

  25

  n/a

  0

  5

  n/a

  Central Manchester

  3·8

  3·5

  0

  115

  6,400

  0

  11

  33

  Leeds

  18

  32·7

  0

  105

  82,000

  0

  10·05

  33·65

  London Docklands

  22·7

  35·58

  4

  1,9001

  290,000

  7·21

  253·508

  1,207

  Mersey side

  11·9

  56·93

  0

  206

  30,000

  2·5

  23

  37

  Sheffield

  50

  28·3

  0

  0

  2,850

  0·375

  9·5

  105

  Teesside

  94

  237

  3

  302

  50·800

  1·2

  35·9

  151

  603

  Trafford Park

  40·3

  11·6

  0

  0

  32,983

  0·5

  13·3

  173

  Tyne and Wear

  27·5

  62·7

  0

  255

  22,100

  1·6

  35·8

  36

  1 excludes refurbishment of existing homes.

  2 built or under construction.

  3 refurbished.

  4 not readily available.

  5 includes all land acquired by cpo, vesting or agreement.

  6 excludes land where a cpo has been confirmed but the land has not yet been acquired.

  UDCs: 1988–89

  UDCs

  Land reclaimed (ha)

  Total land acquired (ha)4

  Land (ha) acquired by cpo5

  Housing refurb. or built

  Ind/comm. floorspace (sq m)

  Roads (km) improved or built

  EFL (£ m)

  Private investment (£m)

  Black Country

  42

  122

  0

  288

  62,315

  5

  23·0

  95

  Bristol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·283

  0

  Central Manchester

  0

  0·2

  0

  140

  0

  0

  2·5

  35

  Leeds

  5

  0

  0

  0

  60,000

  0

  2,743

  25

  London Docklands

  46

  2·07

  3—

  12,695

  240,000

  12·13

  116·415

  2,450

  Merseyside

  43

  45·95

  0

  233

  24,000

  3·65

  21·0

  17·5

  Sheffield

  1

  30·3

  0

  0

  50

  0·25

  7·958

  2272·65

  Teesside

  28

  36

  0

  0

  8,000

  0·6

  21·003

  34

  Trafford Park

  8·3

  18

  0

  0

  42,372

  0·8

  15·5

  100·6

  Tyne & Wear

  15·8

  141·6

  0

  0

  13,500

  0

  24·016

  40

  1 Excludes refurbishment of existing homes.

  2 Includes Meadowhall development, begun before SDC was set up in June 1988.

  3 Not readily available.

  4 Includes all land acquired by cpo, vesting or agreement.

  5 Excludes land where a cpo has been confirmed but the land has not yet been acquired.

  Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are made by his Department to record the effects of pollution by aerial reconnaissance.

  Mr. Trippier
  Satellite and aircraft reconnaissance is used by my Department's contractors according to need. It has many applications but usually in conjunction with ground-based monitoring and surveillance techniques. Examples include surveys of vegetation cover change in the countryside, radiometry, tracking of air pollution plumes and trajectories, and detection of phytoplankton blooms in the seas around the United Kingdom. Applications to record the effects of pollution are more problematical although some experimental work on detection of environmental damage in forests due to air pollution and other stresses, for example, disease and drought, has been undertaken. Similar work is undertaken by other Departments and the Natural Environmental Research Council, according to need. The most notable example of the programme of aerial surveillance of marine oil pollution undertaken by the Department of Transport.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the minimum requirements for the 614
  National Rivers Authority to (a) record and (b) publish its investigation into pollution of (i) water and (ii) flood defences.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The duties of the National Rivers Authority in relation to both water pollution and flood defences are set out in the Water Act 1989. The NRA is required to prepare an annual report on its activities which must be laid before both Houses and published. The authority is also required to record information about its regular monitoring of water quality and related matters in public registers which are held in the authority's regional offices. The particulars which are to be contained in the registers are set out in the Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations 1989.

  In addition, the authority publishes, from time to time, reports and other information on matters for which it is responsible.

  Rossall Point Sea Outfall
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has had any recent consultations with North West Water plc regarding the proposed Rossall Point long sea outfall; and if he will make a statement.
  615
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The applications for consent to discharge in connection with the proposed long sea outfall are still before my right hon. Friend, and it would not be proper for me to comment on them at this stage.

  Nature Conservancy Council Joint Committee
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what number of staff he expects will be employed by the proposed joint committee for the Nature Conservancy Council for the purposes of carrying out the quinquennial review of protected animals and plants under section 24 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is currently discussing the staffing requirements of the proposed three new country councils—including those of their joint committee—with the chairmen-designate, the NCC and the Countryside Commission. Figures for the number of staff to be allocated to specific functions will not be available until these discussions are complete.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends the proposed joint committee for the Nature Conservancy Council to make a report under paragraph 17 of schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 in respect of its functions under section 24 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  Provision for the Secretary of State to publish the advice he receives on the quinquennial review is already proposed in paragraph 14(5)(c) of schedule 7 to the Environmental Protection Bill. Recommendation 4.19 of the second report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of another place (HL Paper 33—I) is also germane to this point. The Government are currently considering that report, and will announce their response shortly.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the two assessors appointed to the Nature Conservancy Council's joint committee to represent Northern Ireland's interests will have voting powers in relation to matters of United Kingdom or international importance.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have always made clear the intention that the interests of nature conservation in Northern Ireland should be represented on the joint committee. There are legal and constitutional considerations which may make it appropriate for the Northern Ireland representatives to be non-voting.

  Erasmus Centre
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has placed, or plans to place, any consultancy contract with the Erasmus centre for environmental studies in Rotterdam.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department of the Environment has placed no contracts with the Erasmus centre for environmental studies and has no immediate plans to do so.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans substantially to amend the poll tax legislation; and if he will make a statement.
  616
  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend will make a statement if and when there is something to announce.

  Radiation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to instigate a national survey to establish those properties where radiation levels are above acceptable levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  A representative national survey of radon in houses has been carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board; the results are given in the publication "Natural Radiation Exposure in UK Dwellings, NRPB—R190, May 1988", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. A further programme of radon surveys by the NRPB is being funded by my Department.

  Rainham Marshes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from British Urban Development and Music Corporation of America in respect of the proposed theme park at Rainham marshes in the London borough of Havering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Among the numerous representations received either from or against the granting of planning consent for the proposed development my right hon. Friend received letters from both organisations.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) why the decision was taken not to call in the application for a theme park and related matters at Rainham marshes in the London borough of Havering;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the site of special scientific interest at Rainham marshes in the London borough of Havering.

  Mr. Trippier
  I can add nothing to what my right hon. Friend said in his announcement on 5 April. A copy of the press notice has been placed in the Library.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has undertaken regarding the environmental side-effects of burning Orimulsion and very heavy residual fuel oils in power stations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is in consultation with PowerGen plc concerning the use of Orimulsion and very heavy residual fuel oils in power stations. Trials are to be undertaken this summer to assess the environmental effects and what measures might be needed to minimise such effects.

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals have been made for the disposal of surplus waste paper from Government Departments which has been collected during the current year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Each Government Department at present makes its own arrangements for the disposal of
  617
  waste in the light of local circumstances and security and other considerations. We are currently reviewing the arrangements made across Departments both for the use of recycled materials and for the disposal of waste with a view to maximising recycling. In the case of Department of the Environment headquarters buildings in Westminister and Lambeth, waste paper and cardboard are collected for recycling by contractors. The Department is at the moment considering ways of separating out a higher proportion of office waste for recycling.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to give a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central on 18 April about the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities' visit to Leeds on 4 April.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I answered the hon. Member's question on Tuesday 1 May at column 506.

  ISS Servisystem
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, for how long cleaning services at Wellbar house, Gallowgate, Newcastle, have been provided by ISS Servisystem Ltd.; how many contract terms ISS Servisystem Ltd. has had; and what is the remaining period of the current contract.

  Mr. Chope
  Cleaning services at Wellbar house have been provided by ISS Servisystem Ltd. since March 1982; three contract terms have been awarded to it after competitive tender; and the current contract has two years to run, expiring in April 1992.

  Nature Conservancy
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the proposed joint committee for the successors to the Nature Conservancy Council will have responsibility for providing advice to the Government on the conservation implications of trade in endangered species or their products.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 27 April 1990]: Yes.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the future ownership and holding of Great Britain's national nature reserves currently owned by the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 27 April 1990]: The Government have no plans to change the ownership of national nature reserves.

  Local Government Revenue
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentages of English local government revenue for 1990–91 he has calculated will be received from(a) government grants, (b) the uniform business rate and (c) community charges.

  Mr. Chope
  The proportions of total local government revenue, including grants outside AEF and treating 618
  community charge rebates as central Government support, which are met from these three sources are as follows:

  Percentage

  Government grants

  48

  Business rates

  26

  Community charges

  26

  American Forces
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Suffolk parish councils have indicated to him that they intend to cease providing certain local services on the grounds that the revenues they expect to receive from their British charge payers, following the cessation of rates from American service men, are insufficient.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [pursuant to his answer, 19 February 1990, c. 662.]: I now intend exceptionally to pay extra grant for 1990–91 only to parish councils which face particular difficulties as a result of the exemption from the community charge of United States service personnel living within their area. I understand that in some parishes where United States service men constitute a high proportion of the population, the parish council precept together with contributions to the area safety net has meant that some charge payers are bearing a heavy burden. I hope that this extra grant for 1990–91 will enable these parishes to continue to provide local services without an undue cost falling on charge payers in their area. This additional support will help those parishes most seriously affected by this problem in the first year of the new system.

  The grant system provides full compensation at district level for the fact that overseas service men—including those from the United States—are exempt from the community charge. District councils have powers to assist parish councils in meeting the cost of any function which they both may provide. From 1991–92 onwards I would expect district councils to make use of that power to assist parishes with a reduced number of charge payers as a result of the exemption of United States service personnel.

ENERGY

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of United Kingdom opencast coal is washed.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. However, it is generally true that opencast coal is cleaner than deep mine output and so requires less washing.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will impose a condition on the burning of Orimulsion or very heavy residual fuel oil in electricity power stations, that flue gas desulphurisation scrubbers must be installed in that power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  Control of emissions from power stations is a matter for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
  619
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what approaches he has received about the burning of Orimulsion in oil-burning power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  PowerGen advised me earlier this year of its intention to burn Orimulsion at the Ince B power station on a trial basis.

  Spent Nuclear Fuels (Imports)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what quantity of spent nuclear fuel has so far arrived at Sellafield from other countries for the purpose of reprocessing; in how many shipments this has arrived; from what country and on what dates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Over the past 25 years British Nuclear Fuels plc and its predecessors have received some 4,000 tonnes of uranium as spent fuel from Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. The origins, sizes and dates of arrival of individual consignments are matters for the company.

  Fluidised Bed Combustion
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress on the research being carried out at Grimethorpe into the benefits of fluidised bed combustion technology; and when this system is likely to be implemented nationally.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Preparations for the experimental work at Grimethorpe, which forms part of British Coal's topping cycle project, commenced in October 1989 and I understand that design work is progressing. British Coal is seeking alternative industrial funding following Ahlstrom's recent withdrawal from the project and the Department's offer of 50 per cent. support up to a maximum of £8 million remains on the table. The financing of the project will be reviewed when the position on industrial participation is clearer.

  Implementation of this technology would depend upon the success of its development programme. Exploitation of the topping cycle concept will also depend on sufficient confidence that it is economically competitive with other means of power generation.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Criminal Evidence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will issue a code of practice to Government Departments on measures necessary to avoid prejudice to cases going through the courts; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The circumstances which may arise are too diverse for it to be useful to issue more specific guidance than is already available from the general law.

  Winchester Three
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the total costs of the trial of the Winchester Three.

  The Attorney-General
  The total amount expended on legal fees in the trial of this case was £215,287·81. To seek to quantify the administrative costs would involve disproportionate expense.

WALES

  Caerphilly Castle (Catering)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review his policy in respect of the catering arrangements at Caerphilly castle in the light of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report in respect of monopoly services at exhibition halls.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The document to which I believe the hon. Gentleman refers, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on electrical contracting at exhibition halls in London, concerns the monopoly that existed in favour of restricted practices by electrical contractors tied to the major exhibition halls.

  The current catering contract at Caerphilly castle was awarded through open tender for a limited term up to 22 March 1991. Terms of a replacement contract are currently under review.

  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of engineering apprenticeships in Wales in 1979, 1984 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information is not held by the Department.

  East Europe (Investment)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage Welsh companies to invest in east European countries.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I welcome the emergence of market economies in eastern Europe, which will be to the great benefit of the people of those countries. These developments may also bring investment and exporting opportunities for Welsh companies. But there will inevitably also be risks and uncertainties and these are therefore commercial decisions for Welsh companies themselves to consider.

  Deeside ITEC
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the future of Deeside ITEC.

  Mr. Roberts
  The future of the Deeside ITEC is a matter for the company itself. When the North East Wales training and enterprise council becomes operational the Deeside ITEC will be able to bid to the council to operate YT and ET schemes as it does with the Training Agency at present.
  621
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the employees of Deeside ITEC.

  Mr. Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people have been trained in information technology by Deeside ITEC.

  Mr. Roberts
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the premises of Deeside ITEC.

  Mr. Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the number of nurses required and the number expected to be available in the years 1991 to 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The aggregation of manpower resource plans submitted by district health authorities in 1989 indicates projected planned staffing levels (PSL) and staff in post (SIP) levels at 30 September 1991 to 1993 at the all-Wales levels as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  General Nurses

  PSL

  9,832

  9,829

  9,846

  SIP

  9,744

  9,740

  9,749

  Children's Nurses

  PSL

  156

  157

  157

  SIP

  137

  138

  138

  Mental Illness Nurses

  PSL

  2,592

  2,778

  2,790

  SIP

  2,474

  2,606

  2,665

  Mental Handicap Nurses

  PSL

  871

  849

  822

  SIP

  840

  833

  809

  Midwives

  PSL

  1,421

  1,475

  1,482

  SIP

  1,339

  1,411

  1,440

  Manpower resource planning is an ongoing management process. These projections may have been revised in the light of developments since the plans were submitted. Revised projections will be available in the manpower resource plans to be submitted by authorities this year.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the funding of a paediatric orthopaedic consultant post in the area of South Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office has offered South Glamorgan health authority £170,000 a year to fund an additional orthopaedic consultant under the waiting times initiative. However, it is not currently envisaged that this post should be for a paediatric specialist.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, near Cardiff.
  622
  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Laura Ashley Company
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of Government grant aid he has given annually to the Laura Ashley Company as expressed as a percentage of the moneys he has given to the Mid Wales Development Board for each of the years since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as the information is available and I will place a copy of my answer in the Library of the House.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the environmental side-effects of burning Orimulsion and very heavy residual fuel oil in Pembroke power station, with and without flue gas desulphurisation.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand that discussions have taken place betwen Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and National Power about the possibility of burning heavy residual fuel oil at Pembroke power station. I am told that no changes to the required standards of emissions for particulate matter (including smoke) or sulphur dioxide from those resulting from current fuel would be permitted by the inspectorate. The question of flue gas desulphurisation does not arise under these circumstances.

  No proposals to burn Orimulsion have been made to date.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve health and safety in factories in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for maintaining and improving health and safety standards, and complying with legal obligations, rests with employers and others concerned at the workplace. The Government have increased financial provision for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive over previously agreed levels again in 1990–91. The additional provision is £7 million excluding money transferred from the Department of Energy for nuclear safety research.

  The commission's priorities for improving health and safety at work throughout Great Britain will be set out in its plan of work for 1990–91 and beyond.

PRIME MINISTER

  South Africa
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on her policies towards South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  We want to see the end of apartheid by peaceful means, through negotiations. We shall continue to encourage all parties to take up the opportunity now presented to negotiate a new democratic
  623
  constitution for South Africa. Meanwhile, we are stepping up our aid programme to help prepare for the time when all South Africans can play their full part in the political and economic life of their country.

  Immigration
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications for immigration policy of European directives which permit citizens of the overseas territories of European Economic Community nations to settle in the European Economic Community.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The question of who are to be regarded as its nationals for the purposes of enjoyment of the rights of free movement given in the treaty of Rome, by reason of a connection either with its metropolitan or its overseas territories, is determined by each member of state in accordance with its nationality law.

  President Gorbachev
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet President Gorbachev; and what subjects she expects to discuss with him on that occasion.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to meet President Gorbachev when I visit the Soviet Union in June and to discuss with him the full range of international and bilateral issues.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give details of representations she has had from churches, community groups and individuals objecting to the provisions of sexual services via the public telecommunications systems; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations about premium-rate telephone services including a few from church organisations. This is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications who has already taken firm action to control these services including the closure of two services in the Manchester area. He is keeping the matter under close review.

  Turkey (Human Rights)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions she had with members of the Turkish Government during her recent visit to Turkey in respect of their human rights abuses.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed human rights with President Ozal when I saw him on 25 April. He stressed his Government's determination to eliminate abuses and told me that the Turkish Parliament was now in the process of setting up its own human rights commission.

  Policy Unit Staff
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, further to her reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 1 March,Official Report, column 277, she will provide a list showing the names and business connections of the individuals with accountancy backgrounds who have joined her policy unit since 1979.
  624
  The Prime Minister
  Those who have accountancy qualifications are Mr. D. C. Hobson, who joined the policy unit from Coopers and Lybrand, Mr. P. T. Warry who joined from Aerospace Engineering plc and Mr. I. Whitehead who joined from the Bank of Montreal Capital Markets Ltd. London.

  Mr. Nelson Mandela
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to meet Mr. Nelson Mandela in July.

  The Prime Minister
  I look forward to meeting Mr. Mandela on 4 July for talks on how the process of peaceful change in South Africa can be taken forward. Mr. Mandela will also meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  India
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), of 26 April,Official Report, column 279, concerning her meeting with the Indian Prime Minister, whether any consideration was given to nuclear-proliferation control measures in the Indian subcontinent in the course of the discussions to which she makes reference.

  The Prime Minister
  The reply referred to by the hon. Member concerned my meeting with the Indian President during his visit to London in April. The subject of nuclear non-proliferation was not discussed.

  Lance Missile
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she continues to advocate replacement of the Lance missile.

  The Prime Minister
  I continue to support the alliance's position that, where necessary, all NATO's weapons, nuclear and conventional, should be kept up to date.

  Rainham Marshes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received from British Urban Development or the Music Corporation of America in respect of the proposed theme park at Rainham marshes in the London borough of Havering; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received recent representations on this subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received numerous representations for and against the granting of planning consent for the proposed development.

  Short-range Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she continues to advocate modernisation of land-based short-range nuclear weapons on the mainland of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  I continue to support the position of the alliance that we will continue to need an appropriate mix of adequate and effective conventional and nuclear forces which, where necessary, will need to be kept up to date.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Poland
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters in regard to(a) the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference in August and (b) the possibilities of environmental assistance to clean up polluted areas were raised during his recent visit to Poland.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the meetings of the working group on nuclear nonproliferation of the European political co-operation committee held during 1990, the matter of the export of nuclear capable technology and technology and equipment usable in launching nuclear weapons to Iraq has been raised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We raised our concern about the incident on 28 March, when a consignment of capacitors bound for Iraq was intercepted at Heathrow, at the meeting of the working group on 3 and 4 April. In subsequent discussion, partners agreed that all possible steps should be taken to ensure that barriers against proliferation are strengthened, and that export controls are adequate. The working group has also discussed the expansion of the missle technology control regime.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's knowledge of commercial interest in the Lear Fan factory in Northern Ireland expressed by Iraq or Iraq-backed companies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 2 May 1990]: In the light of the charges laid against individuals, and of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be wrong for me to comment on these matters.

  Antarctic Bases
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the proposed clear-up of abandoned Antarctic bases will be funded from the sale of British Antarctica stamps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no plans to finance the clean-up of abandoned British bases in the Antarctic from the sale of British Antarctic Territory stamps. I refer the 626
  hon. Member to a reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science on 18 April 1990.

  South Georgia
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) why it has been decided to leave in situ the shells of the buildings of the old whaling station in South Georgia; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps have been taken to remove wastes from the old whaling station on South Georgia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following discussions between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the leaseholders, Christian Salvesen plc, work is currently under way to clear up one of the stations. Further decisions will be taken following the completion of this year's work programme.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his Department details of the Australian and French proposals to declare Antarctica a wilderness reserve; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A joint paper on the French and Australian proposals was delivered to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at 10·15 am today.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will be represented at the forthcoming meeting of the Antarctic treaty parties to discuss measures to protect the Antarctic environment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No decision has yet been taken by the Government on the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the special consultative meeting of the Antarctic treaty parties to be held later this year in Chile.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  History Teaching
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the factual basis of history teaching.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The study of history at school should be grounded on a thorough knowledge of the past. That is not at issue. The question is how to ensure that children acquire the necessary foundation of historical information. The national curriculum working group on history made its recommendations, and my right hon. Friend is consulting widely on its published report. In the light of responses he will make his proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study for school history, which will then be the subject of the statutory consultation conducted by the National Curriculum Council.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to appoint a public relations adviser.
  627
  Mr. MacGregor
  I have no plans to do so. I already have a very satisfactory head of information at the Department of Education and Science. I have always consulted widely about education policy and presentation and shall continue to do so.

  Brighton CTC
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn, 30 April 1990, DES 87 and 92, when he was first informed of the discovery by the city technology college trust of the commission of £200,000 charged by Mr. Revere on the purchase of the site of the Brighton city technology college; what is the current valuation of the site; and what will now happen to the site.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The existence of the commission charged by Mr. Revere was first notified to my Department by the trust in a memorandum dated 8 December. The commission was repaid by Mr. Revere to the CTC trust on 12 December and forwarded to my Department on 13 December. The future of the site and its value are now under consideration.

  Academic Research Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to take action on the report of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on academic research equipment; what representations he has received on the report and from whom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members and a petition organised jointly by the publication "Laboratory News", the Association of University Teachers and the British Laboratory Ware Association. My right hon. Friend announced on 15 November at columns 272–76 that an additional £61 million would be made available for the science budget in 1990–91, together with planning additions for the next two years of £58 million and £59 million. He announced the allocations to the five research councils on 10 January, Official Report columns 623–24. It is for the research councils to determine how to spend the additional funds made available to them. However, in their advice to the Secretary of State on the allocations, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils advised that a high proportion of these funds should be directed to preserving the quality of United Kingdom science. The ABRC also suggested that the research councils should deploy some of these additional funds to increase equipment provision through research grants, and that funding of new research programmes and interdisciplinary research centres would also include some provision for equipment.

  University Research
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduction and Science what is the effect on university research and the conditions of employment of university technicians and support staff of the consultation paper prepared by his Department; what funding will be made available for these purposes; and if the loss of funding to the Universities Funding Council will be replaced.
  628
  Mr. Jackson
  The Department is considering the responses to the consultative paper. The precise form of any new arrangements resulting from the consultation has yet to be decided. Whatever the decision, there will be no reduction in the total public funding of the dual support system.

HEALTH

  Mental Health Tribunals
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health review tribunals have been held since the Mental Health Act 1983 came into force, up to the latest available date; and how much they have cost.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. Between 1 January 1984 and 31 December 1989 17,192 cases were considered by mental health review tribunals. The total cost of the service in the financial year 1989–90, during which period 3,894 cases were considered, was approximately £2,335,000.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received regarding the privatisation of the centre for applied microbiology and research, Porton Down, Wiltshire;

  (2) what consultations he has carried out with the staff of the centre for applied microbiology and research, Porton Down, Wiltshire, regarding the proposal to privatise it.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met representatives of the staff side when I visited the centre for applied microbiology and research (CAMR) on 22 January, and I subsequently met representatives of the Manufacturing Science and Finance union in London on 21 February. I have also seen the results of a ballot of staff on the question of privatisation.

  Children's Spectacle Frames
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will take steps to ensure that information regarding free and low-price children's spectacle frames is made more generally available.

  (2) if opticians selling spectacles are under any form of obligation to (a) stock and (b) display free and low-price children's frames.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The sale of spectacles, including children's spectacles, is a private transaction and as a result no requirement is placed on opticians to stock, display or promote information on any particular brand of spectacle frame. In line with normal retail practice it is up to individual opticians to use their commercial judgment and provide a sufficiently wide range of products to meet all needs. Equally, individual patients can shop around for spectacles at the most competitive price which matches their optical prescription. All children under 16 are entitled to an optical voucher to help towards the cost of their spectacles. The voucher value varies depending upon the strength of the optical prescription.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department monitors what proportion of the cost of
  629
  children's spectacle frames goes towards meeting the copyright dues for commercial logos which are featured on them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The sale of spectacles, including children's spectacles, is a private commercial transaction. The Department of Health does not therefore collect this type of information. All children under 16 are entitled to an optical voucher to help towards the cost of their spectacles. The voucher value varies depending upon the strength of the optical prescription.

  Hospital Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 26 April,Official Report, column 295, he will take steps to require health authorities to record the levels of food wastage within hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Food wastage in hospitals is a matter for health authorities.

  Housing (Special Needs)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if, in the light of the recent High Court ruling in the case of C and G Homes ν. Bath district health authority, he intends to issue guidance to health authorities and local authorities regarding the future use of private housing for the accommodation of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people;

  £000s

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  HCHS Capital

  810,559

  826,339

  829,075

  823,718

  1,051,067

  HCHS Revenue

  9,477,389

  10,165,358

  11,235,675

  12,440,491

  13,294,668

  HCHS Total

  10,287,948

  10,991,697

  12,064,750

  13,264,209

  14,345,735

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the (i) capital, (ii) revenue and (iii) total expenditure on the National Health Service in England in each of the last five years and the last financial year.

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  11989–90

  NHS Capital

  928

  1,007

  1,042

  1,130

  1,259

  NHS Revenue

  13,957

  15,001

  16,574

  18,429

  19,951

  NHS Total

  14,885

  16,018

  17,616

  19,559

  21,210

  1Estimated outturn.

  Product Licences
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what manner applications for product licences to the Medicine Control Agency submitted before the recent changes and regulations will be treated.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The level of fees for product licence applications are determined by the date of receipt of an application at the Medicines Control Agency. Any application, therefore, which was received before 5 March 1990 (the operative date of the Medicines (Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use) Amendment Regulations 1990 SI 1990 No. 210) would attract the rate of fee previously applicable.
  630
  (2) if, in the light of the recent High Court ruling in the case of C and G Homes v. Bath district health authority, he will introduce legislation to prevent discrimination against the mentally handicapped and mentally ill.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have noted the High Court's ruling, but it would be premature to come to any conclusion about its general effect before the health authority has decided whether or not to appeal.

  Public Relations Advisor
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to appoint a public relations advisor.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. I shall continue to consult widely about health policy and its presentation.

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the (i) capital, (ii) revenue and (iii) total allocation made to the health authorities in England in each of the last five years and the last financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows end-of-year permissible spends for health authorities in England from 1985–86 to 1989–90. These exclude revenue and capital receipts, including land sales.

  Mr. Freeman
  Expenditure information is available only for financial years; figures as requested for the past five years are set out in the table.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps were taken to advise applicants to the Medicine Control Agency for product licences of the recent changes in regulations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: Licence holders are notified of changes in regulations by means of Medicines Act information letters (MAIL). The latest issue MAIL 62 was issued in March 1990 and gives details of the changes brought about by the Medicines (Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use) Amendment Regulations 1990 SI 1990 No. 210. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Companies are also notified of changes via their trade associations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sectarianism
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the constitutional imperative of the Irish Government to work for a united Ireland on sectarianism in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The achievement of a united Ireland has been an acknowledged objective of successive Irish Governments. Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement formally records, however, the acceptance by the Irish Government that such unity would be achieved only with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That position has not been affected by the Irish

  Measure

  Budget (£m)

  Numbers helped

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Measures for the Young Unemployed

  Get Ready for Business Programme

  0·046

  0·042

  0·050

  64

  43

  39

  Graduate Attachment Programme

  0·120

  0·125

  0·155

  55

  30

  59

  Graduate Enterprise Programme

  0·108

  0·112

  0·118

  18

  17

  17

  Industrial Scholarship Scheme

  0·167

  0·179

  0·182

  68

  68

  66

  Junior Management Development Programme

  0·351

  0·378

  0·408

  108

  111

  126

  New Workers Scheme

  0·532

  0·240

  —

  682

  307

  —

  Skills Training Scheme

  1·211

  1·625

  0·994

  1,073

  1,406

  1,842

  Training Centre Courses

  7·215

  7·286

  7·531

  3,967

  4,276

  4,420

  Youth Training Programme

  49·989

  54·091

  56·062

  11,938

  12,303

  13,416

  Measures for the Long Term Unemployed

  Action for Community Employment

  28·840

  41·064

  50·688

  6,200

  8,600

  10,019

  Attachment Training Scheme

  1·977

  1·289

  0·493

  1,049

  658

  102

  Bridge Programme

  0·053

  0·064

  0·066

  78

  78

  81

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  4·947

  4·346

  2·548

  2,262

  1,942

  1,161

  Enterprise Ulster

  8·202

  8·584

  6·913

  1,383

  1,346

  1,028

  Jobclubs

  0·046

  0·060

  0·225

  767

  1,603

  3,250

  Jobstart Allowance

  0·262

  0·164

  0·169

  648

  381

  361

  Job Training Programme

  0·253

  1·530

  6·418

  400

  2,165

  7,574

  Management Retraining Course

  0·017

  0·018

  0·017

  12

  10

  9

  Management Extension Programme

  0·030

  0·076

  0·073

  9

  20

  21

  New Enterprise Programme (full-time)

  0·039

  0·070

  0·054

  11

  12

  12

  New Enterprise Programme (part-time)

  0·024

  0·051

  0·029

  24

  25

  28

  Overseas Marketing Programmes

  0·087

  0·198

  0·289

  14

  27

  41

  Restart Programme

  0·167

  0·107

  0·053

  89,072

  83,614

  81,794

  Sheltered Employment for Disabled People

  0·605

  0·730

  0·666

  100

  100

  100

  Sheltered Placement for Disabled People

  0·316

  0·648

  0·821

  150

  227

  301

  Training Centre Courses

  2·994

  2·681

  1·882

  5,008

  3,267

  2,472

  Vocational Training for Disabled People

  0·289

  0·223

  0·278

  29

  38

  37

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average wage paid to action for community employment participants, excluding supervisors; and what is the average allowance paid to jobs training programme participants.

  Mr. Needham
  Participants in the action for community employment scheme are paid the accepted rate for the job in the area where the work is carried out. Information on the average wage paid is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Peat
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ban all use of peat by his Department; whether he will formulate a national peatlands conservation policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked for the use of peat by Northern Ireland Government Departments to be 632
  Supreme Court's judgment in the McGimpsey case. Sectarianism remains as unacceptable after the judgment as before it.

  Employment and Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the Government employment and training measures previously operated through the DED for young and long-term unemployed, the budget for each of the last three years, and the numbers who were helped each year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Details of the Government employment and training measures previously operated through the DED for young and long-term unemployed are as follows:

  reduced or for some purposes even eliminated. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has a policy of declaring as areas of special scientific interest (ASSI) or of acquiring as nature reserves those peatland areas which are of highest nature conservation interest. To date, six raised bogs have been declared as ASSIs. A composite declaration including three further bogs will be made soon. Five sites are managed as national nature reserves. In Northern Ireland peat is used by domestic consumers, particularly in low-income rural areas, as a cheap fuel source. I shall promote research into alternative sources of material to fulfil some or all of the purposes to which irreplaceable peat is put.

  Criminal Evidence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration was given to the progress of the trial of John McCann, Finbarr Cullen and
  633
  Martina Shanahan when deciding to lay the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order before the House on 20 October 1988.

  Mr. Brooke
  Ministers decided in the early autumn of 1988 that the law in Northern Ireland relating to the so-called right of silence be urgently amended and that the draft order to which the hon. Member refers should be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the House of Commons returned from the summer recess. The House returned on Wednesday 19 October 1988 and the draft order was laid on 20 October. At that time it was not appreciated that the three defendants in the trial at Winchester had chosen to exercise their right of silence. It was not intended that the timing of the laying of the draft order before Parliament should be relevant to anything other than the timely introduction of that order into the law in Northern Ireland.

SCOTLAND

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what planning procedures he intends to adopt in respect of the proposed Skye bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As indicated in "New Roads by New Means" (Cmnd. 698), it is proposed to introduce new procedures for the authorisation of privately financed roads which would, if adopted, amend and supplement the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. These proposals have been adjusted in the light of comments on the Green Paper which have been received from the private sector and from a wide range of organisations concerned with roads and transport. The adjustments are set out in the Government's response to the consultation. The new procedures will safeguard the environment and uphold the rights of individuals and local councils affected by such privately funded infrastructure developments.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends bringing into force part V of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the 15 national nature reserves in Scotland currently owned by the Nature Conservancy Council are to be owned by the proposed Scottish Natural Heritage Agency on behalf of the Crown; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes. The proposed natural heritage agency will take over responsibility for all national nature reserves in Scotland whether managed by or under an agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Nature Conservancy Council has 634
  estimated the proportion of land in the flow country of Sutherland and Caithness which is likely to meet the criterion for notification as a site of special scientific interest; what consideration has been given to limiting the area of land to be notified as a site of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no precise definition of the flow country but the Nature Conservancy Council has estimated that up to 40 per cent. of Sutherland and Caithness might meet one or more of the criteria for notification as a site of special scientific interest. This estimate includes land already notified. The council is now carrying out detailed ground surveys to identify precise boundaries for peatland sites. The framework for this programme of work is provided by the Highland regional council working party report on forestry in Caithness and Sutherland. The report was agreed by all members of the working party and endorsed by the Secretary of State on 21 March 1989.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last designated an area under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance; if he will indicate the area which is next to be designated and when he expects to designate it; how many sites meet the criteria for designation and protection under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds and how many sites are so designated; and what is the name of the site next to be designated and the date he expects to designate it.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given in another place by my noble Friend the Minister of State on 25 April announcing the designation of four sites under the Ramsar convention. One other site has been proposed for designation by NCC: the Upper Solway flats and marshes site of special scientific interest. Further consultations are taking place about this site and no date for possible designation can be given at present.

  The NCC has identified 129 sites which potentially meet the criteria for designation as special protection areas under the European Community wild birds directive (79/409/EEC). Eighteen SPAs have been designated. Further consultations are taking place about our proposed SPAs, including the Upper Solway site also proposed as a Ramsar site. It is not possible to say which will be dealt with first or to give a date for possible designation.

  Prison Staff (Medical Qualifications)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what different types of medical qualification exists for prison staff involved in the medical care of prisoners; and what is the minimum level of such personnel available at all times in each prison.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The vast majority of nursing staff in the Scottish prison service hold one or more of the following nursing qualifications: state enrolled nurse (SEN), registered mental nurse (RMN), registered general nurse (RGN), or the Scottish Council of Midwives (SCM). Prison medical officers all hold recognised degrees.

  The table sets out the staff complements as regards medical-nursing staff at each establishment.
  635

  Complements (Medical Officers)

  Complements (Nurses)

  Establishment

  Senior Medical Officers

  Medical Officers

  P/T Medical Officers

  Governor

  Principal Officer

  Senior Officer

  Officer

  Aberdeen

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Barlinnie

  1

  3

  4

  1

  3

  6

  28

  Castle Huntly

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cornton Vale

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  2

  4

  Dumfries

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Dungavel

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Edinburgh

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  12

  Friarton

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glenochil

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  8

  Greenock

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Inverness

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Longriggend

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Low Moss

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Noranside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Penninghame

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Perth

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  8

  Peterhead

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  6

  Polmont

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  4

  Shotts

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  7

  Total

  1

  6

  23

  1

  11

  20

  96

  1 Covered by Barlinnie.

  Sports Grounds
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now give details of the rates concessions for Scottish sports grounds.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has been informed by the Scottish Assessors Association that as result of the simultaneous revaluations which took effect on 1 April the rateable values of sports grounds in Scotland and in England and Wales have been brought into line with each other. I understand that differences still exist in the methods employed in valuing these subjects north and south of the border and we are considering whether, in order to ensure a common method of valuation in future, subordinate legislation is required.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many claimants in Scotland who have not paid their poll tax (i) have had their benefit deducted or (ii) are currently subject to procedures designed to reclaim poll tax arrears; and if he will provide whatever information is available to him for a breakdown by their(a) income level, (b) category of claimant and (c) amount of deduction of benefit.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest figure available of the number of claimants in Scotland who have had deductions made from their income support as a contribution towards their community charge arrears is 760. The maximum deduction which can be made is 5 per cent. of the personal allowance for either a single person or a couple. The other information requested is not held centrally.

  Hospital Advisory Service Reports
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to make the reports of the Scottish hospital advisory service more widely available.
  636
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Scottish hospital advisory service (SHAS) reports, in order to be effective, have always received wide circulation within health boards. Following a recent review of the role and operation of SHAS, undertaken in consultation with the director of SHAS, health boards and the chief executive, NHS, I have decided that SHAS reports should henceforth be available from SHAS as for sale publications as well as continuing to be made widely available to all health board staff with a direct interest in them.

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on Scottish Office funding for designated places under the provisions of section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980;

  (2) how many designated places have been created in Scotland since the passing of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980; and where these are located;

  (3) if he will make a statement on future plans for the number of designated places under section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland;

  (4) what funding will be available from the Scottish Office for the establishment of designated places under section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 in Strathclyde in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: One designated place, at Aberdeen, is currently in operation. This received a grant from the Scottish Office under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Grant has also been approved for a designated place at Inverness on which construction is expected to start shortly, and was offered for another, at Dundee, which did not proceed because of local opposition.

  The provision of designated places is a matter for local statutory bodies and voluntary organisations. I understand that initiatives are in preparation in Strathclyde

  637
  and elsewhere in Scotland. Scottish Office financial assistance depends on the nature of the applications received and on other demands on available resources.

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Government funding is currently available to Victim Support in Strathclyde; and whether he has any plans to increase funding.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer Tuesday 1 May 1990]: The Scottish Office has assisted the Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes for the past five years through a grant under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Scottish Office funding for the victim support movement is in line with the Goverment's policy to improve services to victims of crime generally. Funding has risen from £600 in 1984–85 to £339,000 in 1990–91. In Strathclyde 10 co-ordinator posts in local schemes have been funded by this means.

  Apart from a special grant of £13,000 in March 1989 to meet a specific financial difficulty, no central Government grant has been paid to the Strathclyde Association, a regional body representing local schemes in Strathclyde. Strathclyde regional council provides significant funding to the Strathclyde Association and actively supports the objectives of the Scottish association.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for Great Britain and for the west midlands region, for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, of the number of YTS trainees with employed status(a) in total and (b) with disabilities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Details for Great Britain and for the west midlands region, for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, of the number of YTS trainees with employed status(a) in total and (b) with disabilities are as follows:

  Great Britain

  West Midlands

  Trainees with employed status

  Disabled trainees with employed status

  Trainees with employed status

  Disabled trainees with employed status

  At 31 March 1987

  149,200

  2310

  14,400

  30

  At 31 March 1988

  195,300

  2720

  19,500

  70

  At 31 March 1989

  1118,500

  2930

  113,400

  90

  At 31 March 1990

  1117,300

  2720

  113,700

  80

  1 Rounded to nearest 100.

  2 Rounded to nearest 10.

  Figures for 31 March 1990 are provisional and subject to adjustment.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people over the age of 18 years on YTS with special training needs endorsements there are in the Easington constituency attending Peterlee development and training association training centre.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 31 March 1990 there were two young people over the age of 18 with special needs endorsements 638
  undertaking YTS at Peterlee development and training association training centre from the Easington constituency.

  Textile and Footwear Industries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the textile and footwear industries, giving the figure by month, since 31 January 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of employees in employment in Great Britain were as follows:

  Thousands (unadjusted for seasonal variations)

  Textile

  Footwear

  SIC

  SIC

  class 43

  group 451

  January 1990

  213·2

  44·9

  February 1990

  209·9

  45·1

  Employment Service Special Bonus Scheme
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give the estimated total maximum expenditure for the employment service's special bonus scheme in 1990–91;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the categories (a) exceptional achievements, (b) the maintenance of operational effectiveness in exceptionally difficult circumstances and (c) particularly meritorious enterprise or intiative, as used in the employment service special bonus scheme;

  (3) if he will give (a) the total number of employees who received an employment service special bonus scheme award, (b) the numbers by category and (c) the total expenditure involved for Great Britain and each standard region in the period 1989–90.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the names of those employment training agents and managers that have been given approved status since the inception of employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The names of those training managers awarded approved training organisation status by the Employment Department Training Agency at 30 April 1990 are:

  Birmingham Churches Managing Agency

  Borough of High Peak

  HPW Training Ltd. (Barnsley)

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to grant approved training status to all employment training agents and managers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Decisions on approved training organisation status for employment training, training agents and training managers are the responsibility of the Employment Department Training Agency, and where these are established, training and enterprise councils.
  639
  Those training agents and training managers who started employment training in September 1988 are due to achieve approved training organisation status by September 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the existing employment training expenditure levels are running within the 1990–91 budget and volume requirements.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 26 April,Official Report, column 318.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the national budget for employment training in 1990–91 for(a) each of (i) mainstream and (ii) non-mainstream clients and (b) each region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1990–91 the budget, excluding trainee allowances, for new mainstream clients and existing trainees is £468 million and for new non-mainstream clients the budget is £52 million. Regional budgets are for internal management information purposes only.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for employment training based on output-related funding from training and enterprise councils the target percentage of positive outcomes for Great Britain and each standard region for(a) mainstream clients and (b) non-mainstream clients.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no separate targets for achievement of positive outcomes by mainstream and non-mainstream clients on employment training.

  Agricultural Inspectorate
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the maximum recommended period between visits to(a) large and (b) small farm premises by the agricultural inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no maximum recommended period between visits to farm premises whatever their size.

  The Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate's programme of preventive visits to work premises, including farm premises, is planned on the basis of an inspection rating system which ensures that inspector resources are directed to those premises where the need is greatest.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many small firms have received loans under the loan guarantee scheme since its inception; what is the total value so far of these loans; and if he will state the average value of the loans and the estimated cost per job created.

  Mr. Eggar
  Between 1981 and 31 March 1990 the loan guarantee scheme has guaranteed 24,797 loans to more than 21,000 small firms. The total value of this lending has been £812 million, and the average amount of each loan was £32,700. The net exchequer cost of the scheme per person leaving the unemployment count is estimated to be of the order of £450.

  Skill Needs
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total expenditure in 1990–91 on(a) identifying the scale of national skill needs and (b) identifying at national level measures to provide such skills in the tourism and leisure sectors.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]Information about the total cost of identifying the scale of national skill needs in 1990–91 is not available. The work done by the Training Agency's skills unit will cost £680,000, including £240,000 for research. Work is also done by other bodies including industry training organisations. The identification of skill needs in the tourism and leisure sectors and the identification of appropriate measures to provide such skills is the responsibility of the industrial training organisations in that sector.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statistics he has on the distribution of badgers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The most recent study of badger numbers was published in 1988 in the Mammal Review, Volume 18, No. 1, pages 1–9, a copy of which I am arranging to place in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention to replace his present badger control strategy with a policy of vaccination and live testing.

  Mr. Maclean
  The availability of these measures in a form that could be used effectively in field conditions would enable the present control strategy to be comprehensively reconsidered.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy with regard to the destruction of badgers in those areas without a badger panel.

  Mr. Maclean
  Badger removal operations may be authorised by my Department's veterinary staff in those parishes where there is a recent history of confirmed tuberculosis breakdowns attributable to badgers.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what economic assessment his Department has made of the badger eradication programme.

  Mr. Maclean
  An assessment of the costs and benefits of the badger control policy in operation from 1975–6 to 1983–4 was published in 1987 as Government Economic Service Working Paper No. 96. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Myxomatosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he records on the incidence of myxomatosis in wild and domesticated rabbits.
  641
  Mr. Maclean
  No data are available on myxomatosis in wild rabbits although we are aware that the disease is still prevalent.

  Among domestic rabbits, the veterinary investigation service recorded six outbreaks of the disease in 1989.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many warnings he has issued to poultry keepers on each of the salmonella control regulations; and how many prosecutions he has initiatied.

  Mr. Maclean
  Correspondence with poultry-keepers is dealt with largely from local Ministry offices throughout the country and it is not possible to say how many warnings have been issued. We can say however that replies to a number of letters have warned poultry-keepers of the consequences of non- compliance with the statutory salmonella controls. We will pass details of apparent contraventions to local authorities who are responsible for enforcement. We are not aware of any prosecutions having been undertaken to date.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has issued to local authority trading standards officers concerning the implementation of salmonella testing for poultry; and whether he has issued guidelines on the need for poultry keepers to maintain proper records.

  Mr. Maclean
  Our officials have discussed the implementation and enforcement of the testing and registration arrangements with representatives of the local authority associations, and have issued guidance on the orders to each authority. Information leaflets, which include guidance on record keeping, were circulated to 61 organisations including those representing poultry farmers when the present controls were introduced last October.

  Markets and Abattoirs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any proposals to improve the level of inspection at markets and at non-European Economic Community approved abattoirs.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council has made a number of recommendations relating to the enforcement of welfare legislation at markets and slaughterhouses. The Government are seeking views on these recommendations and will publish their response in due course. As regards meat inspection, rigorous post-mortem inspection requirements must be observed in both non-exporting and EC approved abattoirs. Ante-mortem inspection is to be introduced in non-exporting plants from 1 January 1991. Further measures to align arrangements in all plants will be developed having regard to decisions in Brussels on arrangements to be adopted for the completion of the single market.

  Cynox 425
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he has set any safety levels for the presence of Cynox 425 in pigmeat;

  (2) what tests he has carried out on pigmeat to assess the levels of Cynox 425; and if he will publish the results of those tests;
  642
  (3) what action he has taken to ensure that pigmeat contaminated with Cynox 425 did not reach the consumer; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the risks of the consumption of pigmeat contaminated with Cynox 425;

  (5) when he first learned of the contamination of pig feed by Cynox 425 in Yorkshire and Hampshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Cyanox 425 was first detected in suspect imported grain screenings by the central veterinary laboratory on 20 April as part of an in-depth investigation covering many possible categories of contaminants to determine whether any of them could be the cause of symptoms detected in adult sows and a few adult boars earlier in the year. No fattening stock was affected. In cases where sows had to be culled for welfare reasons the meat did not go into the human food chain. Pigmeat and fat from affected sows was analysed using gas liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry plus thin layer chromatography. These investigations indicated that Cyanox 425, although present in the feedingstuff, was not detectable in pig meat or fat. The European Commission's scientific committee for food has set a tolerable daily intake for this chemical at 0·025 mg/kg body weight; there is therefore no need for a separate United Kingdom level.

  Investigations are continuing and we will consider publishing them when completed. I compliment my specialist staff on the remarkably successful detective work so far achieved.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total area in hectares designated under the ESA scheme in the south downs; what estimate was made upon the introduction of the scheme in the south downs of take-up; and what is the present take-up in(a) tier 1 and (b) tier 2; and if he has any plans to increase the levels of payment under the scheme in the south downs.

  Mr. Maclean
  The total area of the south downs ESA is 59,900 hectares. The initial estimates of potentially eligible land have been modified as more precise data have been obtained in monitoring the scheme. The targets for uptake are 75 per cent. of the 7,500 hectares of unimproved or semi-improved grassland (tier 1) and 10 per cent. of the 30,000 hectares of arable land (tier 2). The number of applications and agreements to date is 5,068 hectares under tier 1 and 3,034 hectares under tier 2. I have no plans at present to increase the payment levels under scheme.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the cost of increasing the payment under tier 2 of the ESA scheme in the south downs from £160 to £225 per hectare(a) assuming no increase in uptake, (b) assuming an increase in uptake of 10 per cent. (c) assuming an increase in uptake of 20 per cent. and (d) assuming an increase in uptake of 30 per cent.

  Mr. Maclean
  The table shows the cost of tier 2 agreements and applications to date in the south downs ESA together with the effects of an increase in payments from £160 per hectare to £225 with the assumed variations in the level of uptake.
  643

  Uptake to date Tier 2 (Hectares)

  Annual payment £/Hectare

  Annual cost £

  Increase £

  3,034

  160

  485,440

  —

  3,034

  225

  682,650

  +197·210

  3,337 (+10 per cent.)

  225

  750,825

  +265·

  3,641 (+20 per cent.)

  225

  819,225

  +333·785

  3,944 (+30 percent.)

  225

  887,400

  +401,960

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the operation of the ESA scheme in the south downs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The environmental and economic impact of the south downs ESA scheme is being closely monitored. I will be evaluating the detailed reports early next year.

  Arabidopsis
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been undertaken by or on behalf of his Department into the use of arabidopsis in biotechnological research and development.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. A major research programme on plant molecular biology, including a focused programme on arabidopsis in biotechnological research and development is being undertaken by the Agricultural and Food Research Council with funds from the Department of Education and Science.

  North Yorkshire National Park
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much financial support he has given to the North Yorkshire national park for its recently announced conservation farm management scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  This scheme is financed through the usual funding arrangements for national parks in which my Department has no involvement. However, farmers participating in the scheme will also be able to benefit from the farm and conservation grant scheme funded by my Department.

  Animal Imports Monitoring
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the number of(a) staff and (b) man years his Department's staff spent on monitoring the import of animals and animal products since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 27 April 1990]: The data set out in my Department's management information system (MINIM), indicate that the resources devoted to import controls of animals and animal products were as follows:

  Financial year

  Man years

  1983–84

  69

  1984–85

  72

  1985–86

  67

  1986–87

  70

  1987–88

  71

  644

  Financial year

  Man years

  1988–89

  84

  1989–90

  184

  1 Provisional.

  Data are not available before 1983–84. It is not possible to distinguish between number of staff and man hours.

  In addition, and according to circumstances, other Ministry staff may be engaged in monitoring duties. Relevant information is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  North York Moors Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation and funding of the North York moors farm scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply. The North York moors farm scheme is managed by the North York moors national park authority and funded by £50,000 from its budget. Shell UK has made a contribution of £10,000. My Department provides 75 per cent. of this approved expenditure through NPSG which is paid to the national parks, the balance being met from local authority resources.

  Storm Damage (Financial Assistance)
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether owners of woodlands damaged in this year's storms will receive financial assistance towards their restoration.

  Mr. Gummer
  Immediately after the initial storm on 25 January 1990, the Forestry Commission set up a forest windblow action committee based on the model of the successful committee it established following the storm in October 1987. The action committee was given the task of assessing the full scale of the damage to woodlands in those areas badly affected by the 25 January storm and those which followed, in southern England, Wales and the midlands, and making recommendations to the commission. Although storms occurred at this time in other parts of Britain, the damage to woodlands in these areas was not of the same exceptional nature.

  In its recently published report, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, the action committee has estimated that the volume of timber blown down in woodlands in the areas concerned was of the order of 1·3 million cubic metres. This compares with nearly 4 million cubic metres blown down in the October 1987 storm. Most of the damage (some 82 per cent. by volume) was sustained in conifer woodlands, 55 per cent. of which were in private ownership. The damage to broadleaved woodlands, over 90 per cent. of which were privately owned, mainly affected mature and over-mature trees, particularly beech. The action committee recommended that special assistance towards replanting should be made available to the owners of the storm-damaged woodlands in the form of supplements to the Forestry Commission's normal planting grants.

  In considering the action committee's recommendations, I have had regard to the effect that the additional volumes of timber arising from the recent storms are likely

  645
  to have on the market price of wood in the areas concerned. Following the storm in 1987, timber prices were severely depressed as a result of the glut of wood on the market. It is clear that the salvaging and sale of the broadleaved timber arising from this year's storms will, in the majority of cases, again fail to provide a sufficient return to cover the necessary replanting, bearing in mind the extraordinary expenses that owners will face both in the difficult task of preparing the sites for planting and in the planting itself. Against this background, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided to provide a special supplement of £400 per hectare for broadleaved replanting in those woodland areas damaged by the storms, to be paid on top of the Forestry Commission's normal planting grants, on the same basis as the effective arrangement we introduced after the 1987 storm. By contrast, the softwood market is not much affected on this occasion and the conifer woods can be expected to pay their own way with the help of the standard planting grants.

  The supplement for broadleaved planting, which is at the same level as that paid after the 1987 storm, will be available over the next four years for all eligible replanting carried out by applicants under the woodland grant scheme and by those who still qualify under the Forestry Commission's dedication schemes. Applications will be considered for those woodlands in the commission's East England, West England and Wales conservancies which were damaged in the succession of severe storms which occurred over the period from 25 January 1990 to the end of February 1990. The European Commission is being informed under the provisions of article 93 of the treaty of Rome.

  Full details of the administrative arrangements for the new supplement will be set out in a Forestry Commission leaflet to be published shortly, copies of which will be placed in the Library. Any owners who have already taken steps to secure the replanting of their storm-damaged woods with broadleaves under the commission's grant schemes will not be placed at a disadvantage as we have agreed that the supplement may be applied to them retrospectively.

  It is estimated that the total cost of the supplement will be £320,000 spread over the four-year period. This will be in addition to the estimated cost of the normal grants for replanting the damaged woodlands (including the conifer woodlands) of £1·68 million, also spread over four years. There will be no addition to the overall provision for public expenditure programmes set out in Cm. 1003.

  The storms have left a trail of devastation, and we hope that the supplement now on offer, taken with the Forestry Commission's normal planting grants, will serve to encourage the restoration of well-loved woodland landscapes.

DEFENCE

  Electromagnetic Interference
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to accidents caused to aircraft and other military equipment as a result of electromagnetic interference.

  Mr. Neubert
  All accidents involving United Kingdom military aircraft and other United Kingdom military 646
  equipments are fully investigated. None of the investigations so far has shown that electromagnetic interference was a contributory cause. I understand that other nations have lost aircraft in circumstances where the effect of electromagnetic interference was suspected. However, in the United Kingdom, there are strict rules which govern the minimum distances which must be observed when aircraft and other equipments approach emitters of high frequency radio transmissions.

  Foreign Tank Manufacturers
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what talks his Department has had regarding(a) offset arrangements or investments or (b) other topics with foreign tank manufacturers in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Defence Export Services Organisation has negotiated an industrial participation (offset banking) memorandum of understanding with General Dynamics, the purpose of which is to encourage the US company to offer the British defence industry opportunities to bid for a share of the work on all General Dynamics' major defence programmes.

  We have also had discussions on industrial participation with foreign tank manufacturers bidding for the Army Chieftain replacement programme. A formal agreement with Krauss Maffei is already in place.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment (Unions)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans to impose restrictions on trade union membership to the atomic weapons establishment.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Equipment (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what literature has been published by his Department on the environmental impact of equipment produced to his Department's specifications.

  Mr. Neubert
  The environmental impact of Ministry of Defence equipment is considered in a variety of departmental publications.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to(a) evaluate the environmental friendliness of the production processes required to make equipment ordered by his Department and (b) set environmental pollution control conditions on the suppliers of equipment to his Department.

  Mr. Neubert
  The responsibility for ensuring that the production processes employed in making equipment for the Ministry of Defence meet the appropriate legislative and regulatory standards on environmental pollution control lies with the companies from which the equipment is procured.

  Cappagh (Incident)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide full details of any injuries sustained by civilians or members of the security forces as a result of the exchange of fire on the evening of 24 March in Cappagh, County Tyrone; and whether he will make a statement.
  647
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 24 March at Cappagh, County Tyrone, terrorists, without warning, opened fire on a member of the security forces in civilian clothes travelling in a civilian car. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is investigating the incident, including the possibility of any terrorist injuries. However, I can confirm that no member of the security forces or members of the public sustained injuries as a result of this attack.

  Turkey
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet the Turkish Defence Minister to discuss Turkey's defence capability in the light of the reduction in Bulgaria's defence forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will meet his Turkish colleague at NATO meetings later this month. A range of current defence issues will be discussed, including progress on conventional arms negotiations which would lead to reductions in NATO and Warsaw pact force levels in certain categories.

  Longmoor Training Area (Hunts)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will revoke the licences that allow the Goschen foxhounds, Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray foxhounds, and the Hampshire hunt to hunt on the site of special scientific interest Ministry of Defence training area at Longmoor.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is the Department's policy to permit access to Ministry of Defence land for recreational purposes, including hunting, wherever operational and safety considerations permit, where it is consistent with the interests of tenants and licensees and where it does not unreasonably affect local amenities and the environment. In the case of Longmoor, those criteria, including taking into consideration the site of special scientific interest, have been met.

  The site of special scientific interest was designated by the Nature Conservancy Council, whose staff closely monitor the area to ensure that users of the land do not damage the site. As this recreational pursuit is not causing any damage to the site of special scientific interest, we do not propose to revoke the licences that allow the Goschen foxhounds, Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray foxhounds, and the Hampshire hunt to hunt over this area.

  Shackleton Fleet
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed the age and airworthiness of the RAF Shackleton fleet; whether he has any plans for a further review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The airworthiness of the Shackleton is kept under regular review. Age is not in itself a material factor.

  Military Aircraft (Statistics)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) crashes and (b) near misses have occurred for each year since 1960 in which military aircraft carrying radioactive material have been involved; and if he will make a statement;
  648
  (2) how many aeroplane flights occurred in 1989 in United Kingdom air space in which radioactive material for military purposes was carried; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to give information of the kind requested on the transport of defence nuclear materials. I can confirm, however, that there has never been an accident involving transportation of defence materials in the United Kingdom which has led to the release or a serious risk of release of radiation or radioactive contamination.

  Narvik (Commemoration)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why his Department refuses to provide support for veterans of the Narvik operation wishing to travel to Narvik for the 50th anniversary commemoration on 26 to 28 May.

  Mr. Neubert
  There is no provision in the defence budget to provide financial assistance to enable ex-service personnel to attend commemoration ceremonies and we are unable to offer any other assistance to veterans wishing to attend the Narvik 50th anniversary commemorations.

  Radiation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will authorise a case control study in Fife to examine the possible link between nuclear radiation and the incidence of leukaemia or cancer.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 26 April 1990]: The Government base their policy on these matters on the independent advice of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). In its advice to Government on the Gardner report on 2 April 1990, COMARE said it did not wish to see multiple independent studies, which would cause undue inconvenience to the small number of individuals and families concerned. COMARE also recommended some forrn of co-ordination of research to ensure the best possible use of resources. Responsibility for that co-ordination, and for instituting any study of the sort proposed, is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, whose Department has set up a co-ordinating group on which the Ministry of Defence is represented.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average individual radiation dose, whole body equivalent, for all Rosyth dockyard workers involved or who have been involved in the nuclear programme.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 26 April 1990]: The average individual lifetime radiation dose for those workers currently registered as employed at Rosyth dockyard in the defence radiological protection service's record keeping system is 79·61 mSv. Data for employees who have previously ceased radiation work are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is reviewing the maximum permitted radiation dosages in milliSieverts for any one year.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 26 April 1990]: My Department takes radiation exposure matters very

  649
  seriously indeed and continues to operate a limit of 30 mSv, which is substantially below the statutory limit of 50 mSv. Radiation exposures are authorised only on the basis that they are justified, comply with Ministry of Defence and statutory limits, and are as low as reasonably practicable. The Ministry's policy over many years has been based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total occupational whole body equivalent radiation exposure of Rosyth dockyard workers in milliSieverts, for each year since the onset of the nuclear programme.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 26 April 1990]: The cumulative radiation doses of all workers in Rosyth dockyard, for each of the years 1979 to 1989 inclusive, are shown in the following table. These figures include the cumulative radiation doses of employees monitored for exposure to ionising radiations by the local issue of direct reading dosimeters while employed under a written system of work. Figures for earlier years are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cumulative radiation dose—Rosyth dockyard

  Year

  Cumulative dose (mSv)

  1989

  4,202

  1988

  2,738

  1987

  2,294

  1986

  2,670

  1985

  4,197

  1984

  6,478

  1983

  7,811

  1982

  5,288

  1981

  5,818

  1980

  6,793

  1979

  8,144

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the number of claims for asbestosis-related diseases made to each of the eight special medical boards during 1988 together with the respective numbers in which disease was diagnosed.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table.

  Initial references and diagnoses of asbestosis-related diseases 1988

  Medical boarding centre

  Initial references

  Positive diagnoses

  Cardiff

  174

  77

  Glasgow

  270

  131

  London

  400

  238

  Manchester

  261

  110

  Newcastle

  278

  126

  Sheffield

  169

  110

  Stoke

  69

  44

  Swansea

  33

  16

  All centres

  1,654

  852

  Notes: Prescribed diseases included are PD D1, D3, D8 and D9. Figures included for PD DI relate only to references when the claimant had worked in the asbestos industry.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement in respect of the application by Mr. HS, reference M8/221641, for war disablement pension, on the length of time it took the report from the war pensions committee of 28 October 1987 to be received by the social security central office, war pensions branch, in May 1989, and on the length of time it took to compile a report from the general surgeon concerning this case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The war pensions committee which met on 28 October 1987 recommended that an independent medical examination should be carried out on Mr. HS and that his case should then be reviewed by the Department. The examination was arranged by the solicitors acting for Mr. HS and took place on 29 June 1988. A report of the examination was received by the Department in May 1989. As the report was inconclusive the Department's doctors decided in July 1989 that Mr. HS should be examined by a general surgeon. An examination was carried out in August 1989 but the surgeon's report was not received by the Department until February 1990. Unfortunately this, too, was inconclusive. The Department's doctors therefore requested a further consultant examination which took place on 4 April. As soon as this report is received it will be referred to the Department's doctors, and Mr. HS will be notified of the outcome as soon as possible afterwards. Of course, if Mr. HS's claim is successful payment will be backdated.

  Cohabitation Rule
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he gives to local offices about determining whether a couple are living together for the purpose of assessing benefit entitlement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Secretary of State does not give advice on this matter. It is for the chief adjudication officer to issue such guidance, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Income Support
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the rise in real values of income support using the statutory uprating dates of September to September between 1988–89 and 1990–91 for (i) a single person aged 18 to 24 years, (ii) a single person aged 25 years, (iii) a couple, (iv) a couple with two children under 11 years, (v) a single parent with one child under 11 years and (vi) a pensioner.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the table.

  April 1988 rates

  April 1988 rates at September 1989 prices1

  Actual rates April 1990

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Single aged 18 to 24

  26·05

  28·69

  28·80

  Single aged 25

  33·40

  36·79

  36·70

  Couple (one aged 18 or over)

  51·45

  56·67

  57·60

  Couple with two children under 11

  79·10

  87·12

  89·65

  651

  April 1988 rates

  April 1988 rates at September 1989 prices1

  Actual rates April 1990

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Single parent (aged 18 or over) with one child under 11

  54·00

  59·48

  60·50

  Pensioner aged 60 to 74

  44·05

  48·52

  48·50

  Pensioner aged 75 to 79

  44·05

  48·52

  51·10

  Pensioner aged 80 or over/60 or over and disabled

  46·45

  51·16

  53·75

  1 Based on the movement in the index of retail prices less housing costs between September 1987 and September 1989.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of income support as a proportion of average net male earnings in 1990–91, using an estimate of average earnings for (i) a couple with two children aged under 11 years, (ii) a single person aged under 25 years, (iii) a single person over 25 years, (iv) a couple, (v) a single pensioner and (vi) a single mother with one child aged under 11 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 1 February 1990 at column 347. Figures on which to provide estimates will not be available until July.

  Erythropoletic Porphyria
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the United Kingdom are estimated to be suffering from the disease congenital erythropoletic porphyria.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider the introduction of a graduated system of income support payments to persons in residential care, with higher levels of payment being made available to those in smaller homes, as a means of reducing the financial incentives which encourage the establishment of larger homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Under the new funding arrangements for community care, taking effect from April 1991, local social services authorities will have discretion to determine the fees they are prepared to meet. Accordingly we see no need to consider changing the income support rules in the way proposed.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 36, he will provide such information as is available to him on a sample basis about the shortfall in residential and nursing home fees above the income support limits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to him on 4 April at column 682 and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 15 February at columns 376–78. Centrally held data on actual charges are not statistically reliable, but in the year ended August 1989 it is estimated that just over half all claimants in residential and nursing homes had fees at or below the appropriate limit.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the real rise in social security spending between 1978–79 and 1989–90 broken down into the different factors that have contributed to the rise.

  Mr. Scott
  Total social security spending increased in real terms between 1978–79 and 1989–90 by nearly £14,000 million, or around 35 per cent. There have been many reasons for this growth. While it is not possible to evaluate the exact effect of every factor, the Government's increased provisions for the elderly and for disabled people, and improved benefit schemes such as family credit, have been significant. So, too, have economic changes such as the increase in unemployment in the first half of the decade, and the rise in rents, and demographic changes such as the growth in numbers of lone parents and the steady reduction in the number of widows. The table shows, in real terms, spending on benefits for the various client groups, in 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Real terms benefit spending in 1978–79 and 1989–90 by client group

  £ million at 1989–90 prices

  Client group

  1978–79

  1989–90

  Elderly people

  20,460

  25,550

  Sick and disabled people

  5,850

  9,520

  Family (including lone parents)

  5,875

  9,200

  Unemployed people

  3,210

  4,740

  Widows and orphans

  1,615

  1,240

  Total

  37,010

  50,250

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much is unemployment benefit for a single person and a couple as a proportion of average net male earnings in 1989–90; and if he will estimate similar figures for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information for April 1989 is available from table 6·1b of the Department's"Abstract of Statistics for Index of Retail Prices, Average Earnings, Social Security Benefits and Contributions." A copy of this publication is in the Library. The information for April 1990 cannot be estimated until the earnings figures for April 1990 are known.

  Family Credit
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much family credit rose in real terms using the statutory uprating dates of September to September between 1988–89 and 1990–91 for (i) a single parent with one child under 11 years and (ii) a couple with two children under 11 years old.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The family credit rates for 1990–91 represent increases over those for 1988–89 which exceed the rise in the RPI (excluding housing costs) over the two-year period to September 1989 by the following overall amounts:

  (1) for a couple or lone parent with one child under 11:£2·70 or 6·4 per cent.

  (2) for a couple or lone parent with two children under 11:£4·30 or 8·9 per cent.

  Employment (21-hour Rule)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the reply of 30 April, what steps he will take to make available to the public instructions to be given to his officials about the application of the 21-hour rule.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Existing information given to officials concerning the application of the 21-hour rule is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in the "Adjudication Officer's Guide", volume 3, and in the "Income Support Manual", section 3, which are available in the Library. The clarification referred to in my reply of 30 April will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in an income support circular.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the housing benefit entitlement of a widow aged 75 years, living alone, whose sole income is £46 per week with savings of less than £3,000 paying rent of(a) £20 per week, (b) £25 per week, (c) £30 per week, (d) £35 per week and (e) £40 per week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A 75-year-old widow, with this level of income and capital, would be entitled to maximum housing benefit because her personal allowance (applicable amount) of £51·10 is greater than her income. On the assumption that all the rent was eligible for housing benefit, and that the accommodation was not unreasonably expensive, this means that each of the rent levels quoted would be met in full. Such a claimant would also be well advised to apply for income support to bring her income up to the full amount of £51·10 provided for in the income support personal allowances.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish an analysis of the composition of the lowest quintile of income in 1979 on the same basis as in "Households Below Average Incomes" identifying the proportion of families that are(a) married pensioners, (b) single pensioners, (c) married with children, (d) married without children, (e) single with children and (f) single without children; and whether he will publish separate data before and after housing costs.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The information requested is in the table.

  Lowest quintile of equivalised household income in 1979

  Persons by family type (percentages)

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Married pensioner

  18

  18

  Single pensioner

  17

  16

  Married couple with children

  41

  42

  Married couple without children

  6

  6

  Single person with children

  10

  10

  Single person without children

  8

  8

  All family types

  100

  100

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the success of community-based penalties in preventing juveniles from re-offending.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of community-based penalties in preventing juveniles from re-offending.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of community-based penalties in preventing juveniles from re-offending.

  Mr. Waddington
  The available information suggests that young offenders who receive community penalties are less likely to be reconvicted than those who receive custodial sentences.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to make parents more responsible for crimes committed by their children.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to make parents more responsible for crimes committed by their children.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to make parents more responsible for crimes committed by their children.

  Mr. John Patten
  The White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" sets out proposals for strengthening the statutory provisions relating to parents' attendance at court with their children; parents' payment of their children's fines; and the binding over of parents of convicted juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to enable young offenders to complete day centre requirements of probation orders while undertaking youth employment training.

  Mr. Waddington
  We are concerned that young offenders' training needs and benefit entitlements should not be adversely affected by their attendance at day centre programmes as a condition of a probation order. To this end, we have agreed with the Training Agency that day centre attendance should be integrated with the youth training scheme. Arrangements for this were promulgated in January. This should ensure that 16 and 17-year-old offenders do not lose their eligibility for income support as a result of attending a day centre.

  Unemployed adult offenders attending day centres on weekdays remain eligible for benefit provided that they are seeking work at the same time as part of the day centre programme or on the days when they do not attend the day centre.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; what it was one year ago; and what projections he has made for the prison population over the next five years.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; what it was one year ago; and what projections he has made for the prison population over the next five years.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given earlier today to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox).

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the size of the prison population.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Home Office has answered a number of inquiries about the current, and expected future levels of the prison population.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Leicester
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning conditions in Her Majesty's prison, Leicester.

  Mr. Mellor
  Within the last 12 months we have responded to five parliamenary questions on conditions in Her Majesty's prison, Leicester. The governor of Her Majesty's prison, Leicester has also responded to a number of representations made by interested parties.

  Cocaine
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of seizures of cocaine, in the most recent years for which figures are available, was of cocaine entering the United Kingdom from member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of seizures of cocaine, in the most recent years for which figures are available, was of cocaine entering the United Kingdom from member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Mellor
  Of the total amount of cocaine seized by Customs in 1989, some 64 per cent. by weight—equivalent to 267 kgs—was known to have been consigned from or routed through other member states of the European Community. These are provisional figures.

  The corresponding final figures for 1988 and 1987 are 36 and 24 per cent. respectively.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now consulted the Lord Chief Justice on the Birmingham pub bombings case.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have not consulted the Lord Chief Justice on this case.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to prevent material in police archives relating to the Birmingham pub bombings case from being destroyed or tampered with.
  656
  Mr. Waddington
  I understand that the West Midlands police and the Devon and Cornwall constabulary have made arrangements to ensure that all material in their possession relating to the Birmingham pub bombings case is stored in secure conditions pending the outcome of further inquiries into the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six.

  Rape
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average sentence imposed for the crime of rape for the latest period for which figures are available and for 1979.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average sentence imposed for the crime of rape for the latest period for which figures are available and for 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  In England and Wales, the average sentence length for rape was 6·2 years in 1988, compared with four years in 1979.

  Car Security
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on efforts made by motor manufacturers in the last year to improve the quality of car security.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington).

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes of violence against the person were reported to police forces in England and Wales in 1989; and by what percentage they changed over 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  A total of 177,000 offences of violence against the person were recorded in England and Wales in 1989, an increase of 12 per cent. compared with 1988. In Cleveland, the increase was 2 per cent.—40 more offences. Some of the increase in recorded figures is the result of more crimes being reported to the police.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of total crime is made up of violent and sexual crimes.

  Mr. John Patten
  Six per cent. Further information is given in Home Office statistical bulletin 10/90, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now established in England and Wales.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now established in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of December 1989 there were estimated to be over 81,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, compared to 64,000 at the end of December 1988, an increase of 26·5 per cent.
  657
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now in operation; and what assessment he has recently made as to their effectiveness in crime prevention.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of December 1989 there were estimated to be over 81,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales.

  Studies have shown that neighbourhood watch schemes, where carefully designed and implemented, have contributed to a reduction in crime and fear of crime in some areas. It has also been shown that members of neighbourhood watch schemes are more likely than others to take crime prevention measures and to report suspicious incidents to the police; and they appreciate a greater sense of security.

  Religious Cults
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue a direction to the BBC to refrain from the broadcasting of matters likely to promote religious cults or their associated training organisations.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. My power to impose broadcasting restrictions on the BBC under clause 13(4) of their licence and agreement is exercised only in extreme circumstances and when it is in the national interest to do so. In other circumstances, programme content is a matter for the broadcasting authorities which operate independently of Government. The BBC is aware of its impartiality obligations, which mean that programmes should not promote any particular viewpoint on religious or other subjects.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received recent representations on Sunday trading legislation.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes. Since last I answered a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 16 March, 11 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and nine against have been received.

  Dog Breeding
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As I indicated during the Adjournment debate on puppy farms on 21 December, the Government are considering amendments to the 1973 Act which would improve the way in which the Act is enforced and so bring illegal and unlicensed dog breeding establishments under the control of the law.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was spent on(a) prison education generally and (b) prison education at Strangeways prison in the past two years; and if he will make a statement.
  658
  Mr. Mellor
  Total expenditure on education in(a) prison establishments generally and (b) HM prison Manchester for the two most recent years available was:

  Year

  Total £'000

  HM prison Manchester £'000

  1988–89

  25,200

  246

  1987–88

  21,400

  237

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time now spent by prisoners awaiting trial on remand in custody in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provisional figures for 1989 indicate that the average time spent on remand in prison service establishments, prior to the finding of the court, is about 53 days for males and 45 days for females.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has any new proposals for the treatment of remand prisoners.

  Mr. Mellor
  Governors are to be given discretion to vary visits to unconvicted prisoners by relatives and friends. This will enable longer, less frequent visits to be allowed instead of brief daily visits, which often have to be limited to 15 minutes because of pressure on the facilities available.

  A pilot scheme to reduce routine censorship of the correspondence of unconvicted prisoners to a 5 per cent. sample started on 1 February in three local prisons. We shall soon be assessing the results of the trial and considering whether the change should be extended.

  Another pilot scheme is being established at Winchester prison to enable unconvicted prisoners to use cardphones subject to certain safeguards. If the scheme is successful, cardphones will be installed for such prisoners at other prisons and remand centres.

  Prison Conditions
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with conditions in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  While modern prisons are built and operated to high standards, the conditions in some establishments—particularly local prisons and remand centres where the problems are exacerbated by overcrowding—leave a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, one effect of the recent disturbances is to increase the pressures, and thereby worsen conditions, elsewhere in the prison system. We are determined to see improvements as soon as possible.

  We shall continue to tackle the problem of overcrowding by the dual strategy of encouraging the use of non-custodial sentences and prison building, which has proved successful to date. My right hon. and learned Friend has already announced his intention to place more emphasis on refurbishing existing prisons and, in particular, to speed up the provision of integral sanitation. At the same time, levels of regime activity are being improved, or where they are already good, sustained.
  659
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he will end the practice of slopping out in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government are committed to providing access to sanitation in prisons. Already the majority of prison places have such access. We are looking at ways of providing access for three quarters of all places within the next few years, and of ensuring that the remaining places are provided with access as quickly as possible thereafter.

  Police Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the issues on which he has, during the last year, declined to implement the results of arbitration on police pay and conditions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 4 January this year my right hon. and learned Friend declined to implement in full recommendations made to him on police rent allowance by the Police Negotiating Board after both sides of the board had gone to arbitration.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the real increase in a police constable's pay over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner) earlier today.

  Prisoners (Europe)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has made any assessment of the treatment of prisoners in other European countries.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Home Office is regularly in touch with officials in other European countries, and views and information on the treatment of prisoners are exchanged.

  Reporting of Offences
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the change in offences reported to police forces in England and Wales in 1989(a) by total and (b) by percentage over 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  The total number of crimes recorded by the police in 1989 was 154,000 more than in 1988, an increase of 4 per cent.

  Prison Staffing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on prison staffing levels.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 1 April 1990 there were more than 20,500 principal, senior and basic grade officers in post in establishments, an unprecedently high level. A total of 3,300 additional officers have joined the staff of the service in the past three years to enable new places to open and to meet in full management's commitment under the fresh start framework agreement. Plans are in hand to recruit up to 1,295 more in 1990–91.

  On 11 April my right hon. and learned Friend announced plans for the speeding up of the recruitment of
  660
  200 of the officers who were due to join later this year, in recognition of the stress which the prison service is suffering as a result of the disturbances at Strangeways and elsewhere. Lord Justice Woolf has the task of looking into all the background to these disturbances and staffing levels will no doubt be an element of his inquiry.

  Bill of Rights
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to enter into discussions with the political parties to discuss a Bill of Rights.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the special branch document reference No. 10368/74; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the special branch document reference No. 10368/74; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

  Drugs Intelligence Unit
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the establishment figure for the police national drugs intelligence unit; and what was the figure five years ago.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 25 January 1990 at column 870.

  Firearms
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of crimes in which firearms are used with intent to injure.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have taken a number of steps to deter the use of firearms in crime and to prevent their availability to criminals which have continuing effect. These include the firearms amnesty in 1988 in which almost 43,000 firearms were removed from circulation; the stricter controls on the possession of firearms and shotguns, including the prohibition of the more lethal types of weapons, introduced under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988; and, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, increased penalties for the illegal possession of a shotgun and for possessing or carrying a firearm in the furtherance of crime.

  Criminal Damage
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes of criminal damage were reported to the police forces in England and Wales in 1989; and by what percentage these changed over 1988.
  661
  Mr. John Patten
  A total of 630,000 offences of criminal damage were recorded by the police in 1989—6 per cent. more than in 1988.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to increase the number of applicants coming forward from the ethnic communities to join the special constabulary.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A number of forces are taking measures to encourage members of the ethnic minority communities to join the special constabulary. The Government will be undertaking a national advertising campaign later this year to supplement local recruitment efforts.

  Crack
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of the possession of the drug crack are known to the South Yorkshire police; and what further action he plans for South Yorkshire to deal with this potential threat.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures supplied to the national drugs intelligence unit, which may not be complete, show that the South Yorkshire police have made two seizures of crack. In addition, in the course of police investigations, a number of other people in South Yorkshire had admitted to the use of crack. The illicit supply and misuse of drugs will continue to be investigated by the police and, under the new drug prevention initiative announced last year, we are willing to consider the provision of assistance for the implementation of any local drug prevention measures.

  Prison Governors
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in restructuring prison department management what importance he intends to give to the need for an enhanced managerial role for prison governors.

  Mr. Mellor
  A number of changes in the prison service over the past few years have been specifically designed to enhance the managerial role of prison governors in their establishments, most notably the introduction of devolved budgeting and the fresh start package of reforms.

  Royal Commission on the Police
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now establish a Royal Commission on the police to set guidelines for the force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so.

  Rule 43 Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners by establishment are currently held on rule 43; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is given in the table.
  662

  Prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 28 February 1990 removed from association under Prison Rule 43 and Young Offender Institution Rule 46: by establishment

  Establishment and type

  Number

  Remand centres

  Brockhill

  8

  Cardiff

  6

  Dorchester

  1

  Exeter

  3

  Feltham

  6

  Hindley

  2

  Hull

  13

  Low Newton

  6

  Norwich

  1

  Pucklechurch

  2

  Swansea

  3

  Winchester

  10

  Local prisons

  Bedford

  41

  Birmingham

  25

  Bristol

  44

  Brixton

  33

  Canterbury

  39

  Cardiff

  23

  Chelmsford

  42

  Dorchester

  5

  Durham

  185

  Exeter

  36

  Gloucester

  44

  Holloway

  4

  Hull

  81

  Leeds

  187

  Leicester

  25

  Lewes

  23

  Lincoln

  76

  Liverpool

  226

  Manchester

  97

  New Hall

  9

  Norwich

  21

  Oxford

  11

  Pentonville

  60

  Preston

  2

  Reading

  11

  Risley

  16

  Shrewsbury

  13

  Swansea

  42

  Wandsworth

  430

  Winchester

  50

  Wormwood Scrubs

  51

  Training prisons

  Acklington

  2

  Albany

  7

  Blundeston

  9

  Bullwood Hall

  3

  Camp Hill

  20

  Channings Wood

  3

  Cookham Wood

  1

  Coldingley

  4

  Dartmoor

  32

  Frankland

  50

  Full Sutton

  108

  Garth

  4

  Gartree

  6

  Haverigg

  1

  Lindholme

  28

  Littlehey

  4

  Long Lartin

  7

  Maidstone

  4

  Nottingham

  5

  Northeye

  7

  Parkhurst

  14

  Preston

  3

  Ranby

  1

  Shepton Mallet

  4

  Stafford

  7

  Standforth Hill

  1

  Stocken

  3

  663

  Establishment and type

  Number

  Styal

  9

  Swaleside

  9

  Wakefield

  29

  Wayland

  9

  Wymott

  7

  Young offender institutions

  Aylesbury

  2

  Bullwood Hall

  3

  Feltham

  5

  Hollesley Bay

  16

  The Mount

  30

  Northallerton

  29

  Onley

  2

  Portland

  7

  Stoke Heath

  10

  Styal

  1

  Swinfen Hall

  3

  Wellingborough

  1

  Wetherby

  1

  Whatton

  1

  All establishments

  2,525

  Sir Charles Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on sexual and physical abuse of rule 43 offenders and of deliberate contamination of their food.

  Mr. Mellor
  Allegations of assault on rule 43 prisoners during the recent disturbances at Manchester prison are being investigated. No information is available centrally or at regional level about complaints from other rule 43 prisoners of sexual or physical abuse. In the past year, six rule 43 prisoners at different establishments have submitted petitions alleging contamination of their food by other prisoners. Prison staff are alert to this possibility and take precautions to obviate opportunities for such action.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many police force areas in England and Wales reported crime fell in 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  Six. The information is published in table 8 of Home Office statistical bulletin 10/90, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the Chief Constable of Northumbria to discuss crime figures.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the Chief Constable of Dorset to discuss crime figures.

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

  Drug Demand Reduction
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what drug demand reduction activities the Government plan to follow up the world ministerial drugs summit in London on 9 to 11 April.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in her opening address to the world ministerial drugs summit our plans to establish a United Kingdom 664
  task force to advise other countries on ways of reducing the demand for drugs. This task force will draw on the fund of experience and expertise which is available in the United Kingdom on such measures as community drug prevention initiatives, drugs education and publicity and programmes for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers.

  A detailed, 35-point political declaration, a copy of which is in the Library, was adopted unanimously at the conclusion of the summit. As well as committing all countries represented to give higher priority to demand reduction, the London declaration contains a host of useful practical guidance on specific measures which can or should be taken to reduce demand. We intend to honour fully the commitments undertaken on behalf of the United Kingdom, and we shall be looking to other countries and interested organisations represented at the summit to do the same. We are considering more specific ways in which the summit can be followed up.

  Police (Amendment) Regulations
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from police officers regarding the Police (Amendment) Regulations; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations on this subject from police officers, from hon. Members on behalf of police officers and from police representative organisations. In response he has explained his reasons for setting aside certain aspects of the Police Negotiating Board agreement on rent allowance. He has also made a number of important changes to his original proposals to meet points which were raised.

  Child Pornography
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to tougher penalties for child pornography.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to increase the maximum penalties for child pornography offences. The maximum penalty for some offences is already three years' imprisonment. In addition, a new offence was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of possession of an indecent photograph of a child with a penalty of a line of up to £2,000.

  Sound Broadcasting, London
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the prospective arrangements for competitive sound broadcasting in the London area.

  Mr. Mellor
  During the past few months six of the IBA's incremental radio contractors have come on air in London to provide alternatives to the existing BBC and IBA local radio stations. Four more are due to start later this year, one covering Heathrow and Gatwick. Under the Broadcasting Bill currently before Parliament the new Radio Authority will be able to advertise further licences in the future. The areas covered will depend on audience demand and frequency availability.

  Immigration
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total number of citizens of Macao who will be entitled to settle in the United Kingdom; and what is the scope of dependants and relatives who will be permitted to join such persons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that, under Portuguese law, about 90,000 residents of Macao are entitled to Portuguese nationality. Under European Community law a national of a member state is entitled to enter and reside in any other member state for the purpose of exercising rights conferred by the treaty of Rome. In the case of Portuguese nationals, however, these rights do not include the right to take employment in this country until 1 January 1993. A person exercising treaty rights is entitled to be accompanied by his or her spouse, descendants under 21 years of age and dependants in the ascending and descending lines.

  Court Houses
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new court houses have been open since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  Thirty-one, including the major improvement of existing buildings as well as new construction.

  Voluntary Sector Funding
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in the efficiency scrutiny report on Government funding for the voluntary sector.

  Mr. John Patten
  Home Office officials—and those in other Departments concerned—will be preparing action plans to review their grant programmes in the light of the principles set out in the statement of policy towards the voluntary sector given in my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 4 April 1990 at column 639 and of the recommendations of the scrutiny report.

  Daylight Saving
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will introduce proposals to introduce daylight saving.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are still considering the results of the consultation exercise.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the measures which are being taken to combat international terrorism.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Government remain fully committed to the fight against terrorism, and will continue to play a leading role in the various international bodies of which the United Kingdom is a member in order to 666
  strengthen and improve counter-terrorist co-operation. The Trevi group provides a forum in which information about terrorist threats and incidents can be passed rapidly between EC member states and agreement reached on effective, practical measures. The United Kingdom also conducts bilateral exchanges with a wide range of countries to strengthen further international co-operation. I recently had such meetings with the Ministers of the Interior for France and Czechoslovakia. I am meeting the Minister of the Interior for Portugal tomorrow, 4 May, and I shall be meeting European Community colleagues collectively at the next meeting of Trevi Ministers in Dublin in June.

  Sexual Violence
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes of sexual violence were reported to the police forces in England and Wales in 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is published in table 6 of Home Office statistical bulletin 10/90, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Drug Traffickers (Confiscation of Assets)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the value of drug traffickers' assets ordered to be confiscated by the courts in 1988; and what estimate he has as to the likely figure for 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest figures, which are in respect of confiscation orders made in 1987 and 1988, are given in table 7.25 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1988", a copy of which is in the Library. These show that £8·1 million was ordered to be confiscated in 1988. Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990. The current estimate by the national drugs intelligence unit of the cumulative total of confiscation orders made since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act came into force in January 1987, is in excess of £16 million.

  Security Industry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will place the July 1989 report of the working group on self-regulation of the security industry in the Library; and when his Department expects to complete its consideration of this report.

  Mr. John Patten
  I hope that consideration of the report will be completed in the near future.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are members of the Commission for Racial Equality; and how many of them are of(a) black Caribbean, black African or other black, (b) Indian, (c) Pakistani and (d) Bangladeshi origin.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are 14 members of the Commission for Racial Equality, including the chairman and deputy chairmen, of whom three are of black Caribbean, black African or other black origin; two of Indian origin; one of Pakistani origin and one of Bangladeshi origin.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes to reply to the letter dated 10 April from the hon. Member for South Hams concerning Laurent Derioz and his application for British nationality.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 1 May 1990.

  Security Services Commissioner
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is expected that the security services commissioner will be submitting his first report to the Prime Minister; and if he will indicate the information which the report is likely to contain.

  Mr. Waddington
  Section 4(5) of the Security Service Act 1989 requires the commissioner to make an annual report on the discharge of his functions under the Act to the Prime Minister: the format and content of the report are matters for the commissioner himself to determine. I understand that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith intends to make his first report as soon as is practicable after the end of this year.

  Winchester Three
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the total costs of the imprisonment of the Winchester Three.

  Mr. Mellor
  Based upon average weekly operating costs at each establishment in which they were held, the total cost of the imprisonment of the Winchester Three was £161,000.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) law officers were involved in the initial detention, arrest and the preparations for trial of the Winchester Three; and what were the costs in each case.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information at(a) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Prosecution costs are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

  Prison Management
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will postpone the implementation of the management structure review of the prison service pending Lord Justice Woolf s report on the riots in Strangeways.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 11 January that changes to the organisation of the prison service would be made at the end of September along the lines recommended last August in the report of a study by a joint PA Consulting Group and prison service team. The work needed to give effect to those changes is on course. My right hon. and learned Friend received a request from the Prison Governors Association on 3 April that the reorganisation should be reconsidered in the light of the Manchester riot and he will respond to the association shortly.

  Fresh Start
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the public relations consultants employed by his Department in relation to the introduction of fresh start for prison officers.

  Mr. Mellor
  No public relations consultants were employed. Fresh start was developed and introduced by the prison service in consultation with PA Management Consultants.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women being held in police stations cells in England and Wales on 30 April.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 30 April 1990 there were 496 prisoners in police cells in England and Wales. All were male.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to appoint a public relations adviser.

  Mr. Waddington
  My principal advisor on public relations is Mr. Adrian Moorey, director of information, who joined the Home Office on 17 April 1990 following the transfer of his predecessor to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I shall continue to seek advice from other sources as and when the need arises.

  Parliament Square (Coach Parking)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received by the Metropolitan Commissioner from parliamentary authorities concerning coach parking in the vicinity of Parliament square; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The police devote considerable resources to enforcing the law on illegal parking. I understand that the Serjeant at Arms wrote to the Commissioner on 5 April about coach parking in the vicinity of Parliament square following a point of order raised by my hon. Friend. The assistant commissioner replied on 17 April.

  Prisoners (AIDS and HIV)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prisoners and (b) remand prisoners in England and Wales are known to (i) have AIDS and (ii) be HIV positive.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 25 April 1990 the prison population of England and Wales included 41 sentenced and six unsentenced prisoners reported as having been identified as HIV antibody positive.

  Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report on the progress of investigations into the murder of Hilda Murrell, of Shrewsbury, on 21 March 1984.
  669
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The investigation into the death of Miss Hilda Murrell is an operational matter for the police. However, I understand from the Chief Constable of West Mercia that a suspect has been identified and papers have been forwarded to the Crown prosecution service which is considering the matter.

  Police Recruitment Examinations
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to replace the police initial recruitment examinations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In February this year the Police Advisory Board standing committee on conditions of service agreed that a new initial recruitment test should be prepared. We hope shortly to be inviting tenders for a contract to devise the new test.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Sir Charles Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mentally ill offenders were given custodial sentences by magistrates courts in each year from 1985 to 1989; and what steps he is taking to reduce these figures.

  Deaths of persons detained at Prison Service establishments

  1 January 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Date

  Establishment

  Age

  Sex

  Status3

  Cause of death

  Inquest verdict

  1989

  1 January

  Manchester

  51

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  3 January

  Reading

  27

  M

  R

  Diabetes

  Natural causes

  4 January

  Brixton

  30

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  11 January

  Castington

  19

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Accidental

  12 January

  Durham

  22

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  12 January

  Wellingborough

  19

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Accidental

  18 January

  Manchester

  60

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  21 January

  Canterbury1

  24

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  27 January

  Winchester

  27

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  3 February

  Canterbury

  32

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  14 February

  Liverpool1

  55

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  16 February

  Leeds

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  25 February

  Brixton

  45

  M

  R

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  25 February

  Stafford

  27

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  25 February

  The Verne1

  48

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  25 February

  Liverpool1

  31

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  5 March

  Frankland

  34

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  9 March

  Durham

  31

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  15 March

  Wandsworth

  43

  M

  S

  Cut artery

  Suicide

  17 March

  Pentonville

  30

  M

  I

  Brain tumour

  Natural causes

  18 March

  Liverpool

  48

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  19 March

  Liverpool

  32

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  22 March

  Pentonville

  35

  M

  S

  Drug poisoning

  Misadventure

  23 March

  Gloucester1

  22

  M

  R

  Burns

  Misadventure

  25 March

  Risley

  19

  F

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  31 March

  Maidstone

  48

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  12 April

  Littlehey

  29

  M

  S

  Cut artery

  Suicide

  19 April

  Leeds1

  48

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Natural causes

  21 April

  Preston

  40

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  25 April

  Brixton

  52

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  26 April

  Sudbury

  38

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  27 April

  Stafford1

  24

  M

  S

  Pneumonia

  Natural causes

  28 April

  Lewes

  19

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  30 April

  Brixton1

  23

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  8 May

  Dartmoor

  23

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  13 May

  Winchester

  23

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  15 May

  Manchester

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  17 May

  Risley

  28

  F

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  25 May

  Stafford

  22

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  26 May

  Manchester1

  27

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  670
  Mr. John Patten
  Such information is not available centrally.

  Guidance to courts on avoiding sending mentally disordered offenders to prison is provided in "The Sentence of the Court" (HMSO), a new edition of which will be published shortly. This guidance has been revised to encourage courts to use their powers to remand to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 or making attendance at or admission to hospital a condition of bail. Statistical information on the use of such powers was published in Home Office statistical bulletin 28/88 "Statistics of Mentally Disordered Offenders, England and Wales, 1985 and 1986", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Prisons (Deaths)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all deaths during 1989 and the first quarter of 1990 of persons detained in prison department establishments, stating in each case the age and sex of the inmate, the cause of death, the inquest verdict, whether the inmate was sentenced or on remand, the establishment where the inmate was detained, and whether the death occurred there or in an outside hospital.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is given in the table. Deaths occurred within the establishment unless otherwise indicated.
  671

  Date

  Establishment

  Age

  Sex

  Status3

  Cause of death

  Inquest verdict

  3 June

  Brixton

  39

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Accidental

  13 June

  Manchester

  47

  M

  R

  Not known

  Not yet held

  19 June

  Liverpool

  42

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  10 July

  Exeter

  25

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  10 July

  Brixton

  25

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  19 July

  Lancaster

  22

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  19 July

  Ackington

  49

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Not yet held

  31 July

  Norwich1

  42

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  2 August

  Stafford

  46

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Not yet held

  4 August

  Leicester1

  28

  M

  R

  Kidney failure

  Natural causes

  5 August

  Rochester

  22

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  6 August

  The Verne

  35

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Not yet held

  14 August

  Birmingham

  25

  M

  s

  Asthmatic attack

  Natural causes

  18 August

  Brixton2

  41

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  24 August

  Full Sutton

  33

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  26 August

  Brixton

  25

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  31 August

  Wormwood Scrubs

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  13 September

  Garth

  28

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  26 September

  Cardiff

  25

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Accidental

  30 September

  Shepton Mallet

  21

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  1 October

  Rochester

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  15 October

  Canterbury

  24

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  18 October

  Brixton

  35

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Accidental

  19 October

  Stafford

  50

  M

  S

  Lung disease

  Natural causes

  20 October

  Bristol

  26

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  22 October

  Norwich

  52

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  23 October

  Channings Wood

  26

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural causes

  24 October

  Rochester

  49

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Not yet held

  31 October

  Hindley

  19

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  2 November

  Brixton

  33

  M

  R

  Pneumonia

  Not yet held

  3 November

  Wandsworth

  69

  M

  S

  Not known

  Not yet held

  4 November

  Swansea

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  13 November

  Leeds

  52

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  19 November

  Stafford

  53

  M

  S

  Cancer

  Not yet held

  6 December

  Brixton

  58

  M

  R

  Heart attack

  Natural causes aggravated by lack of care

  10 December

  Long Lartin

  29

  M

  S

  Cut artery

  Suicide

  10 December

  Shepton Mallet

  31

  M

  S

  Influenza

  Natural causes

  23 December

  Manchester

  19

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  24 December

  Glen Parva

  19

  M

  s

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  28 December

  Liverpool

  39

  M

  R

  Brain haemorrhage/pheumonia

  Not yet held

  1990

  6 January

  Durham

  20

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  6 January

  Bristol

  22

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  10 January

  Lincoln

  46

  M

  R

  Suffocation

  Open

  14 January

  Winchester

  69

  M

  R

  Unknown

  Not yet held

  25 January

  Manchester

  37

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  10 February

  Reading1

  35

  M

  S

  Brain haemorrhage

  Not yet held

  14 February

  Winchester

  19

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  21 February

  Camp Hill

  24

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  22 February

  Bedford

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  28 February

  Hindley1

  18

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  2 March

  Brixton

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  2 March

  Manchester

  37

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  3 March

  Pentonville

  34

  M

  R

  Asphyxiation

  Misadventure

  14 March

  Wakefield

  56

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Not yet held

  16 March

  Durham

  27

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  23 March

  Bristol

  31

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Not yet held

  1 Inmate died in an outside hospital.

  2 Inmate died in a Crown court cell.

  3 Status: S—Sentenced; R—Remand; I—Immigration Act detention.

  Charity Mailing Lists
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prevent registered charities' mailing lists from being used to tout for business from the members of such charities by banking service firms.
  672
  Mr. Mellor
  The Government have no present plans to do so. If there is any evidence of a breach of the Data Protection Act, it should be brought to the attention of the Data Protection Registrar.

  Prison Officers (Suicides)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers are known to have committed suicide in each of the last 10 years.
  673
  Mr. Mellor
  Before 1 January 1990 no central records were kept of the causes of death among prison officers and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since 1 January 1990 one prison officer is known to have committed suicide.

  Wakefield Prison
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the total additional days' leave granted to staff at Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield, arising from the temporary transfer of staff to Her Majesty's prison, Manchester;

  (2) if he will allocate additional staff at Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield to enable prison officers who have undertaken duties at Her Majesty's prison, Manchester, to take the special trauma leave that they have been granted;

  (3) what advice has been given by his Department to the governor of Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield, as to how staffing levels in the prison can be maintained at safe levels while (a) prison officers who have been temporarily deployed at Her Majesty's prison, Manchester, take leave that they have subsequently been granted and (b) other
  674
  officers who covered duties for those absent from Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield, take time off that is due to them.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 27 April 1990]The governor of Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield will assess locally the impact of both additional leave granted to staff attending the disturbance at Her Majesty's prison, Manchester (the amount of which is still being calculated) and additional hours accumulated at Wakefield by covering for colleagues on duty at Manchester. He will then, using this assessment and information from the staff planning and reporting system (SPAR), plan officers' leave and time off in lieu (TOIL). If he identifies any problems he will seek assistance from regional management. This process needs to be completed before regional management can assess whether additional staff might need to be sent to Wakefield on a temporary basis.

  On 11 April my right hon. and learned Friend announced that, in recognition of the stress which the prison service has suffered, he would be bringing forward the recruitment of 200 officers originally planned for later this year. When these officers are available they will be posted following an assessment by management of which establishments are under particular pressure.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Road Works: Traffic Delays
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the delays to road traffic which result from the uncoordinated activities of organisations exercising powers to excavate public roads, whether they are considering taking powers to control and co-ordinate the exercise of such powers with a view to minimising the disruption to traffic.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government attach high priority to the introduction of legislation which will reduce disruption by providing for better co-ordination and management of statutory undertakers' works.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. Is he aware that no one can accuse the Government of undue haste in this matter, in as much as the original discussions—according to my recollection—began in December 1955?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we live in hope. I can assure my noble friend that the Government recognise that there is widespread support for early legislation and we attach high priority to its introduction.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Viscount appreciate that, while we understand his remarks, we regard them as unsatisfactory? The public utilities want action; the highways authorities want action. We have been told time and time again that the Government recognise the need for legislation. When are we to have a definite undertaking either that legislation will be pushed through this year or that the Minister will raise the matter with his right honourable and honourable friends in the other place to obtain an undertaking that legislation will definately be introduced next year?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not think the House expects me to give an undertaking at this stage. I can inform the noble Lord that the department has worked out detailed arrangements in conjunction with the utilities and local authorities. Codes of practice on diversionary works, reinstatement specifications, training, signing and guarding, notification and co-ordination are substantially complete. However, it is most important to maintain the impetus in order to avoid long transitional periods before implementing the new arrangements.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the hash-up in London—which heaven knows is bad enough—services repairs which require the digging up of roads are a major contributory factor? There are as many as 200 per kilometre per annum in the city. There are modern techniques by which these repairs could be carried out without breaking the surface. They need to be encouraged by legislation which puts the emphasis the right way. Is my noble friend aware that that would make a major contribution to reducing the traffic hold-ups in London?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am well aware of that. I can inform the House that the proposed legislation will lead to improved co-ordination of works especially where computerised street works registers are used. It will also result in better and speedier reinstatements.
There will be more one-pass reinstatements rather than a temporary reinstatement followed by a permanent one, and new performance standards for reinstatements for which utilities will become entirely responsible. Highways authorities will have the power to designate as traffic sensitive the streets where works are likely to cause severe disruption, and to prescribe hours of working. Highways authorities will be given powers to designate protected streets which can be kept free of utility apparatus.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the noble Viscount has drafted the Bill, when will he put it down for First Reading?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we are always prepared.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that during the past few months the two main routes through the City of London to this House—that is to say, the Embankment and the Strand—have both been under substantial repair simultaneously? May not that have been a contributory factor in the many defeats of the Government during that period?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot quite see the connection. It depends who is using those routes when coming to this House.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Viscount care to remember that excavations by public utilities are only part of the story? The blocking of main roads in central London by enormous tower cranes mounted on crawlers over the weekends also brings traffic to a standstill.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of that.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a need for much more general and purposive co-ordination of road transport, not only on this matter? That applies especially in London, which the Government have deprived of any all-London local authority with responsibility for transport, roads and many other matters.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of that and I know that my right honourable friend is also aware of it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the Minister has told us about taking certain action. Can he inform us how many government departments and local authorities will have to be consulted and persuaded that they should act in unison? Can he advise us roughly how many there are?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can advise my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is having discussions with local authority organisations at this moment. They are all being consulted and are extremely sympathetic to the proposed legislation.

European Air Traffic Control
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the meeting of European Civil Aviation Conference Ministers on 24th April considered the draft report of its task force on the scope for integration of European air traffic control systems and, if so, what action and decisions were agreed.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport attended the second meeting of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Transport Ministers on 24th April to consider the report of its task force. In response to a UK initiative, the transport ministers agreed a programme to increase air traffic capacity in Europe by integrating air traffic control systems and improving the air traffic route network.
The programme will be managed by Eurocontrol and will be overseen by a group of senior officials from participating states, reporting to their respective governments. Ministers reaffirmed that they hoped all ECAC states would join Eurocontrol. Ministers agreed that they would meet again in the second half of 1991 to review progress.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I wish I could he more enthusiastic with regard to the UK initiative. Will the Minister say why the Government have set their face so resolutely against a unified air traffic control system in Europe, which is what the airlines want, and instead agreed to the staggered system of reforms? Is the Minister aware that if we wait until 1998 for harmonisation, which the Government and the noble Viscount described as the next best thing to a unified system, it will be a triumph for bureaucratic advisers and the loss of a great opportunity?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness could be more satisfied with my answers. However, I must tell her that the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority consider that it would be impracticable in the immediate future to establish
1134
a unified air traffic control system in Europe. Substantial political, defence, legal and industrial relations problems would have to be resolved which would delay the introduction of the improvements that are urgently needed to handle the forecast growth in traffic. Those objectives can be achieved more rapidly through the integration programme agreed by ECAC transport ministers.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount satisfied with that answer?
Viscount Davidson: Of course I am, my Lords; it is a very good one.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, among all the information that the noble Viscount has within his files, can he tell the House whether it is true that air traffic control in Europe will still be handled by 42 different centres in 1998 instead of the six or eight which will be needed?
Further, am I correct in believing that the transport ministers themselves rejected the proposals for a unified air traffic control system by saying that the proposals raised insurmountable obstacles including some of national sovereignty? Does the noble Viscount realise—I am sure that the House does—that until there is some political will to have these matters dealt with we shall have no progress at all?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that so far as the United Kingdom is concerned there is the political will. Looking to the future, more countries which belong to the ECAC will be joining Eurocontrol in the near future. ECAC ministers have committed themselves to a phased programme which will give significant results well before 1998. Improvements in air traffic control systems are continuously being made and the CAA already has an investment programme worth about £100 million a year. The problem is that in the high density traffic areas, which include the UK, France, Germany, and the Benelux countries, harmonisation is targeted to be completed by 1995, but in the low density areas, which are generally less well equipped, priority will initially be given to increasing investment and that will be followed by harmonisation.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is a lot of information, but will the noble Viscount answer the question that I put to him? Can he tell the House whether it is correct that by 1998 air traffic control in Europe will still be handled by 42 different centres instead of by the six or eight that will be needed? If the noble Viscount does not have that information in his papers, will he write to me and put a copy in the Library?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have that information and I do not wish to speculate at this moment about 1998. I shall therefore write to the noble Baroness and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the great belief that, without much "push"

1135
behind us, these matters involving a huge bureaucracy have been allowed to go on since the end of the war? Can we not make use of our sophisticated military radar until such time as the civil people get their act together?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's suggestion to my right honourable friend.

Chlorofluorocarbons
3.18 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reductions in the production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons they have effected since signing the Montreal Protocol.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, United Kingdom consumption of chlorofluorocarbons was half the 1986 level in 1989–10 years ahead of the requirements of the Montreal Protocol. Production has also fallen significantly.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. First, is it not the case that the fall in consumption is largely due to consumer resistance as a result of publicity about the danger of using CFCs? Can the noble Lord tell the House what is the fall in production of CFCs? As I understand the position, while consumption is falling production has not fallen by anything like the same extent because of our exports of CFCs. In other words, we are reducing sales in this country and compensating by exporting to other countries. Secondly, is the noble Lord aware of the Royal Society of Chemistry conference being held today? It is an international conference on CFCs and the ozone layer. Have the Government any knowledge of that conference; are they represented at it; and are they supporting it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's four questions, first, I am well aware of the conference that is taking place today. The fact is that the populations not only of this country but of many others have responded to the liability—if I may use that word—of CFCs to the atmosphere. And that, for all Members of your Lordships' House, I should have thought, is an extremely encouraging event. With regard to the production of CFCs, as opposed to consumption, the figures are falling below those required by the Montreal Protocol.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House what progress is being made under two heads? First, are the Government insisting that the design of household refrigerators should permit easy decommissioning? Secondly, what progress is being made in setting up decommissioning centres so that CFCs can be recycled instead of liberated?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Earl's question, a number of local authorities have already taken the initiative. In answer to the second part, I can tell him that in the United Kingdom there are only two manufacturers of CFCs which are willing to recycle all the CFCs that are returned.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that as well as reducing our output of CFCs, it is very important to secure international agreement for their reduction worldwide? It is a worldwide matter. Does my noble friend further agree that it is also important to contribute our technical expertise in helping less well-developed countries to reduce their dependence on CFCs?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. One of the reasons why the production of CFCs in this country has not fallen as fast as consumption is because we still export CFCs. That is because we do not consider it is a good idea to encourage their production in other countries. My noble friend is perfectly right to point out the second issue. We shall only succeed in the removal and overal reduction of CFCs if it is done on a universal rather than an individual basis.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the noble Lord say to what extent government establishments are returning surplus CFCs from their large refrigeration plants for recycling or dispoal?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have the individual figures for government plants and the return of CFCs.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not insult the Minister by asking whether he is aware of the alternative fluorocarbons environmental acceptability study which was published earlier this year in connection with the United Nations environmental programme. In the light of the conclusion of that study, which was that there are alternative compounds which are better than CFCs and which do not have damaging side effects, can the Minister say what positive action the Government are taking to fulfil the recommendation made in that study that industry should proceed with research to commercialise the compound?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government have always taken the view that we have to proceed on a step-by-step basis. The third meeting of the Montreal Protocol is to be held in London this summer. If there is anything that can be usefully put into that meeting in terms of achieving a result and as long as that can be done on a universal basis, the Government will go ahead with it.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, when the Minister speaks of proceeding step by step, I hope that he is not speaking about the kind of steps to which the Secretary of State for Transport referred. He seems to think that the level of C02 will get worse over the next 20 years, and that that is perfectly acceptable.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall not answer the question in the way that the noble Lord requires. As the Government, we have to deal with reality rather than with hope.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my first question. Can he say whether the Government are participating in today's conference of the Royal Society of Chemistry? Are they giving any support to the effort to find substitutes for CFCs? In addition, can the Minister also say whether the Government are giving any finance towards finding substitutes? Following the noble Earl's question regarding substitutes for CFCs, is the Minister aware that the Bird group is the main group of companies working on this matter, and that they have stated categorically (and they have written to me) that appropriate legislation is required if the decommissioning of refrigerators is to be carried out in the safe way which they have invented?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that Members of this House remember very well that last year a hugely successful international conference took place in London concerning CFCs and the ozone layer. The reason for that successful conference was very straightforward; namely, that the Government of this country recognise that it is only by universal action that the problem can be dealt with. To survive, the problem cannot be dealt with by taking simple action on a smaller basis when the difficulties face us on a universal basis.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister say what the British Government are doing, following that conference, in the form of legislation and in supporting moves by industry to find substitu:es for CFCs?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the companies involved in the manufacture of CFCs are spending a considerable sum of money on developing commercial alternatives. It is all very well for the noble Lord to ask what the Government are doing; but they are not manufacturers of CFCs. It is rather difficult for the Government to finance an alternative.

Natural Disasters: Emergency Planning
3.24 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the new arrangements (mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Overseas Development Administration paper on the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction) designed to improve the United Kingdom's machinery and procedures for dealing with national and international disasters.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the new arrangements to which my noble friend refers are those which were announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in a Written Answer on 15th June last year. That referred
1138
to the appointment of a civil emergencies adviser and it gave the civil defence college at Easingwold a wider remit to include peacetime emergencies under its new title of the Emergency Planning College.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which enlarges the information to a limited extent. Is he aware that when the ODA paper was published those principally responsible for implementing the important new arrangements were not aware of the scheme to which the Government were referring? Can my noble friend now take steps to ensure that the appropriate details are brought to the notice of those concerned?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite certain that I get the drift of my noble friend's question. The ODA paper was a publication made by a government department. It knew what the other government departments, including the Home Office, were doing. If I understand my noble friend correctly, I believe he means that people outside government were not aware of what the ODA paper referred to. I shall study my noble friend's question, but I am not quite certain how to answer it to his satisfaction.
Lord Renton: My Lords, instead of taking up the further time of the House, it will be better if I show my noble friend the evidence which I have in my hand.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall be delighted to see afterwards the evidence which my noble friend has.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in case the House does not share the mystery of this question, I point out that it relates to the decade which we are now starting, at the instance of the United Nations, concerning natural disasters. Does the Minister agree that the success of this decade will really depend on the amount of co-ordination in the United Kingdom that we manage to arrange? Therefore, is he aware of the part to be played by local authorities and voluntary organisations? I ask the Minister to refer to paragraph 6 instead of paragraph 7 of the paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred. Can the noble Earl say what has been done by the Overseas Development Administration,
"in arranging to be the focal point for harnessing and monitoring UK private and voluntary sector expertise and involvement in the decade"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for admitting to a certain mystery concerning this Question when he saw it on the Order Paper. It is a mystery that I shared. However, I hope that I have been able to divest your Lordships of that mystery as a result of my investigations. It is perfectly true that a great deal depends on the work that is done in the United Nations as a whole. In this respect, the Overseas Development Administration has a great deal to do. We have increased the staff complement and set in hand some training. Representations concerning funding will be considered sympathetically. For instance, there was a conference to discuss mitigating annual flooding in Bangladesh; and £500,000 has

1139
been given for a regional programme in the Caribbean. This is a decade in which the attention of the world is being addressed towards preventing disasters in other countries. We shall play a part in that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me as I rise again for one moment. I do not believe that he understood my question, and I am sure that that is my fault. I was dealing with the question of co-ordination in the United Kingdom and not in relation to matters that may arise abroad. If the Minister is unable to reply immediately, I shall understand. Bearing in mind the recommendation made in the paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has referred, can the Minister say what is being done by his department and the Overseas Development Administration in being the focal point,
"for harnessing and monitoring UK private and voluntary sector expertise and involvement"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not answer the noble Lord's question correctly. However, I hope that I am capable of answering any of his questions, even that one. I can tell him that that particular point is being addressed by the new civil emergencies adviser who at the moment is concerned to find out exactly what all local authorities and local organisations are doing in order to co-ordinate effort at home. When that is accomplised, we shall also be able to co-ordinate effort abroad.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that important work was carried out by private organisations—that is, non-governmental organisations—in the south of Russia following the severe earthquake which took place there last year?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords; a great deal of work was carried out in that area, not only by the private sector but also by the public sector. Various people from the fire brigade were also sent out to the area to give assistance.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say what resources Her Majesty's Government will be contributing to the UN International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, at present about £500,000 a year is being spent on work to prepare for disasters. As regards actual disasters, approximately £18 million has been spent in each of the past two years on disaster costs. There is no specific budget for this because it has to be dealt with on the basis of assessments made when the disasters occur.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will be adjourned at about
1140
7 p.m. for about one hour, and that during this adjournment the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1990 will be taken.

Spring Bank Holiday Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on Thursday 24th May and return on Monday 4th June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 24th May.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 19 [Amendments relating to funding of health authorities etc.]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 105A:
Page 20, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) It shall be the duty of any health authority in receipt of funds from the Secretary of State under this section to require for administrative and financial purposes that hospitals for which they are responsible shall seek the following information from appropriate patients who have been admitted to those hospitals or from their close relations—

(a) whether the patient is prepared to accept an organ transplant;

(b) whether the patient would be willing to donate an organ in the event of his death." ").

The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to organ donation. Perhaps I may first congratulate the Minister's honourable friend, Mr. Roger Freeman, on organising a seminar on improving the voluntary donation of organs on November 16th last year which I was very pleased to be able to attend.
Although kidney transplantation is the most common, and heart and lung transplantations gain greater publicity, this amendment covers any human organs which can be transplanted to save the lives or improve the quality of life of patients. It may interest Members of the Committee to know that one of my honourable friends in another place returned there yesterday following a lung transplant and took part in the debate. I think that that was a notable achievement; not just for Dr. Galbraith, but also for those who carried out the operation.
Most of us are aware of the life saving, though exhausting and draining, experience of dialysis for kidney patients. In so many cases where people survive on dialysis they are waiting and hoping for a kidney transplant. Around 1,000 kidney patients die every year without receiving treatment. They die not because treatment is unknown, but because no treatment is made available to them. The problem is partly lack of funding and partly the shortage of donor kidneys for transplantation. A recent Gallup survey commissioned by the British Kidney Patients' Association showed that while 74 per cent. of the adult population were willing for their kidneys to be used after their death for transplant purposes, only 27 per cent. owned donor cards and only 20 per cent. of those people actually carried the cards with them.
The donor card is a means of securing sufficient calibre kidneys for transplantation; but it is not the only means. We always have to look for other means of ensuring that the information is available so that the doctors concerned will know which organs are available, either by decision of the patient or of his family. The organ donation system in the United Kingdom is based upon the legal framework of the Human Tissue Act 1961. That essentially provides for people to opt into organ donation in two different ways.
First, they may do so by indicating their wish in writing it any stage during their life. That would include signing and having an organ donor card. Secondly, they can indicate their wish to do so orally in the presence of at least two witnesses during their last illness. In that way the person concerned can indicate his desire to become an organ donor. I warmly support the system of donor cards. I always carry mine with me in my wallet. However, the fact is that the vast majority of people do not do so.
Therefore we must look for every conceivable way to improve the situation, not only by publicising the donor card system; we must also find other ways whereby doctors and the health service can know about organs which could be made available. I would support legislation to apply the opting-in—or the opting-cut—principle more liberally than at present. I should like to have seen it included in this legislation, but it was not possible to do so.
I am grateful to the noble Lord and also the two noble Baronesses who have supported the amendment. It proposes a modest method but one which might be most helpful in building up a database so that when a patient comes into hospital he is automatically asked—as is set out in the amendment—whether he is prepared to accept an organ transplant and, more important,
"whether the patient would be willing to donate an organ in the event of his death".
It is often much easier to obtain this information by way of a routine method rather than waiting until a patient is near to death. It is most difficult for doctors to approach families at that time because they are deeply distressed. One of the interesting factors is that patients are much more willing for their organs to be used for transplantation purposes than are their relatives.
My amendment is a simple one. It makes it easier to seek this information on admission to the hospital either from the patient or his relatives. Obviously this would be done only where it was appropriate. One would not do this in respect of a patient who was being rushed into hospital, or with a patient who was very elderly or suffering from a particular type of disease. However, this amendment would be a contribution to improving the database of willing donors. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The rather strange name which appears on the Marshalled List together with the other supporters of this amendment is meant to be mine. However, as people always seem to get my name wrong, I am not surprised that it has happened in this Chamber.
Lives can be saved by a transplant or the quality of life can be improved. The development of organ transplants will no doubt increase and expand in the future. Therefore, it seems wise not to overlook this very important matter. While supporting the amendment, I feel that it is important to encourage a patient, or his next of kin if he cannot do so himself, to give permission for use of his organs so that they are not wasted. That permission must be obtained in a very careful and sensitive way.
People who come into hospital are often very nervous. They should not be made to feel more so by being made to feel that they may die. The necessary permission could perhaps be obtained by way of a question being included on the admission form which the patient fills in when he enters the hospital, along with other questions such as, "Who is your next of kin? What is your religion?" and so on. In that way the patient would not feel that he was being singled out. I hope that the Government will consider this matter seriously. I support the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I support this important amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has spelt out the implications of its contents so clearly that I have little to add to his wise words and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, except perhaps just to highlight the great importance of any measures which would facilitate the availability of organs which would alleviate the suffering of those people who are waiting to benefit from transplant treatment.
I should like to highlight that point by referring to a recent newspaper report which gave some indication of the order of magnitude involved. According to that report, 3,700 people are currently queueing for a kidney transplant and 470 people are awaiting either a heart, or a lung, or a heart/lung transplant. Those figures compare with 1,800 renal transplants which were performed last year and 400 of the heart or heart/lung transplants. So there is a serious discrepancy between the availability of organs and the number of people awaiting the opportunity to have that life-saving and alleviating J of suffering procedure.
Given the great hardship experienced by those people suffering from illnesses which can be alleviated or cured by transplants, and given the human and financial costs involved in the waiting due to the non-availability of those organs—in

1143
human costs: someone on dialysis, for example does not experience a good quality life; and of course the financial cost involved when people are receiving treatments or awaiting transplants—any measures which would facilitate procedures for the donation of life-saving organs would be warmly welcomed and would greatly help those in need.
Lord Winstanley: I support this essentially all-party amendment. In doing so, I support everything that was said in moving it by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and in supporting it by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She was right to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that things have changed. There was a time when we discussed this subject when the whole discussion focused on kidney transplants. We discussed the deplorable fact that patients were tied to dialysis machines merely because there were no kidneys available.
The noble Baroness is right. Now that new techniques have developed for heart and heart/lung transplants we find that opportunities are being missed because people are not donating the organs which they would have been happy to donate, had the opportunity arisen.
I should like to underline carefully the last few words in the first paragraph of the amendment:
"or from their close relations".
Those words are extremely important. The Committee will know, and the Minister's legal officers will confirm it, that the law is somewhat ambiguous about who owns the body when a person has died. As a general practitioner I have often had to tell patients that there is not the least point in putting this, that or the other instruction in one's will because by the time that anyone looks at it, the moment will have passed. Organs are needed quickly.
Whether a patient has the legal right to determine everything that is done with his or her organs after death is doubtful. No hospital will proceed if there is any question of the next of kin objecting and so those words:
"or from their close relations"
are important. That provision would assist a hospital greatly.
I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that to ask patients once they are in hospital whether they will sign a form is difficult. It is difficult for a house surgeon to go to a patient and say, "Look, Mr. Smith, you are doing absolutely splendidly. We hope that you will be home soon, but just in case you cannot get home do you think we could have your kidney?" That is not the kind of exercise upon which the average doctor wishes to embark. It is important that all these points are structured and fixed well in advance.
A great deal has already been done, as the Minister knows, especially in Manchester, with movements towards computerisation of donors of kidneys and other tissues. The more that is done the better. It will give doctors in all hospitals the opportunity to know where there is an organ available which might match in type and tissue the patient's needs. The new computerised scheme is assisting greatly.
1144
I ask the Committee to bear carefully in mind the words "from their close relations", because that is an extremely important point. Whatever may be the intentions of the patient who might carry a donor card and exhibit it proudly in his hospital bed, if the next of kin objects then the hospital will find itself in difficulty. That is a point which should be emphasised. I support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I do not wish to disassociate myself in any way from the amendment since it is an all-party one, but I have reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, underlined them. When I had hurt my hand I remember saying to one of my grandsons, who is a surgeon and who wanted me to go to hospital, "No, thank you. I will go in there with my hand and you will have all my organs out". He said, "No, they are useless. They are too old". That was one consolation!
To be serious, we do not want enthusiastic surgeons putting pressure on people. If a patient lying in hospital is asked about donation he might think that he is about to die or why else is he being asked. The subject must be handled with great care. I was at a party recently with a surgeon who had a little list in his pocket of people who might die, so that he could operate. He was keen, but one wondered: "I shall not strive too much to keep alive". I have reservations about the amendment. The wording needs to be much tighter. The principle is marvellous. In practice it could be dangerous.
People in hospital are impressed by the doctors, surgeons and nurses. One would need only one enthusiast and the patient might say, "Oh yes, certainly".
Lord Ennals: Perhaps my noble friend will give way. The purpose of the amendment is to have the point clarified on admission when one gives one's age, address and so forth. A young doctor does not ask the question; it is part of the administration—the information one gives when one arrives in hospital.
Lord Rea: I agree that the way the amendment is worded minimises the emotional difficulty of asking relatives for permission. The Committee might be interested to hear the description of an experience I had when the 29 year-old son of a close friend was knocked down. He suffered severe head injuries and was taken to the local hospital where, six hours after life support measures were instituted, he died. At no point were the relatives asked whether they would be willing for him to donate his kidneys. His mother and his brothers and sisters would have been delighted to have given that permission. It would have helped them to know that the kidneys were living on although the young man who was a gifted Ph.D graduate was no more. If such questions are asked routinely when patients are admitted to hospital, in the way that my noble friend suggested, those difficulties could be overcome.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I support the principle underlying the amendment. It is an exceptionally sensitive and difficult issue. It has exercised those

1145
bodies which are responsible for giving ethical advice to the medical profession for many years. Several years ago of course grave anxieties were expressed about transplantation programmes, their cost-effectiveness, and their benefits to human health. There were no serious reservations about kidney transplantations which have proved their usefulness.
Over the course of the past few years, this country has had an exceptional and proud record in the field of transplantation surgery, and even the healthcare economists have now produced figures to demonstrate that cardiac transplantations and heart/lung transplantations are extraordinarly cost-effective in the long term. One of the problems the medical profession faces is the serious shortage of organs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, many people are now waiting for organs to be transplanted, and I fear some awaiting cardiac transplantations die merely because the conditions from which they are suffering are so serious that they do not survive until an available and suitable heart can be found. Hence transplantation has had inestimable benefits to human health.
It is exceptionally difficult for any doctor, however, caring, compassionate, experienced and senior, to have to go the relatives of a patient in extremis. He may do so at a moment when they have just been bereaved or are about to be bereaved. It is difficult to ask them whether organs from their much loved relative may be used for transplantation purposes. In the face of grieving individuals, some doctors shy away from the task even though they recognise how important it is that they should ask the question.
The whole purpose underlying the amendment is one which I believe the medical profession is beginning to support in principle. Instead of people having to opt in at a stage when there is no question of their being asked to consider a sensitive issue, they may simply be invited at the time of admission to hospital to say whether, should the situation ever conceivably arise in their case, they accept transplant or their organs being used for that purpose. Despite all the publicity given to donor cards, the number of people who carry them is woefully small. I hope that the Government assure us that even if the amendment as phrased is not acceptable, they will pay careful attention to the issue and try to improve an unfortunate situation.
Baroness Blatch: We have considerable sympathy with the aim of the amendment which is to improve the availability of organs for transplant surgery. The Government are committed to the organ transplant programme and are anxious to see the supply of donor organs increased.
I am not convinced, nor are one or two of those who have spoken in the debate, that the amendment is the best way forward. It would require health authorities to seek two pieces of information from every patient entering hospital. The first, which asks whether the patient is prepared to accept an organ transplant, is only appropriate in certain cases. This would be where a patient was giving consent to the
1146
specific care and treatment proposed, and when all the procedures and possible risks were being explained and discussed. For most patients who are unlikely to require an organ transplant the question is irrelevant.
I accept that the second part of information concerning the patient's attitude to organ donation might facilitate an approach to relatives if the patient died and the organs were suitable for transplant. We would, however, not wish to coerce all hospitals into collecting this information for a number of reasons.
First, most people admitted to hospital are unlikely to be suitable as organ donors. They may be elderly—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. However, I must say to her that I do not think that noble Lords think of her as a "very old person". Nevertheless, the elderly are unsuitable as are those receiving relatively minor treatment from which they will recover. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. To ask such patients or their relatives on entry to hospital about their views on organ donation could be interpreted as a presumption that they were not expected to live. This would add to the anxiety experienced by many patients on admission to hospital.
Many patients who are potential donors are unconscious on admission and never regain consciousness. They are therefore unable to articulate their wishes. The doctor will need to approach relatives to inquire about the patient's and their own views on organ donation. If their response is positive, permission will then be sought for organs to be removed for transplant. Any alteration of this procedure, which would bypass the important counselling role of the medical and nursing professions, would be unlikely to be accepted, and could have a negative effect on the transplant programme. For these and other reasons, Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, past president of the Royal College of Physicians, and his committee which reported in 1987 came down against this solution.
Finally, it has never been our policy to impose uniform admissions precedures on all hospitals. This kind of detailed decision is essentially local. The amendment would create an unwelcome precedent. As the Hoffenberg Committee pointed out, there is no single panacea to boost the number of donor organs but the Government are taking active steps in a number of areas. For example, a major audit is under way for potential organ donors in hospitals to check how potential donors are being missed at present. This important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. Almost £1 million has been spent on nationally funded publicity campaigns over the past three years. A video has been produced aimed at heightening awareness of clinical staff. There has also been a range of measures designed to encourage the public to carry donor cards. For example, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre includes donor cards in correspondence when drivers' licences are renewed.
We welcome any promotional ideas that would help in this sphere of influence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for the generous comments he made about my honourable friend the

1147
Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Freeman. It is all designed to achieve the objective which I know is behind the amendment. I believe that these moves show that we take the problem very seriously. We should allow the measures already taken to run their course before considering any precipitate legislative education.
The matter is not as simple as answering questions such as "What is your name and age?"or "Where do you live?" The specific question about organ donation is in a different category. There is a sensitivity here to which we must respond. I hope that in the light of that reply the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her sympathetic reply. It was not sympathetic to the amendment: I understand that. However, I hope that she will consider it again. I am not at all certain that the report of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg's committee applied itself to this proposal. I have no intention of pressing the amendment at this stage. I wish to consider the matter further.
Most patients, when admitted to hospital are not in extremis. Most of them are not likely to be in comas. The majority of patients admitted to hospital are not necessarily desperately ill at that stage. If patients are desperately ill when they arrive, such questioning may be inappropriate. It is designed in order to build up a data base. Let us say that I go into hospital because I have broken my ankle. All right, I shall not need an organ transplant; however, it is one way of putting on to the data base whether a particular person—myself in this case—is prepared to be an organ donor. It is a matter of storing the information so that it is available to doctors who will thus be spared the need to go scurrying around, as the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Winstanley, said, on an embarrassing, difficult and sensitive task when someone is extremely ill.
It is better to collect the information when we can, when patients are not necessarily extremely ill and when we are asking questions on other matters. Perhaps the Minister will reconsider the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 105B:
Page 20, line 47, at end insert:
("(6) The system of joint finance shall be protected and extended at the level of 3 per cent. above the prevailing level of inflation").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Inevitably I have a special interest since I was responsible for introducing joint funding as a means of promoting joint planning between the health authorities, the local authorities and the voluntary organisations when I was Secretary of State. The latest figure I have seen shows £120 million in health resources devoted to schemes involving joint agreements between RHAs, DHAs and voluntary organisations. In 1987-88, 42 per cent. of the resources were spent on the care of the elderly, 43 per cent. on the care of the handicapped,
1148
and only 5 per cen., on the care of the mentally ill and the disabled.
There is some anxiety about the future of projects that exist on the basis of joint finance. Over the past 12 years since it was introduced a great deal of good work has been done as a result of joint funding. I find it hard to see how in a contract system joint finance projects would be safeguarded and the services that they provide secured. I do not see how a contract could be used, for example, for a drop-in advice bureau which might be funded from joint funds. Who would work out who uses a drop-in service in which people constantly come and go?
Typically joint-funded projects help people with AIDS, alcoholism and drug-related problems as well as well-known schemes involving mentally handicapped people. Such schemes provide a very useful link between the statutory services and the voluntary services, and indeed between the health and social services. As I said, this is a probing amendment to secure some indication from the Minister as to what is to happen in the future regarding jointly funded schemes.
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): I hope that I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he asked for. Perhaps I may begin by giving him some figures. He mentioned his latest figure. My latest figure for joint finance resources for 1990-91 is £125 million.
As the noble Lord will be aware, in the White Paper Caring for People (in paragraphs 6.13 and 6.14) the Government announced their intention to re-assess the role of joint finance in the context of the wider changes set out in the White Paper. That work is now in hand. Whether that review leads to any change, and if so of what sort, has yet to be decided. To pre-empt the outcome would be inappropriate, and therefore I am pleased that the noble Lord does not intend to press the amendment and is merely seeking assurances from me. I can assure him that there will be no change to the present arrangements until such time as any new proposals are brought forward. Our allocation of £125 million to the scheme for the current financial year makes that abundantly clear.
Although joint finance has had a mixed record of achievement, we recognise that it has provided a real incentive for health and local authorities to work together. As a mechanism for shifting resources across administrative boundaries it has pump-primed many valuable and innovative joint social and health care developments. We believe that the original objectives of joint finance continue to be important.
Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord further by quoting my honourable friend Mr. Freeman in Committee in another place. He said:
"Options include: giving the money to local authorities; giving it to the regional authorities; making no change in the procedure, which means allowing the DHAs to spend the money by making grants to local authorities; or something like the new clause 20—".

1149
That was proposed in another place at that time.
"That would involve a centrally organised pump-priming initiative aimed at developing innovative projects by local authorities, housing authorities, and so on. When we have reached a conclusion later this year, we shall bring proposals back to the House, including any necessary legislative changes".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/90; col. 1294.]
I hope that with that assurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very helpful reply. I assume therefore that until there has been a review or until there is some new proposal the present system will continue unchanged. However, I wonder whether the Minister can make any comment as to the wording of the amendment:
"The system of joint finance shall be protected and extended at the level of 3 per cent. above the prevailing level of inflation".
Joint-funded schemes are suffering as a result of the higher than expected level of inflation. Will the noble Lord say something about the terms of the amendment?
Lord Henley: I do not accept the terms of the amendment. As I said, funding for 1990-91 will be £125 million. I cannot make any promise that that will be increased by 3 per cent. I do not believe that the noble Lord would expect me to isolate any form of finance for special protection.
Lord Ennals: I did not expect the Minister to be able to give that kind of assurance. However, I thought it important to emphasise that joint funding would dwindle away if there was not some form of protection against inflation, and particularly higher than expected levels of inflation. I am grateful to him for his help and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ennals: I am sorry to leap to my feet again. I originally gave notice of my intention to oppose the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill because of my wish to explore the new system of weighted capitation which the Government intend to introduce as a substitute for the RAWP formula, in which I was also involved when I was Secretary of State. That was designed to bring greater fairness to regional and district resource allocation in view of the gross inequalities in health care provision in different parts of the country, and particularly the extent to which there had been under-provision for the North-East, North-West and Trent regions. To a large extent the passage of time and the RAWP formula have helped to achieve that. It was never a popular measure. Those who received more than they might have expected without the RAWP formula did not seem to notice it—they were never satisifed—and those who received less were extremely angry. It is comparable to the poll tax except that my formula produced results.
That was the matter which I originally intended to raise. I am now deeply disturbed by a statement
1150
that was made yesterday by the junior Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman, in a speech in Huddersfield. I shall quote it in a moment. We know that this will be a difficult year for the National Health Service because of under-funding. Whenever I refer to under-funding, the noble Baroness inevitably says that there is no such thing as under-funding because there is a constant steady increase in resources from year to year. That is a reply which we have had on many occasions.
In a debate last night I had reason to point out the massive cost overrun on the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital which is being built on the site of St. Stephen's Hospital in Fulham. The cost has increased in just over 12 months from £135 million to £226 million. In the debate, I pointed out that at the same time the number of beds was being reduced all over London and in other parts of the country. In central London alone the figure is almost 500.
Yesterday, according to a report in The Times:
"Mr. Roger Freeman, the junior health Minister, said that due to higher than expected levels of inflation, there would be no net development and some genuine reductions in services. 'This year, with inflationary pressures, we will have a year of no service developments in aggregate.' He acknowledged that some authorities in London would have to resort this year to bed reductions … His comments, during the visit to a hospital in Huddersfield, came hours before Parkside health authority, West London, agreed to close St. Mary's Hospital for four weeks in the summer and two weeks at Christmas for non-urgent admissions. In addition, authority members voted last night to stop routine outpatient referrals to St. Mary's and strictly control elective admissions by giving consultants monthly targets. The result will be a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of patients: 2,500 fewer cases. A spokesman for the district emphasised that managers had concentrated on trying to save money on restricting caseloads rather than by cutting bed numbers".
However, it was accepted that there would be a recurrent reduction of 170 beds at St. Mary's Hospital.
What is going on? We have before us a Bill which, in my considered view and that of many others, could cause chaos in the National Health Service with the speed at which it is proposed to introduce the internal market, the proposed self-governing NHS trusts and the new budget-holding GP practices.
If, at the same time, we are to be faced with cuts in the National Health Service—accepted for the first time by Ministers in a statement-last night—we are heading for trouble. I want to know whether that statement was made by the Minister in Huddersfield yesterday. If so, why was it not made by the Secretary of State in another place and repeated here? It is wrong that information as to what will happen in the health service this year and the likely effects of the higher than expected inflation rate should be issued in a statement up in Huddersfield. This is a matter of national importance. I want to know, if the statement was made, whether it was correctly reported in The Times. If it was not made, or if it was incorrectly reported, we must ask The Times to correct the facts. I want to know whether that statement was made. If that is the situation, that is a good reason why I shall oppose the clause—as a protest against the way in which the Government are acting and are handling both Houses of Parliament.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Is the noble Lord aware that, as the number of organ transplants increases, so will the cost? I do not know anything about heart transplants, but I understand that such a transplant can cost up to £4,000 or £5,000. If the cost of heart transplants is added on to the cost of other organ transplants, the health service will soon run out of cash and it will be by far the most expensive organisation in the country, far more expensive than education. You cannot go on and on increasing the number of transplants. How do you choose who is to have a heart transplant if there are, for example, six people all wanting such transplants? How do you choose the first person if money is getting scarce? Perhaps I have not expressed my point very well, but money does not just fall from heaven. It might appear to do so in this country, but it does not. It must be earned.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: Does the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, not understand that the reduction in bed numbers that he now sees is simply part of the reduction in bed numbers which has occurred since 1948? There has been a steady decline, irrespective of which government has been in office. If you look at a graph, you can see that it is a straight line decline. The noble Lord cannot persist in saying that the Government are closing more beds than any other previous government. It is a trend.
The noble Lord is entitled to say that he considers that the number of beds has reached the right level and that it should not decline any further. He may well be right in saying that, but he cannot go on thumping the Dispatch Box and saying that the Government are closing more beds than any other government, because the number of beds has declined steadily. The reason for that is that we are treating more and more patients on an out-patient basis because it is better to be at home than in hospital. Your bed at home is more comfortable and the food and company are better. The noble Lord must acknowledge that fact.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. Surely it is true that the number of beds is declining. People leave hospital having had serious operations. I am interested to learn that it is better at home. It is only better at home if there is a good back-up service. I find distressing the speed at which some people are dispatched from hospital these days. The number of beds is declining, but, as a layman and a person who has been a patient, I suggest that that is for the wrong reasons.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness. In 1948 there was a marvellous surgeon called Rex Lawrie, together with a spendid paediatrician called Ronnie MacKeith. They decided in 1948, before there was all this hullabaloo about costs and beds, that the best way to treat children, having operated on them, was to send them home the same day. That was part of the policy. It had nothing to do with saving money or beds because no one knew how much money or how many beds were there. It was a distinct, definite policy. It is most certainly better simply to keep children in for
1152
the day and then send them home rather than to keep them in for the night.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that some patients should not be sent home after major surgery if the facilities at home are inadequate. If a lady has 10 children in a small house in Bermondsey, we keep her in much longer than normal until she is fighting fit, if necessary for a week or so. We therefore tailor the length of stay to meet the needs of the patient. If you tell patients, "You can go home the same day. You need only be in for an hour or two for the operation", most patients will be delighted. However, I agree entirely that the facilities at home must be adequate.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: I agree with almost everything that my noble friend Lady Phillips said. However, does she agree that provided that the support services are good, it is better for people to leave hospital as soon as they decently can—partly because hospitals can be dangerous places? The emphasis should not be so much by way of criticism of the hospitals, but of the support services linked to the hospitals. All those concerned with the health service know that those services are by no means adequate. People are sent out before they should be, but you cannot lay the blame entirely at the door of the hospitals.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I read the article in The Times today, but I was not sure which hospital was involved. It is said that it was St. Mary's. Is that St. Mary's, Paddington, or another St. Mary's? I was anxious because the article stated that the hospital would stop taking patients from other districts. The situation is a serious one if it is St. Mary's, Paddington, which offers certain specialities for which other hospitals do not cater. The Minister should answer this question so that the Committee is aware of the situation. The issue of cross-boundary flow for specialities is of the utmost importance for everyone who has a serious problem which is not catered for by district hospitals.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps I may say a few words before the Minister replies. Obviously, I did not make myself clear and was misunderstood by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington. There is no fixed level of beds. I was simply quoting one or two examples. I raised the issue at this stage because the junior health Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman, is quoted as saying that there will be no net development and some qenuine reduction in services. I am concerned about the reduction in services. It is a serious statement made by a Minister to the effect that, during this year, we shall see a reduction in services at precisely the time when many of those same people will be involved in trying to organise themselves to cope with the consequences of the Bill. It is not just an example of one hospital. I do not have a fixed idea of what should be the bed level. As I understand it, unless I am told that the information has been incorrectly stated—I gave the Minister notice some hours ago that I would raise the issue—a Minister

1153
has said that there will be a reduction of services in the National Health Service. That is the point.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. When he introduced the RAWP formula, it resulted in a reduction of services in some districts, but it resulted in an increase in services in those districts to which the money was redistributed. The noble Lord's RAWP formula would have been a good thing if there had been sustained growth in the economy. Unfortunately, there was not sustained growth in the economy, so RAWP became an appalling hardship in many areas. That was the mistake, but it was not the noble Lord's mistake. There is no doubt that his RAWP formula resulted in a reduction of services in some districts.
Lord Henley: Quite obviously the noble Lord will not expect me to accept that there is under-funding throughout the health services. I said earlier at this Committee stage—and I shall repeat it, because I think these figures bear repetition—that there has been real terms growth in National Health Service expenditure between 1978-79 and 1990-91 of 45 per cent. Spending per capita in England will be £486 in 1991. It was £345 on the same price base in 1978-79. That is a real terms increase of 41 percent.
The noble Lord mentioned the article, which I think he has rather blown up, on page 3 of The Times. As he said, my honourable friend Mr. Freeman spoke while on a visit to the Royal Infirmary, Huddersfield. That hospital is taking part in a resource management initiative. In response to questions from journalists, my honourable friend accepted that some districts need to make temporary reductions in service developments in order to balance activity levels with the resources available. But my honourable friend said that some districts had overcommitted themselves and there were unlikely to be major service developments in those districts. He pointed out that there continues to be activity growth in the National Health Service and many districts are able to pursue their service developments.
The reforms about which we are talking in this Bill make those sort of problems less likely. It is precisely because of cases such as the one mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, where hospitals find it difficult to treat patients from beyond their boundaries, that we are introducing the National Health Service contract system.
Again, I fail to see why the noble Lord, and indeed all noble Lords on the other side, object to these reforms. They will resolve those problems.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord since we are on an important matter. In fact we are discussing two important matters on the economic side. He quoted data—and such information usually emanates from the Government—about increasing real expenditure on the National Health Service. Having put that data forward, the Government always have difficulty in accounting for all the crises that the National Health
1154
Service seems to be going through at the same time. That has always been a paradox.
When considering the real increases, the noble Lord might also consider addressing the point raised by his noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who put the essential point—although he only referred to organ transplants—that the sort of things that the National Health Service does become relatively more expensive compared with the RPI in general. Therefore, for that precise reason most of us do not accept the calculation that the Government give because it is not indexed properly according to a proper price index.
The other point that the noble Lord ought to bear in mind, which relates to the claims for reform, is that in so far as these reforms are all about cash limited budgets of all sorts and at all levels (which is precisely the point to which my noble friend Lord Ennals referred and which concerns the statement of his honourable friend in another place), the difficulties that arise when the inflation rate goes well above the Government forecasts hit those cash limited budgets very strongly and give rise to precisely those problems mentioned by my noble friend.
Far from these reforms solving problems for the National Health Service, they produce them for the National Health Service. They solve problems for the Treasury. The noble Lord should not be confused between solving problems for the Treasury, which likes cash limits, and solving problems for the National Health Service, which needs real resources.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord implies that there was no real terms increase.
Lord Peston: I certainly did not say that. I simply say that 40 per cent. definitely does not measure what used to be called the volume terms real resources available to the National Health Service. Far from it.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord seemed to be implying that there was no increase. He seemed to imply that the inflation figures for the health service should be measured by a different index. But we have increased the number of patients who have been treated. I do not have the figures before me; but if he would care to have those figures, I shall certainly make them available.
There has been a real growth in the activity of the health service and in spending on the health service. However, the health authorities need to relate the level of resources available to service activity. As I just said, the health service is receiving more resources than ever before in the current financial year and more patients are being treated. Districts need to be realistic and to relate their service activity to the resources available.
Ministers have never denied that individual health authorities encounter in-year financial problems—often through mismanagement. Again, I fail to understand why the noble Lord opposes these changes which should make it so much easier, with money following the patients, to end those end-of-year crises which will exist whatever level of resources is put into the National Health Service.

1155
These reforms will enable the health service to provide an even better standard of care for patients and make better use of resources through greater efficiency and effectiveness. I hope that the noble Lord does not intend to press his Motion that Clause 19 do not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he could promise us a little more information. If I understood him aright, he said that the report in The Times was at least an incomplete report of what his honourable friend Mr. Roger Freeman said, apparently in answer to a question—it was not a prepared speech. If I understood rightly, that incompleteness was very important. Certainly when I read the report in The Times today it seemed to imply something much more serious than evidently it is. Since it was an off-the-cuff reply, no doubt we cannot have the text; but if we could have an authoritative statement summarising what Mr. Freeman in fact said, it might give a little perspective to the matter.
As I read the article this morning it was alarming. However, I do not think it is as alarming as all that because it was evidently not a prepared statement but an answer to a question which itself may be incomplete. It may be accurate in so far as it goes, but it does not put what Mr. Freeman said in the context in which he said it and was surrounded by qualifications which he evidently made.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his confirmation that he was concerned—though not necessarily as concerned as I was—when he read the report in The Times. I raised this matter in order to obtain an indication of whether or not what was reported was actually said by the Minister. He made other remarks as well of course, but, as I understand it from the noble Lord, he said that:
"due to higher than expected levels of inflation, there would be no net development and some genuine reduction in services. 'This year, with inflationary pressures, we will have a year of no service development in aggregate'."
Of course he said more but, if that is what he said, I shall not withdraw my Motion and I shall proceed to a Vote.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may give my noble friend some reassurance. I was trying to say that the noble Lord had somewhat exaggerated the tone of the article. I have not seen the exact words used by my honourable friend and I shall certainly write to my noble friend when I have done so. My understanding was that he was referring only to individual districts and not to under-funding in the National Health Service as a whole (to which the noble Lord refers).
I repeat that Ministers have never denied that individual health authorities encounter in-year financial problems. But as regards funding for the whole National Health Service, we can continue to rely on our record, which is seen as steady growth over the past 10 years.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, decides what he will do, perhaps I may ask what the Government will do if districts stop taking patients from districts other than their own.
1156
That question must be answered. Districts are now just doing what they want to do.
Lord Henley: That is the very point of the reforms. The money will follow the patients. Districts will have an incentive to take those patients.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: But they are not doing it.
Lord Henley: That is because the reforms have not yet been enacted. They will be enacted in time and districts will have the incentive to take those patients.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I am sorry to have to intervene again. However, we want to know whether what Mr. Freeman said yesterday means something new or not. We know—and I fully support the belief—that these reforms will assist in regard to the urgent need which the noble Baroness emphasises. Did or did not the words used yesterday imply that there would be some reduction of present movement of that kind? If so it is serious. I think that they probably did not, but neither of us know it.
I think that it is important that we should know; otherwise, alarm will be spread far and wide in increasing waves. There is probably no basis at all for the alarm, but it needs to be taken hold of quickly before it is allowed to spread and puts false ideas into people's minds.
Lord Henley: My understanding, and I repeat it, is that my honourable friend was referring only to individual districts and not to the health service as a whole.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 84.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cawley, L.

Aldington, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cox, B.

Arran, E.

Crook, L.

Auckland, L.

Cross, V.

Balfour, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Barber, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Downshire, M.

Belstead, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elles, B.

Birdwood, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blyth, L.

Erne, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Erroll, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Caithness, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marylebone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hankey, L.

Carnock, L.

Havers, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Pym, L.

Hives, L.

Reay, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Rochdale, V.

Howe, E.

Rodney, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Davids, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Joseph, L

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandys, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Seebohm, L.

Lindsay, Is.

Selkirk, E.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Smith, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Somers, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strange, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Swansea, L.

Middleton, L

Swinton, E.

Monson, L.

Terrington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Teviot, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Norfolk, D.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Orkney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Pender, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Yarborough, E.

Porritt, L

Young, B.

Prior, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Willis, L.

Kearton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kennet, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 19 agreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Clause 20 [Extension of functions etc. of Audit Commission to cover the health service]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 21, line 11, at end insert:
("(1A) Section 27 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1982 shall continue to apply to health service bodies.").
The noble Lord said: I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 108 because the amendments hang together.
Amendment No. 106 attaches to Clause 20, which extends the functions of the Audit Commision to cover the health service. It is a clause which we unhesitatingly support in principle. It was one of the better ideas in the Government's reform package to extend the writ of this respected body to include the NHS. Under Clause 20, Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 is extended to give the commission similar functions in relation to health authorities and other bodies established under the Bill as it already has for local government. In these amendments I am concerned with Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
Section 26 of that Act is fully applicable to the present Bill, with the effect that the commission may make recommendations for improving the economy, efficiency and effectiveness and the financial and other management of its new recruit in just the same way as it does for local government. Under this section it can undertake and publish studies relating to the NHS in exactly the same way as it publishes Section 26 value-for-money studies, as they are known, on such local government services as housing, highway, social services, and so forth. Since 1984 the commission has published more than 30 such studies. I have a list of them and they can be found in the Library. I look forward to some interesting and no doubt equally valuable studies in the health service management field. So far, so good; we applaud that.
Now I come to the catch in the Bill whereby the application of the next section of the Local Government Finance Act, Section 27, is severely restricted in relation to the health service. In its original form the section enables the commission to undertake or promote studies on the impact of statutory provisions or any directions or guidance given by a Minister of the Crown on the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and financial management of local government. Thus it is somewhat wider than Section 26; it bites less directly on local administration and more directly on the effect of central government policy on local administration.
The section has given rise to a different set of Section 27 studies also consisting of between 30 and 40 excellent publications since 1984. Again, they are listed in the leaflet. They have included such useful studies in the local government field as those on capital expenditure controls, making a reality of community care, preparing for compulsory competition, personal social services for people with

1159
a mental handicap, and so forth. They all focus on the impact of central government policy on those important fields. One would have thought that nothing could be more useful at a time of rapid change and evolution in the NHS. Yet virtually all the teeth of that section are extracted by the present Bill.
That is made clear, first, in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. It states:
"the Commission may take into account the implementation by NHS bodies of statutes, directions and guidance in carrying out its value for money studies, but shall not question the merits of the policy objectives of the Secretary of State".
On page 76 of the Bill, at Schedule 4 paragraph 19(1), the phrase:
"other than health service bodies",
is inserted into the original Act thus excluding the NHS from this type of study.
At the Report stage in another place the Government accepted an amendment originally tabled by Mr. Andrew Mitchell. It appears in lines 11 to 22 on page 76 of the Bill. It is a weak alleviation or relaxation of the ban on Section 27 studies. In fact, it goes out of its way to specify that:
"the power conferred by this subsection shall not be construed as entitling the Commission to question the policy objectives of the Secretary of State".
The phrase is the same as that in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.
The object of the amendments taken together is to restore the full force of Section 27 to the commission's responsibilities vis-a-vis the National Health Service. I apologise for having dealt with the matter at length, but it was a necessary preliminary to pointing out that in the schedule to the Bill the Secretary of State is deliberately depriving himself of the advice of a valuable body of expertise which is probably about as objective as you can get in the whole field of public policy. Would it not be excellent to have the commission's view after a suitable time on, for example, the operation of the new capital rules governing hospitals or of the greater freedom, particularly of NHS trust hospitals, to raise money outside the public sector? Such a study or studies might confirm to the Government that they are on the right lines and confound their critics. Would it not be useful to hear the Audit Commission on the problems of nurse recruitment? That is becoming a central challenge to the NHS and the commission may give good advice. Would it not be valuable to hear the Audit Commission on the results and advisability of extending trust status to units other than hospitals which we understand is in the Government's mind in some cases? No doubt other Members of the Committee will be able to think of equally important topics for investigation.
Sadly, the Secretary of State appears to have decided to deprive himself of such studies. However, he deprives not only himself, for Parliament will also be deprived because Section 27(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to
"lay before the House of Commons a report of any matters which, in his opinion, arise out of any studies of the Commission under this section and ought to be drawn to the attention of that House".
He cannot do that if such studies are not made. This Chamber is not directly involved in that procedure, but it brings such matters into the parliamentary arena and thus into the public domain.
However, if that appears to be a terrible threat to the Government, we have only to move on to Section 27(5) of the Local Government Finance Act to discover that the Secretary of State has a strong safeguard. The Commission must consult not only the Comptroller and Auditor General but also,
"any Minister of the Crown who appears to be concerned"
before undertaking any study under this section. In other words, the Secretary of State for Health would have a veto. He would not have to authorise any study that he did not want or he considered to be superfluous. So, what is he scared of?
Perhaps I would have made less of an issue of the subject if the Government had shown themselves to be more favourably disposed to other amendments designed to provide the NHS executive with the type of advice that would be considered essential in running any other business of a comparable size and complexity. So far the Government have blithely rejected—at any rate on a statutory basis—some of the sensible proposals that have been made towards that end. Here nothing regulatory is proposed; simply that the Secretary of State should, if he feels so inclined, subject his policies to objective scrutiny by a body which is appointed by the Government.
In view of some of the major lacunae in the Bill, I and my noble friends feel strongly that the watchdog role of the Audit Commission should not be weakened and that the length of the watchdog's chain should be exactly the same for the National Health Service as it is for local government. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: I support the amendments. I shall not speak at length because the arguments have been put so comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The situation as now reflected in the Bill is anomalous. It appears to be inconsistent and I hope that that is an oversight. I am particularly concerned by my perception that the Audit Commission's present remit will enable it to study the effects of the new legislation on community care because that will become the responsibility of local authorities. But perhaps by default there is no comparable provision for the Audit Commission to study the effects of the new legislation on the National Health Service.
I hope that the anomaly can be rectified. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I have great confidence in and respect for the quality, value and impartiality of the work of the Audit Commission. I hope that its remit will be extended along the lines suggested in the amendments. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the situation and perhaps even accept the amendments.
Lord Monson: I intervene merely to point out that the amendment is incorrectly drafted in that it refers to the "Local Government and Finance Act 1982". There is no such Act. The word "and" is redundant.
Lord Peston: I accept the last remark about which I was as ignorant as anyone else. Four amendments are grouped together, but that standing in my name is more limited than those standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Their amendments are better than mine; but they are all good amendments which the Government should be looking eagerly to accept rather than to damage.
The noble Baroness referred to the Government's position as being anomalous—and she is right. However, it is worse than that because it wilfully embraces inefficiency. Whatever else underlies the Bill, there is certainly a desire for efficiency. In pressing the amendments on the Government, we are following the logic of introducing the Audit Commission into the area. We strongly support that introduction, but we are puzzled by the Government's fear of the commission. If the Government truly believe that this represents the great next new stage in the development of the NHS—and I do not—they have nothing to fear.
I now turn my attention to my particular anxiety. Lines 20 to 22 state that the commission cannot question the merits of the policy objectives of the Secretary of State. One possibility is that that is a completely trivial statement. Essentially, if we say that the Secretary of State is fully committed to the National Health Service—which he says he is and which the Government say they are—and to the service being freely available to patients and publicly funded, and if those are the policy objectives of the Secretary of State of course the commission should not question them and would not dream of questioning them. If beyond that the Secretary of State says, "I wish to do that as efficiently as possible", that again makes the sentences completely trivial or vacuous because that is precisely what the Audit Commission would be doing.
We had all sorts of enjoyable discussions on other Bills last year, on bits in legislation that had no role whatsoever. It seems to me that those particular lines in this Bill have no role whatsoever. That is one objection to them.
The role of the Audit Commission is to scrutinise the way in which resources are being used, and particularly to ask if they are being used properly and if they serve the ends that they are supposed to serve. In other words: the Government wish to do this; is; this the better way of doing it? It is to expose waste and all that sort of thing. Therefore the Government should simply welcome "he Audit Commission to do its job, which is the spirit of the amendment, with no "ifs", "buts", or long paragraphs.
I will not bandy words on whether this wording is good. This is not a party matter at all; it is a matter which concerns government, and it seems to me that the Government simply ought to get up and say, "We welcome wholeheartedly the Audit Commission involving itself in all these matters. The Secretary of State, far from worrying about whether it will get in his way, particularly wants it to intervene and do this job".
1162
I think the case is overwhelming here, and the best way that the Government can deal with it is, as the noble Baroness said, just to say, "yes".
Lord Henley: I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was speaking purely to the two amendments, that of Lord Kilmarnock and his own, Amendments Nos. 108 and 108YZA. Alternatively, was he speaking also to an amendment that comes later, Amendment No. 107D, which I understand has been grouped with these amendments? He did not seem to address it.
Lord Peston: The answer is yes. I must apologise to the noble Lord. The lettering of the amendments has now become so complex that I am having great difficulty in keeping up with which is which. One day I hope that we shall have a debate on the lettering of amendments. I believe that I was speaking to all the amendments, but I was concentrating on what I saw as the central issue because I thought it would help your Lordships to concentrate on that and on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. They seem to get to the heart of the matter, which is what I wanted to do.
Lord Henley: I certainly agree with the noble Lord on the lettering of amendments. I should like to join him in a debate on that, which might produce a great deal of consensus.
The reason why I intervened was because the noble Lord seemed not to have addressed himself to Amendment No. 107D. He appeared to be concentrating largely on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and that of my noble friend, as well as on his own Amendment No. 108YZA. I too shall concentrate on those.
Perhaps I may start by saying that I do not accept that the position is anomalous. Local government and the health service are very different, with different management and different accountability. We have taken the view from the outset that the provisions of Section 27 of the Local Government Finance Act—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for correcting the Committee and reminding us that it was the Local Government Finance Act and not the "Local Government and Finance Act"—should not apply to the audit of health service bodies because Section 26 of the 1982 Act gives the audit Commission all the powers it needs to undertake value-for-money work in the National Health Service and because of the significant differences in accountability between local authorities and health authorities.
The Committee will be aware that local authorities are autonomous bodies, accountable to their electorate and not to the Government. The commission's powers under Section 27 do not, therefore, duplicate a departmental function. In contrast, health authorities are managed by the NHS Management Executive, which has the responsibility for managing the impact of health policy. The executive is responsible to the policy board, chaired by the Secretary of State, and the latter is responsible to Parliament for policy and management of the

1163
NHS. The chain of command leading to public accountability is therefore complete in itself.
We do not wish to cut across this chain of accountability nor to create conflict and confusion between the role of the Audit Commission, as the statutory auditor of local NHS bodies, and the National Audit Office, as the auditor of the Department of Health. Indeed,to do as suggested by these amendments would allow the commission to comment upon the impact of policy in a way previously considered by Parliament to be inappropriate to the National Audit Office, which is precluded from commenting on the merits of the policy objectives of the Secretary of State.
During the proceedings in another place, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred, honourable Members raised the question of extending Section 27 powers to the commission in respect of the audit of the NHS. This mirrors the proposal now being put forward by the noble Lord. The Government concluded that, in the light of the arguments put forward, the commission should be entitled to take into account the implementation by a health service body of any particular statutory provision or directions or guidance given by the Secretary of State when undertaking value-for-money studies, but not to question the merits of the underlying policy objectives. This took the form of an amendment to Section 26 of the Act introduced by paragraph 19(2) of Schedule 4 to the Bill. This is consistent with the role of the National Audit Office and provides ample scope for the commission to carry out its role within the framework of the accountability of Ministers to Parliament.
It is not the Audit Commission's job to criticise national policy objectives. That is a role for Parliament. But we do not propose to stifle expression—the National Audit Office is covered in the National Audit Office Act 1983 by a provision similar to the one which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, seeks to delete. The National Audit Office works very effectively within that framework, not least in the NHS, and does not prevent any audit findings from being a valuable tool in policy development. But we do make clear that the commission's clear focus is on value for money and the three "Es" of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in hard practical terms which will bear immediate fruit on the ground, rather than on more abstract questions of policy objectives.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord because I think he is misunderstanding me and his noble friend Lady Cox. We are not seeking to extend the powers of the Audit Commission. We are questioning whether the words mean anything. I do not think they do, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is saying that they do not add anything new. Therefore, since the words do not appear to add anything new, they are otiose and should not be in the Bill. One is asking for them not to be in the Bill because one has a suspicion that maybe they mean something, but the noble Lord has just confirmed that they do not mean anything at all.
1164
That is why they ought to be taken out—which is a remark often made by Members on his side about many aspects of many Bills.
Lord Henley: I think the noble Lord misunderstood me, unless there is misunderstanding on both sides, which is always possible. I was trying to say that the National Audit Office is covered in the 1983 Act by a similar provision to the one which the noble Lord is seeking to delete.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I should make it clear that I am not suggesting that the Audit Commission should query the objectives of the Government. It is for Members of your Lordships' House and those in another place to query the objectives of the Government. I am not suggesting that deleting this will enable the Audit Commission to query the objectives of the Government. I am simply saying that, since the Audit Commission would never in any circumstances involve itself in considering the objectives of the Government, the issue does not arise. In other words, what the Government are seeking to stop is not there to be stopped, because it does not happen.
The Audit Commission and auditing are concerned with efficiency and with how well the Government are achieving their objectives. Therefore one does not need to add these peculiar additional words to tell the commission not to do something which it is not within its remit to do. I am simply saying that, since the noble Lord has confirmed that the Government have no desire to limit it other than to doing what it should do, there is no point in having these words; the problem does not arise.
5 p.m.
Lord Henley: We shall look at the matter. I should stress that the provisions as drafted were agreed as satisfactory by all who raised them in another place and the wording was agreed by the Audit Commission, which will have to carry them forward. If the noble Lord feels that he would like me to have another look at the matter, I shall take it away. For the moment I would certainly prefer the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will have a further look at the matter. I have been listening to the debate with some care. I was a little surprised to find that the possible exclusion of Audit Commission surveillance from this large area of public expenditure seems to be contemplated. Can my noble friend say, before he goes on to reconsider the matter, whether as the Bill now stands the Audit Commission will still have its normal function, which as he rightly said a moment or two ago relates to efficiency? If as the Bill now stands there is a doubt about that, it surely seems sensible to put in something along the lines of the amendment.
If, on the other hand, he can assure the Committee that its normal function of reviewing efficiency in respect of this large expenditure is already provided for in the Bill, the argument for the amendment, except from the point of view of obtaining certainty, is diminished. I hope my noble friend will not feel

1165
that concern for proper supervision of this large area of public expenditure is confined only to those who have supported the amendment.
Lord Henley: As my noble friend knows, we are a listening government and we shall certainly have another look at this point. What I have been saying is that the Audit Commission will be able to undertake value for money studies but not to question the merits of the underlying objectives. If the wording agreed in the compromise from another place is not satisfactory—I should stress again that the Audit Commission was fully consulted before the present wording was arrived at—we will be prepared to take it away and have another look at it.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He is perfectly correct. An "and" crept in where it should not be. It does not change the sense. I spend quite a lot of my own time correcting proofs and it is amazing what tremendous howlers can pass under one's nose without one noticing them. The noble Lord is perfectly correct.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, made an important point when she suggested that the Bill was anomalous. Before I move on perhaps I may ask the Minister to confirm that the writ of the Audit Commission will extend fully to the community care parts of the Bill though it is more restricted with regard to the National Health Service. That is the anomaly to which the noble Baroness referred. Possibly our understanding is incorrect, but that is my reading of the Bill. In so far as community care has passed under the aegis of local government, presumably the Local Government Finance Act 1982 will empower the Audit Commission to exercise its full functions in relation to the community care part of the Bill. Is that the position?
Lord Henley: That is correct. As I stressed at the beginning, local authorities and health authorities are different animals. Health authorities have their accountability to Parliament through management executives and the Secretary of State. Local authorities have to be viewed differently. There is different treatment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I take the noble Lord's point. Section 27 of the Local Government Finance Act concerns not so much the purely audit function of the Audit Commission but the studies which it is able to make on aspects of government policy. I tend to agree that the word "merits" is perhaps inappropriate in regard to questioning the merits of the policy objectives of the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, that is not the intention. But it seems to be rather cutting one's nose to spite one's face not to listen to a watchdog when it says, "Hey, Secretary of State, have you thought about this?" The Secretary of State might be inclined to say that it was an interesting suggestion. If Section 27 studies are not available for the National Health Service that situation cannot develop. That is the point I am trying to make.
1166
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who stressed the importance of proper supervision of this absolutely enormous undertaking. Anything of this size in the commercial sphere would have an enormous number of safeguards and supervisory mechanisms. Those are lacking here. The Minister has taken on board the concern expressed from all sides of the Committee, from his noble friend Lady Cox, from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, and has said that he will look at the matter.
He has also reaffirmed that he is a member of a listening government, which is very good to hear. For those reasons, I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage. However, I give the noble Lord notice that after consultation with my noble friends and if the Government do not come forward with something to satisfy us before the next stage of the Bill—I very much hope they will—I may have to bring the matter forward at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
{"Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Health
There shall be established a body known as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Health whose duty it shall be to monitor and report annually to Parliament on the quality of the health and community care services provided for patients and consumers in the statutory, voluntary and private sectors.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment proposes the appointment of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Health, a new body. It concerns an issue which is of as much importance to consumers as it is to professionals in the health service. I refer to the issue of patient care. In this respect at any rate we are together. I am glad that the amendment has the support of several other noble Lords and also of several consumer bodies concerned with health. They include the College of Health, the National Consumer Council, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and the Patients Association.
I have a special interest in a way as I am the president of the Consumers' Association and the chairman of the College of Health and was the founding chairman of the National Consumer Council. I should mention the support that has also been expressed in forthright terms by the Royal College of Nursing. I greatly hope that, as the amendment is relatively uncontroversial and non-political, it will be accepted by the Government. In a few minutes we shall know.
We have just heard that the Government are a listening government, a statement made with justifiable pride, particularly if it is true. I hope that the Government or at least important parts of the Government are listening to what is said and that if they find it persuasive, as I hope they will, they will be able to accept the amendment in a few minutes' time.
I propose that the inspectorate bodies should be reorganised and strengthened—I am thinking of the Health Advisory Service, the Social Services Inspectorate, the Audit Commission and the Clinical Standards Advisory Board—because the consumers of Britain are worried (some of them are very worried) that the introduction of an internal market in the health service will lead or could lead to a fall in standards. There will be far more pressure to reduce costs. A legitimate fear is that in some cases quality of care will consequentially be reduced.
In this new market, consumers will not be protected against falling quality by competition; most of them will continue to attend the same GP and hospitals and use the same local services. They will not switch about or even necessarily be allowed to switch about in the search of higher quality. In some respects local monopolies may be entrenched by the Bill. That is where the district hospital, most obviously in a rural area, becomes a self-governing trust. In some ways it could be a law unto itself since the local district health authority and local patients will have nowhere else to go.
In those circumstances, an independent inspectorate, helping to lay down standards of quality and monitoring the extent to which they are observed, could give consumers some protection. As it becomes more well known and develops common working methods with community health councils and other bodies, the new inspectorate could give patients and their families greater confidence that a national effort was being made to maintain and improve standards. A tight monitoring system—perhaps the kernel of my argument—is a proper counterpart and counterweight to a tight monetary system.
The independent inspectorate would be concerned with standards. It may not have been quite so necessary if a proposal for a National Health Service supervisory board, which was contained in the 1983 Griffiths Report, had been acted upon. That supervisory board could have had general oversight of the NHS management board, so helping to maintain quality. Without the supervisory board, a high powered inspectorate becomes more important than ever.
So far I have been trying to describe, although only in the form of a sketch, the general case for the proposed inspectorate. I shall now say something with regard to the way in which such a new and comprehensive body, with teeth, could produce a streamlining of the existing monitoring body; that is, a reduction of bureaucracy. At the end of my remarks I should like to say how much there is to be learned from another great public service, Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. Existing monitoring bodies will not abolished; rather, they will brought together. I do not want to decry them. They have done good work. Their staff will be needed in the new, more integrated and more comprehensive service. However, their remits, one way or another, are either too limited or inappropriate. I should emphasise that I refer to existing governmental inspection bodies and not to the royal colleges and their inspections of hospitals. The noble Lord, Lord
1168
McColl—I am glad to see him in his place—spoke last week, I believe, against a proposal put forward from this side of the House when the subject of inspection and accreditation was first raised in Committee. I do not want to take issue in any way with what he said. Before he became a noble Lord he was a noble doctor and an admirable surgeon of great skill, as I am sure he still is. On one occasion at Guy's Hospital I feel that he saved my life; I hope that he does not now regret it. Perhaps I should therefore declare an interest in my own life, as it were. I am greatly indebted to him. Although he sits on the opposite side of the Chamber he certainly does not sit on the opposite side of my affections.
I hope the noble Lord will agree, not just because I am striking this personal note but because of the force of my argument, that, important though the work of the royal colleges is in inspecting the training regime of junior doctors and in other ways, they do not and cannot cover all the activities of the National Health Service—standards of management, value for money, studies in depth, nursing, private hospitals, GPs, community health services and so forth. I agree completely that they have an important job to do. That job will continue. I naturally hope that there will be fruitful co-operation between the royal colleges and the new inspectorate, the merits of which I hope the noble Lord will see.
The first government bodies I should mention are the health advisory service and the NHS drug advisory service, the latter's particular concern being the elderly, the mentally ill and problem drug users. There should be no great difficulty in fitting such work into that of the new inspectorate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock and other noble Lords have mentioned, the Bill proposes important new functions for the Audit Commission. Its name is to be changed from the Audit Commission for Local Government to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service. I do not feel quite as hopeful about the commission in its new role as other noble Lords who have spoken. In my mind it raises the question why a body which above all has been concerned with the important function of financial auditing, economy and effectiveness in local authorities, should necessarily be the main body to carry out the same functions in the whole vast apparatus of the National Health Service.
I was impressed when the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, drew my attention to something I had not noticed within the Bill, which shows how much more diligent he is in reading the small print. The noble Lord referred to Schedule 4 which says that the Audit Commission shall not be allowed to question the merits of policy. An inspectorate or monitoring body that is never allowed to question the merits of overall policy would be severely restricted in what it could say or do. I should like it to have a much more open brief. I am not convinced by what the Bill says on that point.
The new staff who have already been taken on in the Audit Commission to conduct value for money studies—I am sure that these can be very valuable—will be able to do so even more effectively as part of the new comprehensive service that I am

1169
proposing. That service will cover much wider issues with regard to quality than simply value for money studies, important though they are.
Another monitoring body is soon to be on the scene. We do not yet know much about it. The Secretary of State agreed to set it up when he was besieged recently by royal college representatives. That body is the Clinical Standards Advisory Board. It does not yet appear in the Bill. The new board will be concerned with standards in NHS hospitals, self-governing hospitals and the private sector. Its work will fall fairly and squarely within the sphere of the proposed inspectorate.
Lastly, there is the Social Services Inspectorate formed in 1986 out of the former Social Works Service. As far as I know it is an excellent body, but the new functions it will perform as a result of the community care sections of the Bill, if they are passed—I expect that most or all of them will be—could properly be discharged by the new Her Majesty's Inspectorate. With regard to community care—an issue which will certainly arise when we reach the relevant part of the Bill—the new inspectorate should be able to relieve local authorities placed in the embarrassing and invidious position by the Bill of being both inspectors and administrators of their own homes and institutions.
To conclude—I say this for the benefit of any noble Lord who, despite the persuasive effect of my argument, hopes that my remarks will soon end—I hope that the Chamber will allow me to say something with regard to the educational HMIs who are the main model for the proposed new service. The inspectors are one of the ornaments of public service in this country and enjoy a world wide reputation for their professionalism and public spirit. I have had occasion over the past 25 years or so to become aware of the high regard in which they are held in many countries. I believe that some of their characteristics could well be incorporated with advantage into the new health inspectorate. I am glad that my noble friend Lady David is present because she knows a great deal more even than I do—if I may put it that way—about HMIs and might like to say a word about it if there is time.
The first characteristic is that the education inspectors are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen; as would the health inspectors. This would help to give them the standing that they will need to maintain their independence and to give them respect. Their regular reports to Parliament would, because of that, be important annual events in the story of the health service.
The second characteristic of Her Majesty's inspectors is that their remit includes the private sector as well as maintained schools. They inspect Eton as well as the comprehensive schools of Lambeth—and so it should be in the health service; the private hospitals and the like, not Eton!
The third characteristic is that the professional independence and judgment of HMIs is essential, and will be essential in the new service. The fourth characteristic is that HMIs have regional and local offices and work closely with the advisers and inspectors in local authorities. The fifth is that the
1170
Secretary of State for Education and Science regards the inspectorate's work as indispensible in the process of making educational policy; and so, I believe, it should be in future in the health field.
The sixth characteristic is that Her Majesty's Inspectorate constitutes a career service which draws into itself some of the best and most experienced teachers and educational administrators in the country. They can influence the quality of education because of their own quality as people and their own experience. In just the same way, an inspectorate of health would need, and I believe should be able, to attract into its service experienced clinicians, nurses and managers from the NHS and give them a sense of real mission.
Finally, the overall purpose of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's work is to achieve an educational system more actively concerned with the quality of its work and more cost conscious. A very important part of the inspectorate's work is to spread good practice, and so it should be with the inspectorate for the health service.
In accepting this amendment I believe that the Committee would be establishing a new arm of the health service—Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Health—which would eventually have the same respect and high standing that Her Majesty's Inspectorate already enjoys in the other of the two greatest public services that this country possesses. Health and education would then be on all fours with each other and, across departmental boundaries that governments are never too adept at marching across, we would be able to learn in one great department of state the experience of about 100 years in another great department of state.
I hope that the Committee will be tolerant enough and will accept the case enough to put to our lords and masters and our ladies and masters that here there is a proposal that should be considered and taken very seriously indeed. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: I support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Young, began by reminding us that we have been told that we have a listening government. That being the case, the less I give them to listen to the better. We have had so many explanations as to what the last group of amendments meant that by the end none of us knew what it meant at all. Frankly, I doubt whether the Minister did, and so I do not wish to complicate this issue because I believe in it very much.
I begin where the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, finished; that is, with Her Majesty's Inspectorate in regard to schools, a body with which I have had some connection since I was a small boy. One of my uncles was an inspector. Whenever he was spreading terror throughout the schools of Manchester he would be staying at our house. I was conscious of the extent to which HMIs were respected and regarded as being entirely independent. As a schoolboy, I could see what happened. Once it was rumoured that HMIs were on the way the whole place was cleaned up, altered and polished.
The inspectorate has immense influence. Why is that? It is because it is independent; and it is

1171
independent because it does not belong to the Department of Education and Science. The inspectorate belongs to the Queen. It is Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I seem to recollect that way back when the educational inspectorate was originally founded there was no Department of Education and Science; it was the Board of Education.
I hope that if we have an inspectorate of this kind it becomes Her Majesty's Inspectorate and is not part of the department. If it once becomes part of the department its usefulness would largely be dissipated; and that was spelt out in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Young. We know about the various advisory bodies and we know how much notice is taken of their advice—sometimes a geat deal, but often not so much. We all know the respect and care with which we look at HMI reports on education and schools. Ministers consider them very carefully. They accept that it is a body that is entirely independent, and that is what we need here.
I was delighted to read the brief that came from the College of Health explaining the details of this amendment. I was also delighted to see that among the vice-presidents of the College of Health is the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Perhaps at the end of the day we will find that he supports the amendment. The introduction of this amendment would be of immense benefit to patients. If I have any criticism at all it is with the wording. It should perhaps state:
"There shall be established a body known as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Health and Community Care".
I know it may be said that that is implicit but I believe that it would be helpful if it were to be spelt out. I support the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I briefly, but wholeheartedly, support the amendment. The major arguments for it have been put admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, and amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. All I wish to do is emphasise the importance of the amendment, both in principle and in practice.
The fundamental rationale for the proposed inspectorate is the principle of quality control to which I imagine my noble friends in the Government are deeply committed. However, I emphasise the importance in the provision of services for the people who are inherently vulnerable and in situations where they are least able to acquire or evaluate the adequacy of standards of care, or to complain about poor quality of service. It is this characteristic of vulnerability which is so important in considering the concept of an inspectorate. It applies to all who are on the receiving end of services; not only patients and clients who are ill, injured or infirm but also to their families. I highlight that aspect for one moment.
There are, of course, many reasons for this vulnerability. Patients and clients are often not in a sufficiently robust state, psychologically or physically, to assert themselves. I follow the precedent of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, with a brief personal reminiscence. Many years ago I had to spend six months in hospital. I will always be grateful for the high standards of care I received from medical, nursing and ward staff.
1172
Of course, over a long and serious illness there were bound to be some times when one was anxious and there were causes for concern. There was one occasion when I had to have a major investigation under general anaesthetic. Unfortunately, the surgeon undertook the investigation on the wrong kidney. Luckily it was not a nephrectomy. When I reappeared in the theatre for my second general anaesthetic I did not receive an apology but just a rather tart rebuke that the surgeon was not there for fun. I was feeling far to weak at that time to retort that neither was I.
The point of that personal anecdote is not that it relates directly to the broad concept of an inspectorate but that it highlights the enormous importance of an inspectorate where there are patients who are vulnerable and not necessarily in a position to express their fears, concerns, and anxieties. In my own experience of nursing I have seen many cases where patients are frightened, where there are causes for complaint and where they have not felt they are in a position to raise their concerns or even to think about asserting themselves and complaining.
Similarly, relatives are also often frightened by the predicament of the person whom they love. They too do not feel in a position to be assertive. Moreover, lay people are often daunted by the formality of organisations such as hospitals or by the demeanour of professional staff. There is the inherent impossibility of lay people having sufficient professional knowledge to judge the quality of care being provided for them, especially in aspects of technical and professional competence.
Like noble Lords who have already spoken, I wholeheartedly support the comprehensive nature of this amendment, covering as it does both hospital and community care, and the full range of statutory, private and voluntary sectors. There is going to be an especially urgent need for the monitoring of quality, given the massive changes in arrangements for community care. There is the need to ensure continuity of care and for adequate provisions for both health and social needs for the vastly increasing numbers of people who will require care in the community in the years ahead.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not say that such a mechanism for quality assurance is not necesary or that it is bureaucratic. I believe that the case for some form of inspectorate is incontrovertible. Noble Lords who have spoken before have highlighted the precedent in Her Majesty's Inspectorate for education. I wish to point to the very valuable function that that inspectorate has performed in highlighting examples of both good and bad practice. It is an extremely valuable form of accountability and monitoring.
I believe that the establishment of such an inspectorate would reassure everyone, including the professionals and other staff who work in the health and community care services, the public who ultimately pay for these services; but, most important of all, it would go a long way towards protecting those who have to rely on them. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I wish to add a few words from this Bench in total support of the amendment and the admirable presentation made by my noble friend. At one stage my name was among the sponsors of this amendment. I withdrew it in order that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, could add her name to the proposal. I am very glad that I did so because she has made her comments with all her authority.
A case could be made out for an inspectorate without this Bill. Looking back over my own experience in the National Health Service, I would have felt more confidence in our standards if we had had something like HMIs within the health service. I feel strongly that the nature of this Bill and the changes that are being made greatly increase the argument for an inspectorate. The health authorities are being given a pretty free rein in quality standards and systems of monitoring that they write into their contracts. Some hospitals will become NHS trusts. It is important that there should be a body which looks at those as well as hospitals which will continue to be managed by the health authorities.
There will be new GP practices with their own budgets. It is important that the standard of care that they provide should be independently monitored. The essence of the matter is that the inspectorate must be independent. This amendment may well prove to be one of the most important to the Bill. It also gives me the opportunity of asking the Minister to say what is the present situation of the proposed clinical standards advisory group. I am sure that it was an initiative that was intended to move in this direction.
I understand that when the president of the royal colleges met the Secretary of State who was asked how many hospitals might be visited by the new advisory group, he said that it would be perhaps 10 a year. If that was a correct answer it was totally inadequate. The inspectorate may have a separate role to play but it should be established. It will have a relationship with the health advisory service, if it continues, with the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate. I give my total support from these Benches to my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: Members of the Committee may recall hat when we last discussed this topic I moved an amendment concerning the accreditation of hospitals. I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I believe that many people considered that to be a much weaker amendment than the one which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, is now proposing.
We did not get very much joy in that debate. At that time I was not in favour of any measure as draconian as the present one. On that occasion the Government's response certainly moved me towards the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said. On that earlier occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, when referring to the National Advisory Committee on Standards:
"We have made clear that the possibility of a statutory base for such a group will be carefully considered in the course of those
1174
discussions. Furthermore, discussions will focus on the powers of the body".—[Official Report, 24/4/90; col. 533.)
It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness can tell us what stage those discussions have reached and whether there is any intention to embody anything in statute as a result of that initiative. That will help us in the way forward.
There is a considerable weakness in relying entirely, as the Government appear to be doing, on the contracts for the assurance of quality. I have picked up today a document called Developing Districts. It is one of the working papers which stems from Working for Patients. In this connection I ask the noble Baroness to ensure that in future the department does not make press releases before a document is available to Parliament. This document was reviewed in the Independent on Monday of this week, 1st May, but it was not available in your Lordships's House until today. There was one copy in the Library and a batch came in today. I had to ask for it. It is nothing to do with the PPO. Perhaps the noble Baroness will look into that matter. It is improper that we should read comments in the press about departmental publications which are not available in Parliament itself.
Having said that, there is a section in the document headed "Quality and Views of Users". It is quite clear in the document that contracts are envisaged by the Government as the main means of quality control. The difficulty of confining quality control to contracts is embodied in 2.11(d) which states:
"To use contracts in this way DHAs need to: (d) ensure that each provider sets local targets, acceptable to the DHA for improving quality whether for services generally or for one particular element".
That sounds fine. However, the problem is that the DHA then becomes the sole arbiter of quality and it may face a conflict of interest between shopping around for the lowest price and buying as cheaply as it can besides maintaining standards. The DHA is not the appropriate body to exercise quality control. If it is in financially difficult circumstances, the DHA may find itself with a conflict of interest.
We have explored accreditation and the idea put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in the last debate for an advisory body besides the new clause which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, has proposed. All these suggestions are extremely relevant. It will be very difficult for us to make up our minds which provision we prefer and which way we should proceed until we hear from the Government what they are planning to do. We need to know whether they are planning any statutory provision on quality control in the Bill.
Lord Carr of Hadley: If I am honest, I am not sure whether I do or do not support this amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who has just spoken, I observe several ideas in the arena but I am not sure which is the right one or whether any of them is right in its present form. We have the accreditation idea, the HMI idea and we also have the initiative between the Secretary of State and the royal colleges. We are to have more. I am not yet sure what the right answer is. However, I feel sure that there is a great need to assure the public at large—that is, all patients of the health service both

1175
actual and potential—and all those who work in the health service at every level that the maintenance of quality is the top priority.
On the whole, over the past few decades, whether we look at industry or anything else, we have not carried the conviction of the country; but we put quality at the top of the list. We must do so in this service, of all services, for the most obvious reason. When we talk about major changes I am quite sure that it is natural for people to have fears. People fear change in any event, and in an intimate and fundamental matter such as this—whether it is those who work in the service and deliver it at a professional or lower level, or whether it is those who will receive the service—people will have fears as to whether such a change may mean some reduction in quality. I am sure that the proposals about which we are talking need not give rise to such fears, but we should not be surprised if they exist. They need to be set at rest. It is almost a case of meeting a psychological need, but I believe it to be important.
There is a more real need we must face which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. We are undoubtedly putting a downward pressure on costs. That is something we ought to be doing. Indeed, it is immensely important that we should do so if we are to produce the maximum volume of health care from whatever resources are available in any particular year. As I said, there must be a strong downward pressure on costs. We are suffering at present because there has not been a sufficiently strong or effective and sophisticated downward pressure on costs since the health service began.
When you put a downward pressure on costs, whatever the service or provision of goods concerned, you run risks—or you may do so. The bigger the downward pressure on costs the more important it is to have a very strong quality assurance control. Therefore, I believe that this assurance is important for psychological reasons but it is also important for concrete reasons. I beg my noble friends on the Front Bench and the Secretary of State to come forward with a convincing, credible system of quality control. It is very important both psychologically and in reality to put the establishment and maintenance of quality health care at the top of the list.
I am not yet ready to make up my mind as to which is the right system. I hope that my unwillingness at present to back one system or the other does not lead my noble friends on the Front Bench to think that they can get away with not doing anything substantial to reassure everyone in the country about the matter.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I should like briefly to express my wholehearted support for the amendment. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carr, that it is possible there may be a better way of achieving the same highly desirable result. I hope that the Government will not tell us that we do not need anything of the kind because market forces inside
1176
the service will ensure that if good quality is not offered patients will not go there.
We should remember that buying health care is not like buying fish. If the fishmonger serves you with bad fish one week you will go elsewhere the next week. We are not in the market for health care, except in very exceptional circumstances. We do not learn what the market is like until we are practically dead—or quite dead in some cases. Therefore, the analogy with the market can only be pushed a very short way. I hope that that argument will not be produced as a reason why we do not need such an independent body.
The second argument which I hope will not be presented is that the DHS will carry out this function. The department is the parent of the scheme. It is deeply involved in it and is committed to it. I do not believe that anyone who is the parent and guardian of a scheme initially is also the best person to inspect its quality. Of course the department should carry out its own quality inspection; but we also need another body which is independent of the DHS.
We cannot have a better example of such an independent body than HMIs for the schools. Their strength over a century of history—if my memory serves me correctly—is that they are Her Majesty's inspectors and are completely independent of the department. No one who has had anything to do with schools will deny the contribution that HMIs have made over the years. One still reads their reports which go back over decades to find out what has gone on in the schools. But one cannot deny the contribution that these independent inspectors have made to the development of education. If the health service is to be reformed in this way, we need precisely the same kind of independent watchdogs; that is, knowledgeable, professional, skilled and, above all, independent people.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: It is vital that the quality of health and community care, however it is provided, should be of an acceptable standard. There is so much emphasis in this Bill on the marketing of services without any safeguards as to the standards. Can the Government truthfully say that no doctor or health district will buy services because they are the cheapest, even though they are below standard? The Royal College of Medicine, the Royal College of Surgeons and the nursing colleges know what a good and reasonable standard should be. I hope that they will help in providing standards for the inspectorate. All units ought to aim for excellence, but, to be realistic, all do not reach excellence. However, we need a good standard.
I am pleased to see that the private sector is included in the amendment. It is of concern that there is no body like a community health council or an inspectorate for the private sector. I feel that some private patients do not always get a good buy. In my view, some of them are being ripped off. Some Members of the Committee may remember that I took the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill through this Chamber. That horrible operation is now outlawed, but I wonder whether any such operations are still carried out behind the closed doors of a private hospital.

1177
I feel that the inspectorate could help in so many ways. When there is to be so much buying and selling of services, we must have a body which will ensure that a balance of interests is kept so that consumers do not suffer. If the Government were to accept the amendment, many people would feel happier about the Bill and those of us in this Chamber who are interested in such matters would feel that we had improved the legislation.
Lord Butterfield: I wish to make a few remarks mainly because I feel that there are many people who are busy doing exactly what Members of the Committee have been referring to. I should not like the record of this debate to pass by without some tribute being paid to the work of such people. I shall begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, that my favourite schoolmaster became an HMI inspector. I should put my hand in the fire to defend that man's assessment of anything to do with a school or education. Indeed, I should be happy for him to move on to hospitals. In my view, if the likes of him could be recruited in the professions—that is, medical, nursing, laboratory technicians and so on, and also the catering side—I should be most happy if they were welded together.
I realise that the noble Baroness and the Secretary of State have something of a problem. I shall try to explain my concern. The examiners in medicine, surgery, obstetrics—that is, the whole gamut of exams for medical students—the examiners on the nursing side, the midwifery examiners and the laboratory technician examiners are all going in and out of our hospitals and keeping a pretty close eye on the standards. That is why, if you have a test of some kind carried out in Darlington, in Dartington or in Stetchford, where I come from, the answer will be the same whichever laboratory is used because the internal standards are the same.
There is a great deal of similarity because it is a national health service with regard to the quality of a large; proportion of the services that it provides. That is not to deny what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, pointed out: that some people are frightened of complaining in hospital. The great sadness I feel is that the matron no longer walks around the hospital every day to hear those complaints, but that may be something that the inspectorate could encourage.
I speak now as someone who has been on a regional health authority in East Anglia and Trent and on the area health authority for Cambridgeshire. One of our problems was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. There is often a warning that the inspector is coming. It would be indicated that during the following year someone might visit, but in the event the member of the authority would just appear and make his or her observations. I shall not go into too much detail, but I am aware that there were members of the authority who joined the out-patients and who were appalled by how long they had to sit before anyone found out that they were there merely as a regional health authority visitor. That makes the mind boggle.
I am anxious to read into the record that we give credit to all those people who since the service began
1178
have been going in and out of hospitals and other parts of the health service to maintain the standards. One could and should pay great tribute to the many people who have served on community health councils. We have heard little about them in our discussions. I should like to record how much good work they and many of the organisations that they represent have been able to do. I am sure that the Government are well aware of that fact. That is the careful integration that the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Young, will require. I agree that if the proposal could be explored and woven together it could be a great jewel in the crown of this reorganisation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned community care. Having listened to the regional health people in East Anglia who have made visits, and having looked at the complaint books, my hunch is that the institutions, having been visited by so many people, are tidy. I worry about how this wonderful idea can be brought to bear on the community care service. I do not want to trespass too deeply into that subject. I have been interested in the care of the elderly. There is a great deal of good inspectorate-type work that people like my old schoolmaster—if I may complete the circle—a much revered man of wonderful judgment and superb courage, who was willing to open any door to see what was going on inside, could do. It would be a fruitful field and I support the idea, although I see that the job will be complicated.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know enough to know whether this general idea is applicable in practice to the health service, although I know how the education inspectorate works in Scotland. That example prompts me to ask the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, whether he or other noble Lords envisage the inspectorate publishing reports for the public to read. If it does, and if an inspector is critical of a nursing home, a hospital, or some aspect of general practice, would the professionals be happy to have their methods criticised? I am sure that they would not mind professionally, but would such criticism affect their relationship with their patients? Would nurses in a hospital feel that strong criticism of their methods of working would affect their work? I wonder whether the model is correct.
Lord Young of Dartington: Perhaps the noble Baroness would allow me to answer her. As I understand it, since 1982 when the practice was changed on the directions of the Secretary of State, HMI reports are made available to the public. HMIs have had to develop the skills of tact and diplomacy. They are aware that if they cite individual teachers and other people unfavourably it will not necessarily have a good effect. In most of the reports that I have seen, they manage by and large to make it clear that some things are not right in a school, college or whatever it may be; but they almost always refrain from pinning the blame on individuals. The people inside who receive the report know much more about what is written between the lines than the people who read it on the outside. If there are parents—in that case—or other people who are interested they

1179
can also do a certain amount of reading between the lines, although they never do so in the spirit of wanting to find victims or scapegoats inside a school.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understand what the noble Lord says. I understand how the HMI operates in schools. The same thing happens with community education in Scotland. A report on a small school or community centre reflects directly on the individuals—although the noble Lord is right, the matter is put forward tactfully. Parents are interested to know whether their children might be better taught and are keen that they should be; but to be told that one might die if one went to hospital because it is badly run is different.
Baroness Seear: Is it more important that you should not die than that you should not be badly taught?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: A report on one's local cottage hospital, for example, which suggests that it is not well managed and that this and that might happen would have a different effect, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, than to be told that there could be improvements in the way one's child is taught. I am merely expressing a thought. I do not believe that the two things are the same. I have no idea what my noble friend the Minister will say in answer to those questions.
Baroness Cox: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may reassure her by answering her question as to how professional people, especially nurses, might feel about that concept. The whole concept of the inspectorate has the full support of the Royal College of Nursing which is keen for professional accountability to be in the public domain.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I have listened to the debate and I am encouraged by the narrowness of the gap that divides the Government's views from what has been said during the debate. The nature of the gap relates to how public accountability and quality assurance are achieved. That is the issue. The issue is not that there should not be some monitoring of the quality of service.
The amendment aims to improve the quality of treatment that patients receive in the NHS and from the community care services. I am glad to be able to agree unreservedly with the noble Lords, Lord Young of Dartington, Lord Perry of Walton, Lord Winstanley, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lady Cox about the importance that attaches to quality. I hope to convince them that our reforms, together with the Secretary of State's existing powers, will guarantee standards of care in the NHS and community care services and help to improve them further.
I shall turn to one or two points that have been mentioned during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked why no action had been taken on the NHS supervisory board. The supervisory board was established in 1984, after the first Griffiths Report. However, the National Health
1180
Service policy board chaired by the Secretary of State has now taken over the functions of the supervisory board.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, also referred to the internal market possibly leading to a fall in standards. Again the Government believe that the effect will be precisely the opposite. District health authorities will have every incentive to put quality first when placing contracts, and likewise GPs will also have a greater incentive because patients have greater freedom to choose.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, went on to make generous comments about the role of the social services inspectorate. I am happy to agree with him, and join him in his tribute to the work of that inspectorate. However, its role is rightly confined to local government social services and there is no reason to expand their role to cover health. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the clinical standards advisory group making only 10 visits a year. I think that was what he said. The number of visits of any such group is a matter for discussion with the royal colleges as part of the present series of meetings. That discussion will continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to the publication Developing Districts, its timing and the placing of copies in the Library. He acknowledged that copies were available in the library on the day of publication. Nevertheless clearly sufficient copies were not available and I apologise to him unreservedly for that. I shall note his comments and make sure that more copies of any future publication are available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to quality control in the private sector. Perhaps I may assure her that private hospitals are already controlled through the registration system which is enshrined in the Registration of Homes Act 1984.
Our commitment to quality lies at the heart of our reform proposals. The reforms will give greater choice to patients, and greater freedom to local health authorities to find solutions to local needs. Districts will consider the specific health care needs of their resident population and arrange for the provision of services which best meet them. GPs, who are best placed to know patients' needs and preferences, will be closely involved in the process. National Health Service contracts will be awarded to those providers of services who offer the most effective and highest quality services. I believe that they will offer a more effective means of improving standards on the ground than infrequent visits from a rather remote national body.
High standards of quality depend on accurate means of measuring quality and monitoring its provision. In this, we will be building on valuable initiatives already under way in the health service to make the consumers' interest more central to the management and delivery of health care. For instance, all regions now include quality goals in their annual statements of objectives, against which progress can be assessed. Quality standards will be clearly set out in National Health Service contracts, and districts will monitor services to see that those standards are attained. The National Health Service management executive's recently issued guidance,

1181
Operating Contracts, provides valuable advice on how quality measures can be built into contracts. We expect districts to develop their own increasingly detailed measures in the light of experience.
Clinical audit is another key element of our drive to maximise quality of care. This is an area where the medical profession is in the lead, supported by the department in developing arrangements which will be effective throughout the National Health Service.
A commitment to improved quality also runs through our community care proposals. By freeing the funding and mangement systems we will allow innovation to flourish and encourage local authorities to take the lead in arranging services that best meet local needs. When we turn to the community care clauses, I am sure that there will be opportunities to discuss at some length the new arm's length inspection units which we are encouraging all local authorities to create to oversee their own services and those provided under contract to them.
Specific reference was made to this issue and the Government have emphasised that all local authorities should set up arm's length inspection units divorced—and this is important—from their service provision. I believe that this will protect against any conflict of interest, together with all the other means of monitoring performance.
I believe that local enthusiasm, not central prescription, is the best means of guaranteeing and improving quality. But I can understand the views of those who consider that, at a time of change, we need to monitor the effect of our proposals on the standards of care patients receive. As my noble friend mentioned during our debate on Clauses 3 and 4 in the second session of the Committee, the Secretary of State has recently announced proposals to establish a clinical standards advisory group to advise him on standards of clinical care for National Health Service patients, whether in a directly-managed unit, and NHS trust, or in the independent sector. I can assure all noble Lords that constructive discussions are continuing with interested parties on how best to secure this. It may just be precipitate to make a definitive decision at this stage until those discussions are complete. I know that this was a concern of many Members of the Committee.
I do not believe that health and the local authorities' role in securing quality can or need be undertaken at national level. The National Health Service management and the Government in discharging this duty are far from convinced that an additional, expensive body would significantly assist in this work.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr, said that he was not so concerned about a specific resolution of the problem. He suggested that we need to be absolutely certain that there is public accountability of quality assurance for the health service and community care services. I promise the Committee that we see the need for such accountability. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also hinted at other ways of achieving the objective, but I wish to continue to emphasise that the objective is well shared by the Government.
1182
There may be points that I have missed on account of time and I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I have done so. No doubt I shall be reminded of them by noble Lords and I shall write to them.
A major point raised was the comparison between the National Health Service and schools. I believe it is right that the schools comparison is one that I understand. I appreciate many of the points made about the comparison between schools and the health service. However, the HMI for schools functions in areas where direct responsibility does not rest with Ministers, as it does with the health service. I believe that health authorities have a crucial role to play in guaranteeing the quality of services provided to their residents and I am sure that they will carry this out effectively. Moreover, the proposed inspectorate of health would cut across the work of the social services inspectorate, and may even cut across the work of many other organisations which have been mentioned in the course of the debate.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Young, undercuts his own arguments by illustrating the number of bodies which he mentioned specifically and which are already working in the field of quality assurance. I do not see that bringing all these agencies together in a single, monolithic body will necessarily be the most appropriate way forward.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to an important point—the professional associations for all the different disciplines working within the health service where monitoring and overseeing of standards take place. We do not have that in the school sector; that is another comparison with it. There has been much debate about whether the school sector should have a special body doing that work. However they exist in the health service.
Our reforms are aimed to create a health service that works for patients. Our package of reforms will create the right conditions for further improvements in standards of care for National Health Service patients. However, I emphasise that while sharing those objectives I do not believe that, for the reasons I have given, the establishment of a single inspectorate is the most appropriate way forward. We shall read everything said during the course of the debate; I shall report back and take account of it. I believe that it is about the means to an end rather than an argument about objectives. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Lord, Lord Young, replies to the debate can the noble Baroness clear up one point? As I have already pointed out, on 24th April, at col. 533 of Hansard, her noble friend Lady Hooper, talking about a possible advisory body on standards, said:
"the possibility for a statutory base for such a group will be carefully considered".
Is that still in the Government's mind?
Baroness Blatch: I referred to that point specifically. However, perhaps I did not mention the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in doing so. That is

1183
an on-going debate with the relevant people. Again, it concerns the issue of monitoring and quality assurance. Whether or not that should be undertaken by a single body will emerge from the discussions.
Lord Ennals: The noble Baroness has dealt very effectively with the argument that we need to monitor standards, "we" being the department, regional and district health authorities and the professionals. She did not really apply herself to the thought that perhaps an independent body needs to monitor "our" standards.
Baroness Blatch: I addressed myself at length to the issue of monitoring standards. I still believe that the debate centres on how that should be achieved. I also mentioned that some bodies will be as indpendent as possible from the National Health Service. One hopes that the professional institutions operate at more than arm's length from the accountability and managerial responsibilities of the National Health Service.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Before the noble Lord advises the Committee what he wishes to do about his amendment, and I hope that he will not press it to a Division at this stage of the Bill, I must say to my noble friend that I cannot be wholly satisfied with the way in which she replied to the debate. Of course I accept, and I hope that all noble Lords accept, that the intention of the Government is to put quality at the top of the list. I do not doubt that for one moment. However, I have a feeling in my bones that in a matter as vital as health care there needs to be a genuinely independent element in the supervision of the service.
I do not in any way want to belittle the tremendous work which is done by the professional bodies and the royal colleges. However, the overall quality of an institution is different from the sum total of its individual parts. The standard of the surgeons, doctors, nurses and other specialties may be very high; nevertheless, certain institutions do not achieve the highest quality even though their individual parts are good enough to do so. Therefore, someone needs to take a dispassionate overall view.
With respect to my noble friend, I do not feel that she quite took the point about the effect of downward pressure on costs. She seemed to suggest that that would be one of the overriding tests of the new role of the district health authorities. I find that difficult to accept, not as the intention but because the district health authorities represent one of the major areas in which the downward pressure on costs will occur.
The Secretary of State has said that if he has on those authorities representatives of both acquirers and providers there will be a clash of interest. The district health authority has a very clear interest of its own in obtaining its service at the lowest possible cost. I am not sure why there is not seen to be a potential conflict of interest between obtaining the service at the lowest possible cost and also achieving the highest quality.
I agree that competition and market forces in the long run press towards better services and better quality for consumers. However, the way in which
1184
the market operates tends to produce aberrations and departures from the long-term trend. The long-term trend may be genuinely healthy but in any short-term period there are downward pressures on costs which produce a tendency to skimping on quality. I therefore beg the Government to take the matter seriously.
If the Government look outside the National Health Service to the commercial world, although I know that some people are afraid of bringing too many aspects of the commercial world into consideration of the health service, they will find that what I say is true. I do not believe that it applies only to the commercial world. It is natural that sometimes, possibly inadvertently, when organisations are struggling to achieve maximum quality from a limited quantity of resources, this leads to the cutting of corners on quality in the short term.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that the Government need to think more deeply before Report stage about the fundamentals involved in the subject. I believe that some fundamentals have not yet been fully considered. If they have been considered, that has not yet been made apparent to us. I believe that before the Bill leaves this Chamber it will be necessary for those fundamentals to be disclosed much more deeply than has yet been the case.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may make two brief comments in response. First, there will be an incentive for the district health authorities to obtain the best value for money. I know that that causes concern, but the two factors that will have to be taken into account are the quality of services and the cost effectiveness of those services.
Secondly, the most important point that I wish to make is that discussions on the establishment of an independent group, or a group which can make an independent judgment of quality, are continuing. Until we have heard a view from those involved in those discussions I believe that the amendment is premature.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Young for his kind remarks about me. I should also like to say what a splendid patient he was. He taught us how difficult consumerism is in the medical sphere. If one is nice to the patients they will never say anything that could possibly be construed as criticism of doctors, nurses, or even administrators.
It was interesting that after my noble friend's stay with us at Guy's as a patient he formed the College of Health. I shall never forget that he wrote to one of the national newspapers saying that it was while he was recovering from treatment at Guy's that he realised that there was a great need for a consumers' organisation for patients. However, he did not mean it in that way. He taught us how difficult the subject of consumerism is.
All the discussions in the last half hour have emphasised that there is an enormous amount of work taking place in terms of quality assurance,

1185
collection of data, and measuring the quality of care. The problem is getting anything done about it at the coal face. Some hospitals have been collecting data for years about when the consultant arrives for his clinic. Some consultants routinely arrive rather later then they should, but no one has been able to do much about it. That is the basic problem.
I suggest that the Bill before us gives us the means to achieve action at the coal face and to make people working in the health service realise that if they do not give a high quality service to patients they are slightly more at risk than they were before. Human nature being what it is, that kind of incentive will encourage them to give a very much better service. After all, the cheapest service is often the best service because courtesy and kindness cost nothing. The discipline imposed on us by the Bill will compel us to sit down and work out the best way of using that sum of money for those patients. Lord Rutherford said many years ago that economies and shortage of money concentrate the mind wonderfully in using the money in the best possible way—in his case in research but in our case by providing a good service for the patients.
Lord Young of Dartington: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I should also like to thank the Minister for the reply that she has given, although I did not find it as convincing as I had hoped.
I should like to mention one or two of the contributions which I found particularly impressive. I shall start with what the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, said at the end of his speech because it is most vivid in my memory. He said that courtesy and kindness cost nothing. In a sense, they do not. Certainly, when I was in his care I saw courtesy and kindness of a most remarkable quality applied not only to me but to all the other patients in the ward. To some extent, the radiance of what went on there extended to other parts of the hospital.
One finds courtesy and kindness in deplorable conditions such as one sees as one goes round the health service. Sometimes there has been penny-pinching which makes it difficult for people not to lose their temper. It has nothing to do with the patient but is a result of the conditions and the pressure which the management imposes on the clinicians. Again, that is not necessarily due to the management but to the shortage of resources. It shows that, although saintly people can be courteous and kind in the most impossible conditions, ordinary mortals, like most of us here in the Committee, find in easier when the circumstances around us are reasonably favourable and we are treated with courtesy and kindness by our lords and masters.
Consumerism is certainly difficult to bring off and has not been brought off as an important force in the health service. I am the first to admit that, but at least I believe that the objective is right and the pressure is right. Once patients become more demanding and take their courage in their hands and talk on as equal terms as possible to doctors and nurses, that will have a tonic effect and will perhaps help us more than anything else to raise the standards
1186
of the service. I agree that we have not got there yet, but we should try to keep on the road.
I was impressed by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. I apologise if I gave the impression of not giving credit to all the people in the health service who have done marvellously over the years to maintain and, in the light of scientific inquiry and other experience, to raise standards. I did not mean to say that at all. It is only because things are so good and because there are such remarkable people who have inherited both a medical and a scientific tradition, which perhaps constitutes the greatest ornament of Western civilisation, and because those people will not be much affected one way or another by the Bill, that we feel we are generally in good hands. However, they need more support. The public need much more assurance that things are on the right lines than I believe they often have at the moment.
I want to refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, because I was particularly impressed by them. He made an excellent point when he said that not only is there downward pressure on cost but there must be downward pressure on cost. It is impossible for all the money which must be spent, as it were, to be spent, although there has been too much penny-pinching and there is a need for expansion. However, even if there is expansion in public expenditure on our health service there will still be a need for downward pressure on cost. We cannot afford any unnecessary waste. I accept that point.
I also accept what the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said about the consequential need for the monitoring which the inspectorate would help us to perform. I believe that, if not from the bottom of my heart, then from not too far off the bottom of my heart. The National Health Service has had a terrible buffeting in the past few years and the confidence of many millions of patients and their families has been to some extent undermined. The National Health Service reform Bill, whatever its merits, has been introduced with more aggravation, more criticism and, I fear, in some quarters with more bad feeling than I remember attending any major reform of the health service. Even what happened in 1948 does not stand comparison with this.
Whatever comes out of the Bill and out of our political situation in the next two years or so, there is an urgent need to restore the confidence of ordinary people in the quality of the health service at all levels. Perhaps the doctors and nurses are on the front line. They need support if people's confidence is to be fully regained. That is necessary because, among other things, confidence, not just in individual doctors and nurses but in the whole system, is one of the necessary ingredients for good health. It will help people to get better and it will put more stamina into people who otherwise might go under, so it is extremely important.
An inspectorate is not the full answer by any means, but it could do something. It is important to help to restore public confidence. If it was handled right and backed by the Secretary of State and the Government, it could do a great deal for people in community health councils and consumer groups

1187
and ordinary people throughout the country to know that those people with a measure of independence were on their side with the knowledge that ordinary laymen do not have behind them and were doing their best to maintain standards and to keep an eye on bad practice when there is bad practice. In a few years' time, once it has shown its mettle, many doctors, nurses and other people would be grateful to it for the feeling of support that it gave them. It would not just be a buffer between the clinicians and members of the public. It would be a positive support for them.
I have been asked what I intend to do. We should show that the feeling of the Committee—it has been expressed on nearly all sides of the Chamber—is that we are not satisfied with the answer that we have received. Nor are we satisfied when all the proposals on accreditation and the like have been turned down at different stages in the Committee. We believe that the issue should be reconsidered in the light of setting up the clinical advisory board, but it should go wider than that. There is no special importance attached to the words that I have used. I should like to see the Government come back at a later stage of the Bill, having reconsidered the matter and the feeling in the Committee and having produced a proposal that would carry more conviction and support than the one before us.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carr, that I believe that the way in which that could best be done is by showing that we are not satisfied by and large with how this matter has been handled so far and, in the Division, voting for the amendment, knowing however that the amendment itself will not figure exactly as it is in the Bill. We should make our feelings known not only to Members on the Front Bench but to those behind them and those who might consider that there is something still to be done and a gap to be filled that could be filled by what I might call noble action which could happen in the next few weeks.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 107) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 64.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fitt, L.

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bancroft, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Brightman, L.

Holderness, L.

Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jay, L.

David, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ennals, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Listowel, E.

Falkender, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Seear, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Serota, B.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Shackleton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Smith, L.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Underhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

White, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Porritt, L.

Young of Dartington, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Rochester, L.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hooper, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aldington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Bauer, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Norrie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Orkney, E.

Caithness, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Reay, L.

Carnock, L.

Renton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Rochdale, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Colwyn, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Seebohm, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Downshire, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elles, B.

Ferrers, E.

Sudeley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hemphill, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

6.38 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 107ZA:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Occupational Health for NHS Employees
—(1) In addition to carrying out its primary functions, a District Health Authority shall draw up a plan detailing an occupational health policy for NHS staff working within the district.
(2) The plan may include directions on—

(a) comprehensive counselling services;

(b) nutritional standards for employees;

(c) health information and education services;

(d) screening facilities, including cervical and blood pressure;

(e) exercise and fitness facilities;

(f) smoking, alcohol and drug abuse cessation programmes, including implementation of DHSS HC(85)22.

(3) The Secretary of State may offer guidelines as to how the district health authority shall fulfil its functions under this section.").
The noble Lord said: We are proceeding very slowly but I regret to say that I regard this amendment as extremely important, and it is not

1189
one that I feel able to rush, although I am now concerned as to whether we shall finish today's proceedings within a reasonable time. The fact is that the subject before us, which is occupational health is not one that we can neglect.
In moving this amendment, which stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Ennals and Lord Hunter of Newington, I must emphasise again a rather paradoxical point; namely, that the National Health Service is not noteworthy for looking after the health of its own employees. Indeed, there is the strange state of affairs that at best, in terms of occupational health within the National Health Service, it would be very hard to claim that the NHS is a first-class employer. Indeed there are employers in the private sector who to my knowledge take occupational health a good deal more seriously than some in the NHS. I do not labour the sociology of the matter nor the fact that there are so many illnesses, often stress related, from which a high number of National Health Service employees at all levels seem to suffer. However, that factor brings out clearly the enormous pressure under which people in the health care professions work. The health of the health care profession should concern us.
In considering the question of occupational health we are not discussing a party political matter. All governments for the past 20 years have been concerned about occupational health. I shall concentrate on the NHS. Governments have tried to give guidance. My view does not depend on the political colour of the parties in power. I have tried to persuade, but the fact remains that the outcome is not satisfactory. I agree that that reflects on the current unchanged health service. We must address ourselves to the NHS as it will be, on the assumption that the Bill is passed into law.
I believe that the amendment is fairly minimal. I have a sense of gloom, however. Having listened for several days to Members on the Government Front Bench, I have no difficulty in working out exactly what they will say. Indeed, having spent some years of my life in the public service I do not consider that I am any less expert at drafting useless, unhelpful replies than the officials currently sitting in the box. The replies are the straight-backed responses that Government Ministers require when they are defending a rather sticky Bill on sticky wickets. However, on a number of occasions they have not addressed themselves to our amendment. I assume that the reply to the amendment will be, "We are decentralising. We favour local enthusiasms," and various other bits that are fed by the word processor directly into the answer. However, in this case I do not think that that will do. We have had the decentralising to which the Government refer and it does not work. There is no reason to believe that it will work in future. There are no incentives in the Bill to provide an occupational health service. That is not to say that some of the districts will not do something; but there is no reason to believe that they will do so, or to the standard required.
I go further. If I were a supporter of the Bill I would still wish to consider the role of the Secretary
1190
of State. What areas would the Secretary of State wish to concern himself with? He might wish to lay those down in statute so that things would happen in the way he wished.
It seems obvious from past experience that simply saying, "Occupational health is important. You ought to do something about it," will not work. Guidance will not work. Leaving it solely to the market—as defined in terms of the Bill, not the market mechanism in the private sector sense—will not work. The Committee has a responsibility to state that occupational health is important. The least that we can do in the first instance is to require that an occupational health policy should be set up for NHS staff.
The amendment indicates the nature of such a plan. It also adds the use of guidelines. Although I am unable to change the amendment at the last minute, I believe that the amendment does not go far enough. It lays down what ought to happen but does not include the mechanism of feedback which would ensure that what ought to happen will happen. On reflection I believe that the amendment needs to be stronger rather than weaker. In other words, my noble friends ought to have followed our logic, and to have taken it further.
The amendment emphasises an area of importance. No one denies that. No one will rise to say that occupational health is not important. No one will say that it is not important a fortiori within the National Health Service. That is not the problem. The question is how one accomplishes it. In this case, one provides for it at district level. One ensures that an occupational health policy within the district is made to work. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I note the noble Lord's comments about what he deemed to be the inflexibility of the Government's response to points made. He attempted to pre-empt my reply. Perhaps I may say that this Chamber does an effective job as a revising Chamber. Much legislation leaves it revised and better for the effectiveness and flexibility of the responses from these Benches.
The amendment would make it mandatory for health authorities to prepare policy plans for the ! provision of occupational health services to National Health Service staff. As one of the largest employers in Europe, and as an organisation whose primary concern is health care, it is right that the National Health Service should be concerned about matters affecting the health care of its own skilled and highly valued work force. Health authorities are well aware of the contribution that occupational health services make to their overall policy or good working practices. Long-standing guidance on the organisation and development of such services in the NHS recommends that they should aim to promote, maintain and improve the physical well-being of all employees and advise both staff and management on protection against hazards, contribute towards workers' physical and mental adjustment to their jobs and advise on the job for which each is best suited. It gives clear and comprehensive advice on pre-employment assessment, health records,

1191
immunisation, environmental conditions, health guidance and education, treatment services, health assessment on return to work, and planning and organisation. Aided by that comprehensive guidance which has recently been endorsed by both the management and staff side of the National Health Service General Whitley Council, it is quite proper that health authorities should be free to make appropriate provision in the light of local circumstances and priorities. It is also worth noting that the Health and Safety at Work Act applies. Of course there are public health regulations that also apply. A very important point is that Crown immunity for the National Health Service is to be lifted.
Whether the noble Lord pre-empted my reply accurately, I hope that, with the shared objective of what he is trying to achieve with the amendment, he will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to add my support to the amendment. As the Minister has stated, the NHS is one of the biggest employers in Europe. I refer to paragraph (f) on smoking, as an example. Nurses have won a very bad reputation because they are heavy smokers. Perhaps the excuse is that they work in a stressful situation. However, one of the other recommendations is counselling. Therefore, if they are working in a stressful situation, counselling should overcome the need to smoke. That shows how important it is that nurses should set an example to the many patients they treat. If they were doing the right things they could pass on those good practices to the patients under their care. That would make us a healthier nation, which is what we should be aiming for.
Baroness Blatch: I agree with almost everything that the noble Baroness said. There are a number of initiatives and campaigns; one has only to think of the "Look after your heart" campaign. Smoking has an impact on heart conditions. No smoking in hospitals should be the norm, and the Government's 1985 circular asked all health authorities to introduce no-smoking policies. An increasing number have done so and we are aware that the anti-smoking activities of health authorities have increased in recent years. We are reconsidering how to update our advice to health authorities.
They are most important issues, as is counselling for stress. However, such counselling is also a managerial responsibility for those who are responsible for employing people in the health service.
Viscount Hanworth: I am appalled that we should go into the detail that is suggested. Perhaps we should take that "nanny" attitude towards the whole of our population. I am a smoker and I resent being constantly criticised for that. I am sorry, but such detail in the Bill is wholly wrong and it should not be included.
The Earl of Balfour: I am also a smoker but I see that the amendment includes alcohol. I must say that when living in Scotland one occasionally needs a little anti-freeze.
Lord Peston: As a vigorous anti-smoker I am tempted to rise to the bait but I shall not. The amendment has nothing to do with nannying but with the saving of life, and that is a duty. As regards alcohol, I draw the noble Earl's attention to the fact that the word "abuse" is at issue. I assure him that I have no objection to alcohol in quite reasonable quantities. However, here one has in mind a different point. The noble Earl will be aware that it is a different phenomenon for those who are alcoholics.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for going into detail. I am always greatly embarrassed by such matters as they appear within the health care professions. I am always astonished by the behaviour of the medical profession towards nutritional standards, for example. Its members are always good at telling the rest of us what do, but when I look at some of them—and I see exceptions in the Chamber—I think that they might first consider taking their own nutritional advice. I did not wish to go into detail but what the noble Baroness said was right.
I was not happy with the Minister's answer. I object to the fact that the noble Baroness appears to be saying that the Bill is about decentralisation and that she would rather stick to its principle than look at the substance of the problems. That is what I am complaining about. In some areas we can argue about the case, but as regards occupational health the Government's response as given by the Minister is complacent. Despite what she said about the relevant bodies, the professional bodies with which I have been in touch take the matter seriously. They would like to see us move along these lines.
I shall withdraw the amendment only because I do not believe that this is the time to divide on such an issue. I should have been much happier if the Government had considered that they could reflect on the matter more seriously than they appear to be willing to do, with a view to coming back and i ensuring that something will happen rather than saying that advice will do the trick. It is with a heavy heart that I withdraw the amendment, but I do not withdraw the argument.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 107ZB:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Nursing education: strategic plan.
—(1) Not more than one year from the date of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall publish a strategic plan for nursing education, which shall include—

(a) a statement in respect of the future governance of schools and colleges of nursing education; and

(b) a timetable for the full introduction for the reform of nursing education curricula under the "Project 2000" proposals.

(2) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duties under this section in consultation with—

(a) the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwidery and Health Visiting;

(b) the National Boards for Nursing, Midwidery and Health Visiting in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;

(c) the Royal College of Nursing; and

(d) any other such bodies concerned with nursing as appear to him appropriate.").

The noble Baroness said: I stress at the outset that this is a probing amendment tabled to ascertain the Government's intentions on the important matter of nurse education. In so many ways it affects the operation and quality of care provided in the National Health Service and in the community. That itself may be affected by the changes introduced by the Bill.
First the profession warmly welcomes some of the recent initiatives which have been supported by the Government. It especially welcomes the introduction of the fundamental change in nurse education to what is called "Project 2000". It will give nurse students the opportunity to have more time to study the theory behind clinical practice. It will also enable them to have more systematic, better-supported and more effectively supervised clinical experiences than were possible when they were primarily employees rather than students. The professional is grateful for the development which represents a historic change in nurse education in this country. It goes a long way towards bringing it into line with many other comparable countries.
But there is concern over certain aspects of the future of nurse education especially in view of some of the recent changes in policy with regard to the timescale of the implementation of Project 2000. Hence the reference in the amendment to the need for a statutory timetable. I wish to give three examples of acute concern. The first example is in Wales Project 2000 was to have been introduced throughout Wales simultaneously in all the colleges involved. Now Ministers have decided that it should be phased. This decision has come after all nine districts in Wales had reached the stage where they were ready to go ahead with their plans to implement Project 2000.
The main reason for the change in policy is financial. Therefore I wish to point out that the cost of Project 2000 in Wales is relatively small compared with the enormous sums being spent on introducing other changes in the National Health Service and community care. There is also deep concern that the change of timing in the implementation of Project 2000 in Wales will have an adverse effect on the recruitment of nurses in Wales. Without an adequately staffed nursing service any other improvements in the provision of health care must be seriously jeopardised. An article in yesterday's South Wales Echo emphasised the seriousness of the situation. I wish to quote briefly from the article. Mr. George Bolton, the general manager of Mid-Glamorgan Health Authority, said that the decision to delay the implementation of Project 2000 left
"a potentially serious nurse manpower problem into the next decade".
My second example comes from Gloucestershire. The Gloucestershire College of Nursing and Midwifery and the Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education succeeded in their application for a Project 2000 course. I was part of the visiting panel which assessed the application and I can vouch for its excellence. The colleges were intending to start the Project 2000 course this autumn but have recently been informed that
1194
funding will not be forthcoming and that they cannot go ahead with recruitment for this year. That was a cruel blow for all the staff who worked so hard under the pressure of time and with great success. It also has serious implications for nurse recruitment and staffing. The district health authority gave such strong support to Project 2000 that other existing courses were discontinued. Consequently, there will be virtually no new nurses qualifying in Gloucester in 1993. That is an appalling potential deficit in the nursing workforce.
My third example comes from the Dorset Institute, and I must declare an interest as a governor. Its staff had worked extremely hard to prepare a proposal for Project 2000 which was subsequently put on a back burner. Again, that was apparently as a result of financial restrictions in the region. That will deprive the region of an opportunity for nurse education in a college which is becoming a centre of excellence and which has recent approvals for full-time honours degrees in clinical nursing and midwifery.
It is important to stress the enormous amount of work that is required for the preparation for Project 2000 courses. It requires extensive consultation with health authorities because of the service implications in the transfer of students to supernumerary studies. It also involves an enormous amount of work by all concerned in the colleges and schools of nursing for the change in the curriculum to diploma in higher education work. The pressure on all concerned to achieve those changes within the timetable originally described has been formidable.
As chairman of the health studies committee of the Council for National Academic Awards, I have been intensively involved in validating many Project 2000 proposals, so I know at first hand the huge amount of work involved and the time pressures under which the Project 2000 proposals have been achieved. I have been deeply impressed by the dedication, commitment and calibre of staff who have been working on many of the schemes. Therefore, I believe it is quite unacceptable to change the goal posts in the middle of the game. As I have indicated, it could also have very serious repercussions in staffing in the National Health Service which, after all, cannot operate effectively without an adequate nursing workforce.
I know that my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, will speak to other important issues covered by the amendment, but I sincerely hope that in her reply my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure not only the nursing profession but all who are concerned about the adverse effects of shortages of nurses on the provision of health care in the NHS and in the community.
It is well known that there are already perilous shortages in many places. This amendment, together with a renewed commitment to implement Project 2000 on the original timescale, could do something to help in this serious situation. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: In supporting this amendment I should like to underline and

1195
support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said about the present situation in nursing education. If we look at some of the background that led up to those proposals, the case for change was made as far back as 1986, following extensive consultations with the profession on the part of the UKCC and subsequently with the health service. Part of those consultations included exercises on the manpower implications of the proposals, as well as a management study carried out by Price Waterhouse on the costing of the whole enterprise.
That went to the department in 1986 and a positive response was received in 1988. I understand that was after the department had carried out its own costing exercises. Therefore, it is regrettable that we are experiencing delays in 1990, four years after the original proposals, and that the situation in recruitment to nursing and nursing education is deteriorating quite considerably.
Added to those proposals from the UKCC, in the chief nursing officer's Strategy for Nursing paper that was supported by the Secretary of State there are proposals and strategies for the nursing profession that underline the importance of Project 2000. Some of the strategy's recommendations are that all staff delivering health care should be appropriately prepared for their practice. Surely that is a minimal expectation in our National Health Service. It is recommended that there should be strategic and operational plans to meet the education needs of the future professional workforce, and that the proposals for educational reform detailed in the UKCC document Project 2000 should be implemented. Those are among many of the proposals put forward in the Strategy for Nursing, again commended by the Secretary of State for Health.
Unfortunately, there seem to be many impediments in our realisation of those aims. The reality of what nursing is seeing is very far from the expectations that have been raised from various times.
First, there has been a reduction in the number of entrants to the Register for Nursing. In 1988-89 there was a 20 per cent. reduction. Secondly, authorities are presently unwilling to second students needing to undertake post-registration clinical training. That is a short-term response to their immediate needs to reduce costs. The English National Board funding for the preparation of nurse teachers has been cut, and I understand from a conference held earlier this week that some hundreds of students are waiting for and being refused access to nurse teacher education courses because of the cuts.
All this is militating against an effective system of nursing education, and although we would not expect such things to be written on the face of the Bill I believe that the plans that the Government have for the future of the health service cannot proceed without effective means of recruiting and retaining nurses.
I suggest that the proposals in Working Paper 10 for education and training in no way reassure the nursing education.
1196
Firstly, the purchaser and provider roles are vested in the same body, that is the regional health authority which would both manage schools of nursing and place contracts for education. I have to say, having worked quite intimately with the education people at my own regional health authority, that their present staffing leaves them inadequately prepared to go into the whole business of manpower and educational management at regional level.
Then I see in Working Paper 10 a fragmentation of educational governance between the English National Board, the regional health authorities and health authorities. The present tendency to short-term planning and economies would be enhanced in the new situation.
I believe that a false assumption is made that recruitment to schools of nursing needs to be largely at a local level. In any event, the mobility of the nursing workforce is extremely great, and it would be better to look at the nursing workforce as a national asset rather than a local asset, particularly at post-basic level in clinical specialties. So the preferred model for the profession is one in which funding for pre-registration education would be administered through the English National Board, the statutory body in England, with the governance of colleges devolved to a local level. That may well be an evolutionary step to further developments, but in this respect one could see the English National Board as analogous to the PCFC or the UFC in funding schools or colleges of nursing.
At post-registration levels of education it is doubtful whether crude market-place principles will ever work in providing an effective specialist nursing working force.
In this amendment we would press for an effectively timetabled introduction of Project 2000 and a greater degree of consultation with the profession for the future strategy for nursing education in view of the future manpower needs.
In considering the introduction of Project 2000, I think it is well to remember that there are over 20 schools of nursing and departments of nursing in university departments and polytechnics, and with the exciting things that are happening in the development of links with higher education elsewhere their needs have sometimes been forgotten.
I am not at all reassured by the single paragraph in Working Paper 10. In fact, the service costs of teaching and research experienced in medical and dental education are the same in nursing education. I believe that one has to take that aspect even more widely than nursing education, since all the health professions being educated in higher education have service costs for teaching and research. The departments of nursing in particular are suffering because they have been denied any kind of resources for the servicing of teaching and research within the service sector.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in supporting the two amendments I congratulate the two noble Baronesses on the excellence of their contributions, which have enabled me to cross off most of what I was going to

1197
say. It is a pity that we should discuss a matter as important as the future of nursing education in a rather empty Chamber at this hour. I hope that the fact that not many noble Lords are present will not be taken to be a measure of the importance of the matter. It is enormously important for the future of the National Health Service.
I have been involved with nursing education on the periphery for a great many years. My involvement is derived from the general need to enhance the role of the nurse within the health service. At Queen Mary College for a few years we had a joint degree in economics and nursing. I was enormously impressed with the students who took the course because in taking the degree no concessions were made. They took the full degree which all the other students took and became qualified nurses at the same time. I regret to say that after a few years students decided that they would rather take sociology and social studies as the degree part of the course. However, there are in this country a number of nurses to whom I taught economics who I hope one day will do more to revolutionise the National Health Service than all the provisions in the Bill put together.
I strongly support the amendment. I am bound to say—and I believe the two noble Baronesses agree—that we must see nursing education in the context of the whole role of the nurse. I shall not take time to explain again that within the context of the reform of the National Health Service as the Government see it we can do the manpower planning that is required. During the Government's period of office we have made progress on the career structure of nurses. We have moved in precisely the right direction. Although there have been many trials and tribulations over nurses' pay, again there has been some movement there as well. Many of us who are interested in this field, particularly in the question of pay and decentralisation, wonder what will happen with the NHS trusts. We must see this within that context, but this is not the time for me to speak on all those matters.
I simply wish to commend the amendment to the Government and to note the words "which shall include" in line 3 of the amendment. The amendment makes no attempt to make a complete list. It merely draws attention to important matters. If we had more time, many of us—and certainly the two noble Baronesses—could mention other matters which could be included in the amendment. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response to the amendment from the Government.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: This is an important matter. We are concerned about nurse education and training and we are certainly not losing sight of the need to make progress. As part of our commitment to review non-departmental public bodies, the four United Kingdom health departments commissioned an independent review of the United Kingdom Central Council and the four national boards for nursing, midwifery and health visiting which were established under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.
1198
The report, by management consultants Peat, Marwick, McLintock, was published in August 1989 and recommends among other things that the national boards for England, Scotland and Wales should take over management of schools and colleges of nursing and midwifery from the health authorities. The report has been the subject of wide-ranging consultations, the outcome of which is currently being analysed. We asked those who commented to do so in the context of the document which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. This document—Working Paper 10 on education and training—was issued as a follow-up to the Working for Patients White Paper.
It proposes that the responsibility for allocating funds for pre-registration nurse training should in future rest with regional health authorities rather than being top-sliced nationally as at present and allocated via the national boards. In the light of those proposals the working paper suggests a number of models for the future management of schools and colleges of nursing, of which management by the national board is only one.
I can assure the Committee that the Government are fully apprised of the need for early decisions on the issues floated both in the Peat, Marwick, McLintock report and in Working Paper 10. A number of complex matters are being considered in the light of the various views which have been put to us in response to those two documents. We shall be making an announcement as soon as we are in a position to do so. I can assure the Committee that we have already received detailed comments from everyone concerned, including the statutory nursing bodies and the Royal College of Nursing. I can further assure the Committee that the views expressed today will also be taken into account in our consideration. We will come to a view but further discussion with the statutory nursing bodies on the detailed implementation of any changes will be necessary. I mention that because it affects the timetable part of the amendment.
Project 2000 has been generally welcomed and was welcomed by my noble friend Lady Cox in introducing the amendment. The part of the amendment dealing with Project 2000 calls for all United Kingdom health departments to commit themselves to full implementation by a given date. In England, we have already given 16 Project 2000 courses, covering 29 district health authorities, the go-ahead to start during 1989-90. We shall shortly be advising regional health authorities of a second tranche of schemes to start during 1990-91. We are committed to introducing these important changes in nurse education and training while ensuring that patient and client care is not jeopardised. It is not practicable to set out a firm timetable for completing the implementation of the reforms at this time.
I have noted the examples quoted by my noble friend Lady Cox but I emphasise that the speed of implementation must to a large extent be determined by the funding available both now and in the future against other competing needs. The total cost of introducing Project 2000 is very substantial. We must also have regard to the size of the management and planning tasks involved at a time when we

1199
all recognise that the National Health Service is undergoing many other changes. The Government's commitment to Project 2000 is clearly demonstrated both by the fact that we are going ahead with a second tranche and by the fact that £38 million has already been set aside in England in 1989-90 and 1990-91 to help in implementing these reforms. In England, the statutory nursing bodies are already involved in the implementation of Project 2000 and are represented on the Project 2000 implementation group.
For these reasons we do not feel that the amendment would necessarily help in progressing the scheme. We hope that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Cox: I am grateful to those who have taken part in this short debate. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lady McFarlane for her comprehensive coverage of the issues involved. She put them in an historic context while highlighting and reminding us of some of the current problems which are matters of great concern. I refer in particular to the downturn in the numbers entering nurse education which will create real problems for staffing the National Health Service in the future, and also to the reduction of funding for the education of nurse teachers. It is helpful to have those points on the record.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his support. As an old Londoner I remember very well the appreciation for that combined course of nurse qualification at the London Hospital and economics degree at the Queen Mary College. It was one of the best combined courses; I was sorry to see its demise. I hope that one day it might reappear. It was an excellent example of the way in which one can take forward nurse education in an academic context.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very helpful review of the Government's initiatives, her reference of the consultations currently under way, and her assurance that the Government are aware of the need for early decisions regarding ways forward. I regret that she was not able to give assurances with regard to the problems of delay and to phasing in the implementation of Project 2000. However, I heard her assurances and she has noted the examples and the issues we raised. I hope that her assurances will become reassurances very shortly. With thanks all round I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill be resumed at 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Environmental Protection Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1990
7.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 30th March be approved [15 th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 20th December last year following the last meeting of the Fisheries Council that the Government proposed to introduce measures which would restrict grant aid to essential safety improvements and to cases where it was needed to back up EC grant aid. Under the new scheme the rate of grant for essential safety measures necessary to comply with the provisions of the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 will continue to be 30 per cent. with aid for vessels over 33 metres in length assisted as before at 10 per cent. The rate of back-up grant for EC assistance will be the minimum 10 per cent. required by EC structures regulation 4028/86.
The remaining conditions of the scheme are unchanged including the maximum grant of £250,000 payable in respect of any one vessel. The scheme as amended will continue to operate until the end of 1991 which is the mid-term review point for the EC structures regulation. It is anticipated that the changes in the rates of grant will produce savings of more than £18 million over the next three years.
As the announcement last December made clear, these new measures will end the distortion caused by subsidising vessel construction and will provide a freedom for vessel owners to take their own investment decisions where these can be justified in market terms. Moreover, they reflect our concern to ensure the conservation of threatened fish stocks and the need to match catching capacity more closely with fishing opportunities.
We are very conscious of the need to maintain a modern and efficient fishing fleet and have made available over £50 million in the last five years for modernisation and renewal work. But there is now general recognition that the industry faces a major problem of over-capacity and that it no longer makes sense to continue with the generous levels of grant assistance previously available.
It is for that reason that we have decided to make these changes in the availability of grant aid. We have however ensured that essential safety work continues to attract generous funding and that our fishermen will continue to be eligible to apply for assistance from the European Community. In addition we will be making substantial investments of public money in the fishing industry through expenditure on research in particular and on fisheries protection.
At the same time we are pursuing action on two main fronts to address the problems facing the fishing industry. We are working hard in the EC to secure improved conservation measures which will

1201
help restore the stocks, particularly in the North Sea. We are also seeking to improve our fisheries management arrangements so that they encourage the rationalisation of the fleet. We have already introduced a system of capacity aggregation which has been welcomed by the hard pressed boatbuilding sector aid will shortly be consulting the industry about entitlement aggregation.
I believe these measures represent the best way forward in the current situation facing the industry and that direct subsidies for fishing vessel construction are no longer appropriate. That is why we have placed the instrument before the House. I commend the regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 30th March be approved [15 th Report from the Joint Committee] .— (Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, for explaining the purpose of the scheme and the thinking which lies behind it. In accordance with the normal customs and conventions of your Lordships' House we shall not be opposing it. Nevertheless there are a number of point:; arising from it which I should like to put to him.
The scheme was foreshadowed in a Written Answer by the Minister on 25th March this year in which he said that the present vessel grant scheme served to distort rather than encourage sensible investment by vessel owners. That view has been confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, today.
The Minister also said that he was proceeding to restrict the availability of the grants. We therefore have a scheme which provides aid only for essential safety improvements and in those cases where aid is necessary in order to back up an application to the European Community for grant aid. As I understand the position, the scheme does not make changes in the rates of grant, only in their availability. The measures as a whole are seen as part of a rationalisation of fleet capacity.
The Minister referred to past generosity, and no doubt the industry was grateful for it. But the industry has to live in the present and look forward to the future. Naturally, that is the subject matter of the questions which I propose to put arising from the details of the scheme.
First, perhaps the noble Lord can tell the House whether the reaction of owners of vessels to the scheme is hostile or favourable, sympathetic or understanding; secondly, whether rationalising the fleet capacity is seen as an alternative to a decommissioning scheme for the industry; and thirdly, whether Her Majesty's Government accept that the present quotas under the current common fisheries policy are having a serious effect on prices to consumers.
In another place on 2nd May in a Written Answer the Minister with responsibility for Fisheries in Scotland made much of the fact that landings are certainly down in order to meet quota requirements, in some cases by as much as 28 per cent. to 30 per cent. in Scotland, but that in cash terms, the decline
1202
in the value of the catches is only of the order of 1 per cent. to 3 per cent. That may be some consolation for fishers, but it is bad news for consumers. Undoubtedly, those who take an interest in these matters will have noticed that fish prices have risen markedly. Where they have not risen markedly and cannot be compared, the proportions have declined significantly. That is a great blow to those of us who enjoy fish, and also to the trade body which has the task of promoting fish eating because there is no way in which consumers will be able to maintain purchases if prices are to remain at or around present levels.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the problems affecting the fishing industry on the west coast of Scotland are to receive special consideration. I understand that a meeting concerning these interests was held a few days ago. Perhaps the Minister can say whether a Statement is to be made regarding the west coast of Scotland and, if so, when it can be expected.
Finally, following the recent announcement by the Government that they are to proceed with aggregational capacity, can the Minister say what is the anticipated effect on current problems?
Apart from those questions, we regretfully support the scheme as being necessary in the light of what has happened under the common fisheries policy. We believe that conservation is likely to be ongoing and that therefore the Government have little alternative but to do what it has done. Nevertheless, we feel that the overall position of the fishing industry is so serious that a wider approach than merely adjusting rates of grant for fishing vessels is perhaps needed. The country as a whole will want to know from the Government, certainly before the present year is out, whether there are plans for the industry because it faces a serious situation, as I have tried to indicate.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I rise to ask only one question. The Minister's statement that about £18 million will be saved over the next three years will be received with a great deal of difficulty and heart-searching by the fishing community because of his implacable opposition—thus far, at any rate—to any sensible decommissioning policy.
It is clear to those within the industry and to informed observers outwith the industry that a decommissioning policy is necessary. Such a policy should be produced and the Government should take an initiative to that end. It is an initiative which in political terms would stand the Government in good stead, if nothing else. That is some gratuitous information which I give to the Minister.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Kirkhill, for their observations. I shall endeavour to answer the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, before I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked about the reaction of owners. I think there is a realisation among fishing boat owners, skippers, and so on, that

1203
the capacity of the fleet must seek to equal the opportunities that the fleet has for catching fish. The difficulties which the noble Lord will know arose in regard to the Icelandic situation taught us many lessons; one of which is that it is very easy to get a decommissioning scheme wrong. I shall come back to that matter.
The difficulties we face with the quota situation are well known to the fishing industry. Perhaps I may add that the commissioner in Brussels would have left us with even worse quotas than we have at present if it had not been for the intervention of four government ministers at the negotiations in Brussels last December. Therefore, I can honestly say that the reaction of owners has been to understand the position. One should not go on paying out large grants when the capacity is going up, when what should happen is that the capacity should equal the opportunity.
As regards a decommissioning scheme, after very careful consideration the Government decided last year that at this stage it would not be a sensible use of taxpayers' money. First, I should say that it is not easy (as those who seek it believe) to advise a scheme which would avoid paying grant to vessels which would be leaving the fleet anyway. There would also be a real risk that the old, relatively inactive vessels would leave the fleet and that would not have brought about any real reduction in the catching effort.
Here I come to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who knows the situation in the north-east of Scotland very well. I accept his gratuitous advice on the political front. I understand what he is getting at. However, I draw his attention to the fact that the white fish fleet in Scotland amounts to about 2,000 vessels. Of those 2,000 vessels—we are referring to the difficulties in the North Sea and catching haddock in particular—approximately 1,600 smaller vessels catch 15 per cent. of the quota. The problem lies with the fast expensive vessels—the 375 to 400 vessels—that catch the rest of the total catch in the North Sea as far as concerns Scotland. It is very difficult, having experience of the previous decommissioning scheme, to see how one can devise a scheme that will take out those vessels and also to see, by offering a scheme, whether it would in fact be taken up.
In regard to quotas and the serious effect on consumer prices, it is true that the price of white fish—haddock, cod, whiting and saithe in particular—has risen. The noble Lord is also correct in his reference to the figures given at the turn of the year by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The pricing of haddock in particular over the first three months of this year more or less equates with the prices for haddock over the first three months of last year.
However, I must also draw to the attention of the noble Lord the difficulties we are experiencing in Scotland with the fish farming industry. I should not let this opportunity pass without informing the noble Lord of the serious problems we have in that industry. What has happened is that the price of
1204
salmon has fallen dramatically. I understand that in one well-known establishment fish and chips means salmon and chips and not haddock or cod and chips.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also referred to the problems experienced with the fishing industry on the west coast of Scotland. Indeed, I met a delegation from that area last week. We are at present consulting and the consultation period is coming to an end. The Government have made some suggestions on what we might do to assist those who fish exclusively in those areas—the inshore waters off the west coast. Your Lordships can take it from me that the Government will look closely to see whether anything can be done to help those fishermen in those inshore waters and I hope that an announcement will be made very soon on that matter.
As regards entitlement aggregation, capacity aggregation having already been agreed—as I said, we are going ahead—there are major problems about aggregation of quotas. Those problems are under active consideration but I can assure the House and the fishing industry that consultation is very necessary in this area because the position is extremely complicated, involving major change and legislation on individual transferrable quotas should we ever reach that stage. Therefore, I assure the noble Lord that this matter is under active consideration. I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that I am well aware of the difficulties. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is looking most closely at the economies of the ports concerned. We will be considering the matter over the next few months to determine whether there is likely to be further deterioration, particularly in the white fish fleet, and then make up our minds as to what action to take.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agree to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.38 to 8.20 p.m.]

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 107ZC:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Recruitment and retention of NHS staff
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) prepare and publish a plan for the purposes of promoting the recruitment and retention of such staff as may be required by any regional, district or special health authority, health board or special health board, NHS trust or fund holding practice, within the terms of this Act;

(b) keep the plan prepared under paragraph (a) above, and any further plan prepared by him under this section under review; and

(c) prepare and publish modifications to the current plan at such intervals as seem appropriate to him.

(2) In carrying out any of his functions under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations for employees and employers within the National Health Service as seem appropriate to him.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. This new clause will require the Secretary of State to develop a national plan in order to ensure that the NHS are able to recruit and retain necessary staff. He would draw up such a plan in consultation with NHS employers and employees and keep the plan under review. Obviously, the reason for this amendment is that the recruitment and retention of staff is likely to be one of the main issues facing the National Health Service in the 1990s and at a time when the NHS will rely on its staff as never before in order to carry out the proposed reforms, whatever we may think of them.
Low morale in parts of the service is leading to a high wastage rate while demographic factors are hampering the recruitment of new staff. The recruitment pool of young people—that is the nub of the whole matter—is shrinking fast. Because of the dramatic decline in the birth rate between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s, the number of school leavers will fall to a mere 600,000 in 1995. That means a smaller recruitment base for the NHS. It also means a smaller recruitment base for everyone. It will draw the health service into even closer competition with every other potential employer of school leavers.
The retention of staff is also becoming more difficult in the NHS. For example, trained laboratory staff are reportedly leaving the NHS at a rate of 22 per cent. a year in order to go into private industry. It is estimated that about 10 per cent. of qualified nurses (approximately 30,000) also leave each year. A survey carried out by the Institute of Management Services revealed wastage rates varying from 10 per cent. to nearly 20 per cent. a year among the professions allied to medicine.
I have concentrated on nurses in particular because they form the largest group within the NHS. There is a major wastage rate affecting the other professions allied to medicine. I have a particularly close interest in occupational therapy. In that profession the wastage rate is about 18-2 per cent. based on the 1987-88 figures. If the matter is looked at from another point of view, the profession is roughly 22 per cent. below establishment. The independent commission which has been looking at the occupational therapies says that we shall need to have an increase of as much as 18 per cent. over the next 10 years. There will be tremendous competition.
I shall not go into the situation affecting other professions all of which have the same problem: I am thinking of physiotherapy, radiography, dietetics and chiropody. It is a major problem. It is not one that we can shrug off. If the Government accept this amendment and the Secretary of State prepares and publishes a plan which keeps the situation under review I am not suggesting that that will solve the problem. Unless he does that and we are assured that the Secretary of State has this matter high on
1206
the agenda, then whatever this Bill does to the health service, there will not be the staff effectively to implement the new measures. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I understand and sympathise with the objective underlying this proposed amendment. I realise that its intention is to guarantee the continued provision of high quality health care. We entirely share the concern, but we do not believe that the situation can be dealt with by statute.
The current arrangements for manpower planning do not have a specific statutory basis but are, and will continue to be, covered under the general statutory requirements on health boards and National Health Service trusts to provide a comprehensive health service. Health authorities will be expected to continue the current practice of producing plans which integrate manpower with service provisions and finance through the annual short-term planning process.
At present district plans are monitored by regions and those of regions by the Department of Health in order to ensure consistency between services, finance and manpower and between the demand and supply elements of manpower plans. It is envisaged that monitoring will continue under the new legislation. A national plan for the purpose of promoting recruitment and the retention of National Health Service staff would transfer the responsibility for manpower planning to meet their own specific needs from employing authorities to the centre.
That would have a depressing effect on the many innovative schemes at local level. As the Committee is aware, one of the objectives of the proposals in this Bill is to give employing authorities, and in particular National Health Service trusts, more responsibility and discretion in this area. In addition, a national plan could not address the particular needs and circumstances of employing authorities and their own local labour markets: neither could a national plan respond quickly enough to changing circumstances and to short-term shortfalls.
Each health authority will need to find its own solution to the problem. They are fully aware of the demographic and labour market situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, drew our attention. In fact, we have been much encouraged by the spread of locally managed initiatives. For example, there is the idea of flexible working arrangements, return-to-work training, child-minding facilities, youth and employment training and staff benefit schemes.
In all these matters we consult with the royal colleges and the national bodies at local levels which are involved in a number of these schemes and arrangements. However, the Department of Health takes a leading role both in the planning process, as I have mentioned, and in central recruitment and retention initiatives. Recent examples of central initiatives include the excellent example that we have already discussed this evening; namely, Project 2000 for nurses. Other examples are the healthcare assistance project to provide training and assessment schemes for support staff and the drive to increase the uptake of youth training in the National Health Service.

1207
There are local schemes for encouraging nurses to return to nursing after having had a break. In addition there are in-service schemes to encourage nurses and other medical staff to deal with all the advances in technology. The department has received extensive feedback from the National Health Service, and indeed the professions, on its proposals which have been developed as part of the intended implementation of the Bill in relation to the future recruitment and training of professional staff. At the request of the department, regions and districts are currently drawing up detailed human resource strategies to take them well into the 1990s. They will be assisted in that process by a number of centrally initiated studies.
I believe that the current combination of central drive and initiatives and local flexibility and innovation are the best way forward to meet the future staffing needs of the National Health Service and that the amendment would not help in that process. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: There were several initiatives mentioned by the noble Baroness during her reply which I very much welcome. I am much in favour, as I think we all are, of more flexible working arrangements such as, job-sharing schemes, opportunities for people to return to work on a part-time basis, in-service training, and so on. Those initiatives are all good and necessary, but we need to go much further down that road than we have gone thus far.
I do not see how the involvement of the Secretary of State at the centre of what is proposed would have a depressing effect. The problems we face in this respect are at every level. For example, they are at district and regional level, as stated in the amendment. Regarding the situation at health board level in Scotland, all the NHS trusts will be facing such problems. I should have thought that the co-ordinating role of the Secretary of State would have a stimulating effect rather than a depressing one.
As the noble Baroness already knows, what really worries me to a great extent is the Government's commitment that NHS trusts will be able to compete financially in this respect. They will be able to break national agreements and set their own wage levels so as to attract nurses, doctors, occupational therapists, and so on, away from the non-NHS trust hospitals or health service provision. That would create, as I said on a previous occasion, a two-tier service; that is, the elite with the higher levels of pay and the rest of them in the rest of the health service. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way to proceed and it would create, as I said, a two-tier service.
I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I shall read the noble Baroness's reply with all care. As I said, except for the few initiatives which I welcomed, I am rather depressed with the Government's attitude. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 107ZD:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Childcare provision: code of practice
The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice for the purpose of—

(a) giving practical guidance to any person or authority employing staff to fulfill duties under this Act with respect to any arrangements for childcare provision for employees; and

(b) promoting desirable practices by such persons or authorities for the establishment of new childcare provision where none exist.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment provides for a new clause which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to draw up a code of practice designed to encourage health authorities to make arrangements for child care provision for employees. That seems a very necessary provision in view of the fact that at present the National Health Service provides creche facilities for as little as less than 0.5 per cent. of its staff. That is slightly better than the national average, but the National Health Service is the United Kingdom's major employer for women: 90 per cent. of nurses are women and two-thirds of them are of child-bearing age.
There seems little doubt that a major expansion in employer-subsidised child care facilities is needed to retain the services of nurses with children. A further factor which brings urgency and which has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ennals is the demographic change. It means that the number of 18 year-olds available for recruitment into the nursing profession will have fallen sharply. It will reach a low point of 600,000 in 1995.
That dwindling recruitment pool makes the task of improving the rentention of skilled staff in the National Health Service all the more urgent. As my noble friend said when speaking to the previous amendment, nursing has traditionally been a high turnover, high wastage occupation with 30,000 nurses leaving every year for a variety of reasons. The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC) has estimated that the need for new entrants to the profession could be reduced by 6,000 per year if a 1 per cent. improvement in the wastage rate of qualified staff from 10 per cent. to 9 per cent. was achieved.
Moreover, in 1987 the UKCC estimated the net cost of training a first-level nurse at £13,000. Allowing for the transitional costs of the wastage process, calculated by the Institute of Manpower Studies at £1,000 to £2,000, and for wage inflation since 1987, the Royal College of Nursing believes that a replacement cost of £20,000 per qualified nurse is realistic. That seems a high figure.
If by providing a comprehensive network of workplace nurseries, subsidised childminding and low-cost out of school play schemes, the National Health Service could persuade 6,000 working mothers to remain in the service, the net saving to the National Health Service, after deducting the child care subsidy (which is thought to be about £2,000 per year) would be in excess of £100 million per year. In my view, that kind of figure produces a pretty compelling argument.
The amendment focuses on child care for National Health Service employees. However, I should like to emphasise the fact that on Monday this week the Princess Royal when opening the Save the Children Week reiterated the need for more child care provision throughout the country. She pointed out that public nursery places had fallen by one-half since 1945. She stressed the need for the present number to be increased.
Finally, I should like to point out how much it would help nurses to have child care facilities. Not only would it provide them with peace of mind that their children were being cared for very close to them; it would also mean that they would not have to choose when they could or could not work. At present they very often choose the times when their husbands are at home so that they are able to look after the children. Therefore, from that point of view—that is, the nurses' peace of mind—I think that the proposed clause to provide child care facilities would be most valuable.
From three points of view I think that the proposed new clause would be of the greatest importance: first, from the. general point of view that if the National Health Service provided child care facilities it would increase the very small amount of child care that exists in the country at present; secondly, from the point of view of retaining the services of nurses and also of acquiring more from the decreasing number of school leavers; and, thirdly, from the point of view of the benefit it would give to the National Health Service employees, both as regards their family life and the well-being of their children. I hope that this amendment, which suggests a purely practical and sensible change, will find favour with the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: There is no doubt that child care facilities can have a major impact on the ability of employers, including health authorities, to recruit and retain staff. They can also have an impact on the ability of women to combine raising a family with paid employment outside the home. It is only right, therefore, that we should be concerned, as is the amendment, with seeking to ensure that where child care is provided it is safe, caring and educationally stimulating. That is provided for in the Children Act 1989. The Act updates and modernises the regulation of both private and voluntary child care and childminding facilities for children aged under eight years.
Two of the new provisions concern quality. Local authorities must carry out an inspection of the day nurseries, playgroups and childminders on their register at least once a year. Secondly, authorities will have the power to cancel registration where they consider the care being given to a child is seriously inadequate. In order to implement the new legislation which comes into effect in October 1991, the department is currently working on guidance which will include advice about inspection criteria and standards. Health authorities are expected to comply with those standards. Furthermore, we have commended to all authorities the detailed guidance about arrangements for the establishment of childcare facilities for the children of NHS staff
1210
issued by the National Steering Group on Equal Opportunities for Women in the National Health Service. Further legislative provision is therefore unnecessary.
I wish to pick up one or two points which the noble Baroness made. She quoted the Princess Royal's comments made earlier in the week that there was less provision now than there had been. It is accepted that there were many local authority day nurseries in 1945, but private and voluntary sectors were not so active in that field. Today in England we have 73,000 places in day nurseries, 45,000 of which are in the independent sector. We believe that publicly funded provision should be concentrated on children in need. We believe in encouraging diversity of provision so that parents can exercise choice.
An example of a local initiative which is working well is the scheme established by the National Health Service and the Midland Bank. To assist authorities wishing to provide nurseries, the Government have agreed with the Midland Bank a joint NHS and bank scheme under which health authorities and the bank, at branch level, may enter into arrangements for the sharing of facilities. In January my right honourable friend the Minister for Health opened the first nursery under the scheme, at the Royal Berkshire Hospital. Since then, a second nursery has opened at the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary. Others are under discussion in different parts of the country. Also, some authorities are entering into arrangements with other private sector employers, while some are opening their own nurseries.
At the risk of being repetitious, we share the objective but we disagree about whether it should be on the face of the Bill and become a requirement for all NHS establishments or whether it should be left to local initiatives. Our view is that it should be left to local initiative, and therefore I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Ennals: Before my noble friend replies, if it is always left to local initiative, there will be variations in the carrying out. There will come a time—and I believe that that time is now—when, if we want to get nurses back, we must provide facilities. That often will not happen if it is left to local initiative.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is fair to say that NHS establishments will not be able to neglect the issue if they want nurses back in their hospitals. If a need is proven, the schemes will be established. We say that it should not become a requirement on all establishments to set up such a scheme, because there is a cost. Where local need is proven, local schemes will be established.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I find it disappointing that the Minister has produced all the old arguments when the facts are strong. The NHS provides creche facilities for less than 0-5 per cent. of its staff. There is a long way to go. The noble Baroness suggested that the Children Act would provide a miracle and would change everything. I agree that it will make a start. However, when the Princess Royal said that

1211
there were half as many places now as in 1945 she was talking about public provision. I cannot help believing that nurses would be unable to use private nurseries because they are expensive.
I too am glad that the Midland Bank has been progressive and has made a start, but it is only a start. The noble Baroness talked about how important it is to have nurseries for those children who are most in need, but that means that children who have a problem at home or who have some disability will be put together in a nursery school. I find that we are falling badly behind when one compares our position with that of our Continental neighbours. It is disappointing that the Minister should refuse the amendment. The NHS, the nurses and their children will suffer. I am extremely disappointed, but I have no choice but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 107ZE not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Amendments of Part HI of the Local Government Finance Act 1982]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 74, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("after") and insert ("In subsection (5) of that section").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 107B, 108ZZA and 108ZZB. Under the terms of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, a person may be appointed by the Audit Commission as a auditor only if he is a member of one of the professional bodies listed in the Act or if he or she holds such other qualifications as may be approved by the Secretary of State. The proposals elsewhere in the Bill provide for the transfer of the existing Department of Health and Welsh Office to the Audit Commission. It is important for the success of the transfer of the audit function to the commission that that wealth of experience is used to good effect. There are a number of departmental staff who currently hold appointments as statutory auditors who have achieved that on the basis of their long experience and knowledge of the NHS audit.
Naturally the commission wishes to continue to recognise that experience. To allow that to happen, a provision has already been made in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 which allows the commission to appoint a person for the time being approved by the Secretary of State acting on the recommendation of the commission. That is a transitional provision which will last until 1st April 1996. The transitional period allows the commission to make full use of existing expertise and provides time for departmental staff to seek professional qualifications if they wish. Those proposals have been discussed and agreed with the accounting bodies.
However, it is now recognised that the wording in the Bill as presently drafted does not make it entirely clear that people appointed under the transitional arrangement may continue to act as auditors beyond 31st March 1996. The amendment puts that point beyond doubt. It provides that any person who is approved before 31st March 1996 will continue to be so approved after that date. It also allows such approval to be withdrawn if necessary.
As I have said, the transfer of existing knowledge of health authority expertise to the commission will be an important ingredient in the success of the audit proposals. While it will apply to a small number of staff only, the amendment will do much to encourage staff to accept the challenge that the changes bring.
The amendments tabled in my name enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to withdraw his approval for an officer transferred from the Civil Service to the Accounts Commission for Scotland to act as an auditor. Amendment No. 108ZZB provides that any reference to the Accounts Commission in primary and secondary legislation shall be construed as a reference to the commission as renamed by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: From these Benches we are satisfied with the logic of the amendments that have been proposed by the noble Lord and will support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 107B:
Page 74, line 26, at end insert:
("(3) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) The Secretary of State shall not approve any person for the purposes of subsection (5) above after 31st March 1996 but, subject to the withdrawal of his approval after that date, any person who is so approved immediately before that date shall continue to be so approved after that date." ").
[Amendments Nos. 107C and 107D not moved]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): If Amendment No. 108 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 108YZA.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 108YZA not moved.]
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendments relating to Audit of Accounts of Scottish Health Service Bodies]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 108ZZA:
Page 86, line 46, at end insert ("and whose approval is not (whether during that period or after its expiry) withdrawn by the Secretary of State acting on such recommendation").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 108ZZB:
Page 89, line 11, at end insert:
("General amendment
15. Without prejudice to any express amendment made by this Act, for any reference in any enactment (including an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation) to the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland there shall be substituted a reference to the Accounts Commission for Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 108ZZC:
Before Clause 21, insert the following new clause: {"Powers to promote continuing improvement of treatment.—(1) In section 1 of the principal Act (Secretary of State's duty as to health) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3) The Secretary of State may by order determine the manner in which subsections (1) and (2) above are to be carried out, if he is satisfied that he cannot otherwise comply with his duty under that section to promote the continuing improvement of treatment.
(4) An order made under subsection (3) above may contain such provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose and to safeguard the interests of those affected.
(5) Any order made under subsection (3) above shall be made by statutory instrument." ").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment, as I informed my noble friend Lady Hooper in advance. It seeks to introduce powers to promote the continuing improvement of treatment. The particular improvement that I have in mind might be to introduce compulsory treatment orders for schizophrenics who have been discharged from hospital As Members of the Committee will be aware, it is possible at the moment for schizophrenics and other mentally ill persons to receive compulsory treatment when in hospital but not when they are out of hospital.
The National Schizophrenia Fellowship, which advises me on these matters, remains concerned about the problems which arise when sufferers from schizophrenia discontinue their medical treatment and deteriorate as a result, sometimes with tragic consequences, when out of hospital. Proposals were made by the Mental Health Act Commission and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 1986 and 1987. However, they have not led to any amendment of the Mental Health Act enabling treatment to be given in such a situation.
The latest information the fellowship had was that in October my honourable friend Mr. Roger Freeman answered a parliamentary Question. He said that he understood that the Royal College of Psychiatrists would be giving its view to the Department on the possible role of new legal powers to ensure compulsory treatment in the Community. We have heard nothing more on that.
The object of this amendment is to make sure that there is within the Bill the kind of provision which would allow the Secretary of State to introduce an appropriate order if the advice that he is given shows this to be what is generally agreed.
There have been many cases of great disaster as a result of schizophrenics not taking their medicaments. I suppose that the most world famous was John Hinckley, who attempted to kill President Reagan in 1981. There is an absolutely splendid book about this called Breaking Point, by Jack and Joan Hinckley, his parents. If Members of the Committee have not read the book, I can tell them that it describes the problem of schizophrenia when people get out of hand.
However there is another even more up-to-date case which was mentioned in The Times yesterday. We learned that Robert Sartin, who ran amok with a gun and killed one person and injured 17 others, was found by a jury unfit to plead because he had schizophrenia.
Another aspect is the case of Beverley Lewis. She died in conditions of appallling neglect in Gloucestershire, weighing less than four stone. She was 23 years old and blind, deaf and mentally handicapped. She had been cared for all her life by her mother, Thelma, who suffered from chronic schizophrenia. Thelma Lewis's behaviour became increasingly bizarre all through the years leading to her daughter's death. She would not allow health workers near the girl. In a disturbed state, she could barely look after herself let alone her chronically ill daughter. Beverley might still be alive, however, had her mother been compulsorily treated for her schizophrenia. While medication is no cure, it alleviates the more serious symptoms of the illness. With treatment, she might have been able to look after her daughter.
The issue of compulsory treatment is not straightforward. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, entirely agrees with my bias, nor do I agree with his bias, but it is a bias. I see quite clearly that it can be argued that it is an infringement of the individual's liberty and, constitutes an assault if one gives treatment to somebody who does not want it. If a person suffering from schizophrenia is not clear about what he needs, he may well say when he needs it that he does not want it. That is the problem of mental illness generally and particularly so in this case.
It is also argued that, faced with the prospect of a community treatment order, sufferers would simply disappear in order to avoid treatment. Moreover, many people are concerned about conferring these powers because the psychiatrists or community psychiatric nurses would not know whether to exercise their powers nor when it would be fair and right to do so.
Conversely, other groups such as the one I and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship support, argue that one should not allow an individual's condition to deteriorate to such an extent that he is a danger to himself and others. I have quoted some examples—and I have others which I shall not spend time tonight quoting—of how people do damage to themselves. More schizophrenics than other types of people—well above the average—commit suicide. Failure to recognise this condition and accept the need to be treated is often one of the symptoms of the illness which causes the condition to exist.
So there are two difficult problems. However, they must somehow be solved. When the vast majority of experts in the field come to a consensus and agreement—and I hope they will reach a consensus that a community treatment order should be possible—then it will be unfortunate if, this legislation having just passed through Parliament, the Secretary of State has no power to bring it into effect. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State should do this without the best expert advice from the people who will have to use the power. However

1215
it is a safeguard to enable the legislation which I think is long overdue to be brought in as soon as the agreement comes about. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on raising the issue and quoting such tragic cases as that of Beverley Lewis. I shall not respond to what was almost a challenge that I should put the opposite view. This is not a mental health Bill; there are controversial issues involved in the proposal for a community treatment order. I should like the House to hold a debate about precisely this subject. However, I do not believe that this is the right legislation on which to have such a debate. I do not believe that until the Secretary of State has had wide consultation, which is certainly not yet completed, there would be any basis for agreement. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment. I say that without in any way wishing to be critical of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who never loses any opportunity of representing the interests of the people for whom he cares very much. I care for them too.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may add a few words. While I sympathise with the idea behind the amendment, certainly in the case of Scotland it is only under the Mental Health Acts that a person can be detained in hospital or forced to take treatment. As I see it, the difficulty in producing legislation at the moment is that in most cases, almost irrespective of how ill patients are, they have the right to discharge themselves from hospital. Where do we say that they shall not have that right?
I fully appreciate what my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said, but I have the impression that the matter is very much under discussion by the psychiatrists and doctors involved.
Lord Mottistone: I am not sure whether the noble friend has understood me. I am not suggesting a compulsory treatment order to keep people in hospital. The suggested legislation would give power to the Minister to introduce an order dealing with their being given medicaments when out of hospital. The amendment does not seek to keep them in hospital.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful for the explanation. However, I feel that until the various branches of the medical profession get their heads together and decide exactly what they want to do, we cannot help with this legislation. However, my noble friend has raised a very important point.
Baroness Hooper: We are committed to providing the best possible arrangements for mentally ill people who, while no longer needing in-patient treatment, nevertheless require medication to remain well while living in the community. I fully recognise the points made by my noble friend in that respect. Despite all our efforts, on occasion mentally ill people refuse treatment after leaving hospital even if that is considered essential by the treatment team responsible for their care.
1216
Legal measures to enable compulsory treatment to be given in the community have been suggested as one way forward with this small group of patients. There have also been discussions within such organisation as the Mental Health Act Commission, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and MIND.
It is a complex area. There has been a long-standing debate on which no consensus exists. Important civil liberty issues arise. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has demonstrated, there are stongly held views on all sides. Departmental officials are listening to the debate with close attention.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to the fact that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health said that the Royal College of Psychiatrists would be giving the department its views on the role of new legal powers to ensure compulsory treatment in the community. When we receive those views the department will explore the issue with all the interested parties involved. Without prejudicing the discussion, we would need to be both very clear about the benefits of compulsory treatment and confident that they could not be achieved through voluntary means before seriously considering asking Parliament to agree suitable provisions.
I believe that the introduction of the care programme approach in April 1991 will greatly improve continuity of medical care and should very much reduce the likelihood of patients being lost to care. In addition, the specific grant that has been agreed will increase the amount of social care available to people with a mental illness. Last but not least, the recently issued document produced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists on discharges and follow-up, which is being discussed with other professional bodies which have an interest in discharge, should also ensure that fewer patients would fall into the category in which compulsory treatment would be considered necessary.
I hope that those remarks show that continued consideration is being given to the matter and that we are giving careful thought to the future form of treatment in this difficult area of mental illness. I also hope that I have made clear that no changes will be made without full consultation of relevant bodies. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am sorry that my noble friend the Minister does not take advantage of having powers without the action. I should have thought that it might be helpful to her to have the powers. Other people might think that I was giving too many powers to the Secretary of State which could go well beyond this particular issue.
I am slightly happier, but only just. I should like to ask my noble friend to suppose that two months after the Bill becomes an Act the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that it had agreed with everybody that compulsory treatment orders would be a good thing. How would the Government bring that fact into force having already enacted the Bill?
Baroness Hooper: If it was felt that that particular area had sufficient priority then government time would be found in order to pass the necessary measure in the usual way.
Lord Mottistone: That takes a longtime. Obviously I must not press the issue tonight. However, I should say in closing that the remarks that I made about the Beverley Lewis case were based on information supplied to me not by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship but by SANE, which is another charity which I support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Distribution of general medical services]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 108ZZD:
Page 23, leave out lines 7 to 21.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. When I tabled the amendment the noble Baroness had not tabled the amendments which follow. If yesterday I had had a little more foresight I might have suggested that they should have been grouped together. The Government have tabled their amendments on the distribution of GPs and have separated the provision for England and Wales. In addition they have conceded that imposing a manpower ceiling will be done on a national rather than a local basis. The situation therefore becomes clearer.
The British Medical Association is much concerned about the future of part-time GPs once the manpower ceiling is imposed. Part-time GPs all have a 24-hour, 365 day a year responsibility for their patients, so there is no such thing as a part-time GP. The Government have introduced a device to pay some GPs less money than others, but their responsibilities have not been reduced. That may be attractive to women doctors, but, because of the ceiling on the number of GPs as proposed by the clause, they can be stuck in a part-time commitment. The BMA is concerned that, once the Bill is law, doctors who have opted for a half-time or three-quarter time contract will not be able to return to a full-time contract without approval. That approval will be subject to the Government's overall ceiling. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to explain the position when she moves the series of amendments that follows.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 108ZA to 108ZD.
Lord Ennals: Perhaps it is best in that event that I do not move the amendment because I want the Minister's amendments to be accepted. Perhaps she will comment on the residual problems that I raised when she moves her amendments.
[Amendment No. 108ZZD not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 108ZA:
Page 23, line 10, after ("specify") insert ("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 108ZB to 108ZD and to Amendment No. 108ZKZ.
These amendments spring from further thought by the Government on the operation of the reserve powers provided by Clause 22. They follow consideration of the points made in Standing Committee in another place, which include the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and further discussions which my right honourable friend has had with the Medical Practices Committee. This is another example of where we have listened to and acted upon requests for consideration.
The question arises of how the power should be used in the unlikely circumstance that it has to be used. Initially, it was our intention to ensure that limits could be set either nationally or at the level of the individual FHSA. However, after receiving representations and reflecting upon the matter further, we have decided that to leave open the possibility of local ceilings would place an unacceptable restriction on the work of the Medical Practices Committee and its Scottish equivalent. As the Committee may be aware, those bodies are charged with responsibility for determining the distribution of GPs throughout Great Britain. The Government believe it right that, should a national ceiling be set, they should be free to control the distribution of GPs within it, subject only to any directions that the Secretary of State may give on specific matters. I emphasise that the direction-making power itself will not allow the Secretary of State to impose local ceilings.
I hope that I have shown how the amendments directly respond to valid concerns of which the Government have taken account. The individual amendments make clear our intention of restricting potential use of the power to individual national limits for England and Wales and, by Amendment No. 108ZKZ, for Scotland. I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Ennals: So far as I can see, the Minister's amendments and her comments on them have met the principal concerns which I expressed. I should like to have the opportunity to read her remarks more carefully and to consult with the BMA to see what its feelings are. Perhaps I might enter into correspondence, if need be, with the noble Baroness. In the meantime, we welcome the amendments.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 108ZB to 108ZD:
Page 23, line 11, after ("year") insert ("all the").
Page 23, line 12, leave out from ("England") to second ("may") in line 13 and insert ("taken as a whole").
Page 23, line 14, at end insert ("and
(b) the maximum number of medical practitioners with whom, in any year, all the Family Health Service Authorities for localities in Wales, taken as a whole may enter into such arrangements.").
[Amendment No. 108ZDA not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 108ZDB:
Page 23, line 37, leave out ("Committee") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: The amendment represents the outcome of discussions with the Medical Practices Committee on the appropriate appeal arrangements for a doctor whose application for a GP practice vacancy has been refused by an FHSA. The committee has put forward some convincing arguments about the practical implications of the proposal in the Bill that such appeals should lie with it. We are therefore inviting the Committee to consider an alternative.
I should explain that Clause 22(2) provides that in future FHSAs rather than the MPC shall select the doctor who is to succeed to a GP practice vacancy. These will be singlehanded vacancies. In our view it is sensible for the people locally who are responsible for running the services to make these decisions in accordance with regulations and guidance on proper procedures.
Since the inception of the National Health Service unsuccessful candidates for practice vacancies have had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal of their applications by the MPC. We have no wish to deny the right of appeal but, in the light of our decisions to devolve decision-making to FHSAs, it seems sensible for appeals against these decisions to lie with the MPC. We also intend that all job related appeals by GPs shall in future focus on procedural matters to stop second-guessing, unnecessary delays and the pretence that central bodies can make a properly informed judgment on the merits of rival candidates.
If an appeal is successful, the selection will be remitted to the body below for reconsideration. But there are practical difficulties involved in giving the MPC an appellate role on matters of procedure. The committee has no experience in this area and so has been unable to develop the necessary expertise. There will also need to be a substantial legal input which the committee does not at present possess and which would be costly to create.
In addition, it is not a matter that the committee could readily delegate to officers. So the members themselves could become disproportionately involved in their appellate function. We do not want to deflect the committee in this way nor to create bureaucratic difficulties for them. We have therefore brought forward these amendments which keep the appellate role on practice vacancies with the Secretary of State, subject to the requirement that these concern procedural matters.
This will retain access to the Secretary of State, which we know that the profession values, and will ensure that appeals can be dealt with efficiently and effectively in the light of proper professional advice. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say whether the BMA was consulted on the series of amendments that have just been presented. Can I have his assurance that the BMA was happy about them?
Lord Henley: I can give the noble Lord that assurance, that the BMA was consulted.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 108ZDC:
Page 23, line 39, leave out from ("the") to ("shall") in line 40 and insert ("Secretary of State allows an appeal under paragraph (c) above he").
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 108ZE:
Page 23, line 43, leave out from ("the") to end of line 3 on page 24 and insert ("word "but" there shall be inserted—
"(a) in granting an application shall specify, by reference to one or more prescribed conditions relating to hours or the sharing of work, the provision of general medical services for which the applicant will be entitled to be remunerated; and
(b)";
and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted the words").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108ZF to 108ZK and 108ZKA to 108ZKE.
The new arrangements for part-time working and job sharing for GPs in Great Britain stem from the commitments given in our White Paper Promoting Better Health and subsequent discussions with GP representatives. This also responds to concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he moved his earlier amendment.
Our intention is to provide more flexibility in working patterns and open up new opportunities for doctors in general practice. The Bill clearly defines the role of the two MPCs (Medical Practices Committees) in relation to that, building on their existing responsibilities for admissions to the medical lists of FHSAs and health boards. We want to ensure that GPs are admitted to the medical list by the committees on conditions that are both appropriate and sensitive to their choice of working and that all parties know where they stand. The Bill provides for that and also allows the MPCs to vary conditions relating to working hours if a doctor's circumstances should change.
The amendments before the Committee seek to clarify and improve the new provisions. First, they make it clear that all doctors will need to be admitted to medical lists on one basis or another, full-time, part-time or job sharing. Secondly, they spell out that regulations can include provision for appeals to the Secretary of State on procedural matters against decisions of the MPC to refuse to vary the conditions on which a GP has been admitted. This is consistent with GPs' existing rights of appeal against other decisions of the MPC. Thirdly, they allow regulations to be made to safeguard the position of GPs already working on a part-time basis under locally agreed arrangements.
We have sought to respond positively to the wishes of an increasing number of doctors to work on a more flexible basis—I believe that that applies very much in particular to women doctors—and to put

1221
the new arrangements on a proper footing through the good offices of the Medical Practices Committee.
I hope that these clarifying amendments will find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 108ZF to 108ZH:
Page 24, line 7, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(a)").
Page 24, line 8, at end insert ("for the words "such conditions" there shall be substituted "conditions under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above" and").
Page 24, line 16, after ("any") insert ("such"). On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 108ZHA and 108ZHB:
Page 24, line 23, leave out ("for") and insert ("after").
Page 24, line 24, leave out from ("be") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("inserted").
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 108ZJ and 103ZK:
Page 24, line 31, at end insert ("including provision for appeals to the Secretary of State on a point of law").
Page 24, line 31, at end insert:
("(8) In the case of a medical practitioner who, on the day appointed for the coming into force of this section, is providing general medical services in accordance with arrangements under section 29 of the principal Act, regulations may make transitional provisions by virtue of which those services shall be treated for the purposes of that Act as provided subject to such of the prescribed conditions referred to in section 33(4)(a) of that Act as are determined under the regulations and, accordingly, for enabling any such condition to be varied in accordance with regulations under section 34(2) of that Act.").
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Distribution of general medical services]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 108ZKZ:
Page 44, line 20, leave out ("a Health Board") and insert ("all Health Boards taken as a whole").
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 108ZKA to 108ZKE:
Page 45, line 2, leave out from ("the") to end of line 8 and insert ("word "but" there shall be inserted—
"(a) in granting an application shall specify, by reference to one or more prescribed conditions relating to hours or the sharing of work, the provision of general medical services for which the applicant will be entitled to be remunerated; and
(b)"; and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted the words").
Page 45, line 12, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(a)").
Page 45, line 13, at end insert ("for the words such conditions" there shall be substituted "conditions under paragraphs" (a) or (b) of subsection (4)" and").
Page 45, line 35, at end insert ("including provision for appeals to the Secretary of State on a point of law"). Page 45, line 35, at end insert;
1222
("(8) In the case of medical practitioner who on the day appointed for the coming into force of this section, is providing general medical services in accordance with arrangements under section 19 of the 1978 Act, regulations may make transition provisions by virtue of which those services shall be treated for the purposes of that Act as provided subject to such of the prescribed conditions referred to in section 23(4)(a) of that Act as are determined under the regulations and, accordingly, for enabling any such condition to be varied in accordance with regulations under section 24(2) of that Act.").
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Limitations on right to be included on list of dental practitioners]:
[Amendment No. 108ZL not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Transfer to DHA certain functions relating to private patients]:
[Amendments Nos. 108ZM to 108ZP not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 108A and J08AA not moved.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 108AB:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Review of mentally ill hospital accommodation
—(1) In consultation with such bodies as appear to him to be concerned, the Secretary of State shall conduct a thorough review of the number of places available for the mentally ill in long stay hospital accommodation.
(2) On completion of the review under subjsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall draw up a timetable for the phased replacement of such provision with community care services.
(3) The Secretary of State shall fulfil his duties under this section in collaboration with any relavant local authorities charged with providing community care services under Part III of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the huge problem of the mentally ill in their hospitals and the need for treatment in the community. The amendment states:
"In consultation with such bodies as appear to him to be concerned, the Secretary of State shall conduct a thorough review of the number of places available for the mentally ill in long stay hospital accommodation".
That is the starting point. In 1961 the right honourable Enoch Powell delivered his famous speech calling for the closure of long-stay mental hospital accommodation. Thirty years on there are still over 100 Victorian asylums providing long-stay care for over 50,000 people whose lives are certainly not their own, who have very little say in their own future and who are very rarely consulted about plans for change. They live in circumstances in which none of us would like either ourselves or our families to live.
The hospitals are not in the main places for treatment. In a sense they are places for control. Often medication is used which is known to have long-term serious side effects. None of us can be happy with the present situation. We welcome the fact that the Government have plans for the closure of long-stay mental hospital accommodation. On many occasions Members on all sides of the

1223
Chamber have said that people should not be discharged from hospital until there is adequate provision in the community. Therefore, the second part of the amendment provides that the Secretary of State should draw up a timetable for the phased replacement of such provision with community care services. That task must be carried out. At present none of us can be satisfied that the provision of community care by local authorities, voluntary organisations and the private sector for the mentally ill is adequate.
Our thinking behind the amendment is that although it deals with the health service and the provision of local authorities in Part II, the issues should be brought together by the Secretary of State. We believe that 1990 is the time for him to set a target for ending the bulk of—I do not say all—such hospitals; say within the next decade and therefore by the turn of the millennium. That would require a major plan—it would not be on a one-by-one basis—requiring a careful look by the Secretary of State not only at hospital provision but also at community care provision. We believe that the Secretary of State should fulfil his duties in collaboration with the relevant local authorities charged with providing community care under Part III of the Bill.
I am certain that bodies such as MIND, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and many other organisations concerned with mental health and the care of the mentally ill in hospital and in the community would welcome a new and positive approach by the Secretary of State. They hope that he will set long-term targets—the next 10 years is not so long term—which are achievable targets, so providing the impetus for the voluntary sector in the work that it is trying to do. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Considerable progress is being made in this area, as the noble Lord has recognised. I do not dispute the fact that there is always room for improvement. However, I believe that the amendment is misconceived in the sense that it envisages that long-term hospital beds for the mentally ill can be entirely phased out and replaced by community care services. When better forms of treatment become available, that may of course be possible. However, at present many people regard long-stay hospital beds as an essential element of locally based psychiatric services; for example, as a means of providing asylum care. I recollect that in our debates about the homeless we were accused of turning out people from long-stay institutions and were urged to maintain them within the institutions.
However, even if it were generally agreed that all the existing long-stay beds could be replaced by community care services it would not be practicable to try to set a timetable for that. In 1986, the latest date for which I have figures, more than half the 60,000 beds in psychiatric hospitals and units were occupied by people who had been in hospital for a year or more. One-third of the beds were occupied by people who had been in hospital for five years or more. Inevitably it would take many years to make the necessary arrangements for such people to be
1224
treated in the community and often at higher cost than the current cost of their treatment. We do not believe that it is realistic for central government to give local government resource assumptions for as many years ahead as would be necessary; nor indeed for local authorities to commit themselves to particular timetables which could easily stretch for 10 years or more. Rather, we prefer to see a continuation of what has been policy since the 1975 White Paper Better Services for the Mentally Ill; namely, the development of locally based and community oriented services as health and social services authorities resources allow and the gradual reduction of beds in the old remote specialist psychiatric hospitals.
In view of the fact that we are moving in the right direction, I hope the noble Lord will feel that he does not have to press his amendment on this occasion.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her helpful comments on this matter. There was a little misunderstanding here. I did not suggest—nor does the amendment suggest—that at the end of the review conducted by the Secretary of State of the number of places available for the mentally ill in long-stay hospital accommodation there should be no patients requiring long-stay accommodation. I have no doubt that there would be some people—I do not know how many—who would not be able to be discharged into the community. That is part of the purpose of seeking that there should be a review.
I remember visiting many psychiatric hospitals 20 years ago when some of them had 50 per cent. or even 100 per cent. more patients than they have now to discuss with the consultants concerned how many of their patients they thought could be discharged into various types of accommodation in the community. The usual answer from a consultant who may have been there for many years was "None", or, "We do not think there really are any". In the course of the years that have followed an enormous number have, in fact been discharged. It has been possible to provide by voluntary organisations, sometimes local authorities, sometimes hospitals, accommodation with different degrees of support, whether in group homes, hostels or hostels within hospital grounds. There are all sorts of variations.
It is not the suggestion here that we should conclude that the review would decide that there was no need for any more long-stay hospital beds. I do not think that would be the case. It might be that it would be necessary to concentrate on a limited number of perhaps more modern hospitals, where people could live with the sort of protection or asylum, in its best sense, which many of them need for their own wellbeing. Without a review it is very difficult to know what the picture is.
The noble Baroness referred to the 1975 White Paper, which I well remember. Some of the drafting of that had been done years before, when previously I had been a junior Minister in the Department of Health. She said that 1986 was the last date for which she had figures of the numbers of patients in

1225
long-stay hospitals. It is staggering that she has to go back four years to be able to give the statistics of people who are in long-stay hospitals. That has proved to me that there is a need for just this sort of review, both to find the facts and to bring out a new version of the 1975 White Paper, which was a very useful White Paper. It set targets, some of which have been met and some not.
It would be very useful at this stage, 15 years on, to be able to have a review, so that those who have the responsibility in the community of providing the proper community care, with various types and different degrees of support for patients discharged from hospitals can do so. But at present the Minister has virtually accepted that the figures are not available on which to base a programme of effective community support for the roughly 50,000 people to whom I have made reference.
1 shall not press the amendment to a Division at this time, but nothing that the noble Baroness has said does other than convince me that the Secretary of State, whoever he should be, needs to take a grip on the problem now. He should have a look, start a survey, talk to MIND and all the other organisations concerned, together with the local authorities, and
1226
come up with a short-term and a long-term plan, bringing up to date the 1975 White Paper. The Minister has not convinced me. She spoke very nicely about this matter, and I am always glad to welcome the progress that has been made. I shall not press the amendment to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108AC not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  AFFINITY CARDS: TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR CHARITIES
  AFFINITY CARDS: TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR CHARITIES
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL: APPEAL RESULTS 1989/90
  EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL: APPEAL RESULTS 1989/90
  STORM DAMAGED WOODLAND: REPLANTING GRANTS
  STORM DAMAGED WOODLAND: REPLANTING GRANTS